| 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) |
|
CCP Falcon
9519
   |
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:05:13 -
[1] - Quote
Playing with multiple accounts at the same time has a long history within EVE Online, and has always been permitted. There are various ways to do it, and since thereGÇÖs been a lot of discussion surrounding what is and isnGÇÖt allowed, weGÇÖd like to clarify a few terms and exactly how the EULA and our Policies must be interpreted and how some things are shifting.
Over the last few weeks we have gone through an internal review process to clarify what exactly the EULA and ToS require in terms of input automation, input multiplexing and input broadcasting. This is the result of that review process and an outline of how we will interpret things going forward.
Firstly weGÇÖd like to go over a few terms.
Multiboxing
Multiboxing refers to playing as multiple separate characters, simultaneously, across a number of accounts, either by using multiple computers to run the game, or by using a number of instances of EVE on a single computer.
Uses for multiboxing range from scouts in PvP to gang boosting, support and ECM alts, as well as extra characters for hauling, mining and many other applications. Based on our EULA and Policies we would like to clarify that multiboxing is allowed.
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 Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing
Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game.
Going Forward
As of 15th of March 2013 we have been policing input automation based on a two-strike policy
GÇó1st strike for input automation is a 30 day ban
GÇó2nd strike for input automation is a permanent ban
Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy.
Based on the discussion in this area and our will to be more clear and concise with the community regarding this part of our rules, we have decided to also apply this two-strike policy to prohibited forms of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing as of January 1st 2015.
We would like to add, however, that we will not be taking action retroactively and will only be policing this policy as of January 1st, 2015.
Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters
Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇóEVE Online client settings
GÇóWindow positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
GÇóThe login process
NOTE: Please keep in mind that using the same password for multiple accounts as well as storing your password in a third party tool or script which helps you to automate the login process can increase the risk of account theft and hacking drastically. It is strongly recommended that you do not engage in this type of activity.
We are closely monitoring all game events for suspicious activity suggesting illicit behaviors, including Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing.
We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe.
If you are uncertain about your Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing use-case, please get in contact with us, as we would prefer to work with members of the community to come to an amicable resolution. We will also follow up this statement with further clarifications if needed, based on questions and concerns from the community.
TL:DR :
Starting from 01.01.2015 the use of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing is limited to activities which do not impact the Eve universe. For more details please refer to the entirety of this announcement.
CCP Falcon || Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon
Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
|
|
Ama Scelesta
130
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:10:06 -
[2] - Quote
RIP ISBoxer? |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1295
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:13:21 -
[3] - Quote
Ban all russians! |
Samsara Toldya
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
119
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:15:22 -
[4] - Quote
Christmas is early this year it seems!  |
Valterra Craven
384
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:15:59 -
[5] - Quote
Interesting. Given that this is a new policy and one that might be hard to communicate to players at large, are you going to go soft with people the first few months and give them written warnings before you adopt your other policy? |
Fonac
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
98
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:16:36 -
[6] - Quote
So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. |
Darkblad
584
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:16:55 -
[7] - Quote
I wonder if wonders really happen.
Seems like they do. Wonderful!
In hiatus, indefinitely
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
3716
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:17:04 -
[8] - Quote
Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer?
ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not.
@CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Size Matters
Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.
|
|
Ghenghis Kralj
Big Johnson's
Wormhole Clown Car
35
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:17:51 -
[9] - Quote
Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer?
for the most part? |
Zara Arran
Aperture Harmonics
No Holes Barred
131
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:18:00 -
[10] - Quote
+1 |
|
|
Ama Scelesta
130
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:18:12 -
[11] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not.
PS. I was there. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4256
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:20:10 -
[12] - Quote
Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it.
isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Ghenghis Kralj
Big Johnson's
Wormhole Clown Car
35
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:20:14 -
[13] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not.
So how do you plan on detecting this behavior vs. a player clicking really fast across multiple screens? |
Destoya
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
346
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:20:48 -
[14] - Quote
Tears incoming |
Wibla
Tactical Narcotics Team
157
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:21:19 -
[15] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not.
How will you differentiate between legal and illegal use of ISBoxer under these rules? |
Corey Lean
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:21:23 -
[16] - Quote
This is a good change and can only lead to a healthier game. Much courage, much respect  |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1048
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:21:24 -
[17] - Quote
Glad to see some positions finally being taken in this matter. Indecision in this matter was always way more damning than the actual resolution, in my opinion. My respect goes to CCP Falcon and any other individuals involved in taking a position here.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Capri Sun KraftFoods
The Suicide Kings
Black Legion.
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:21:39 -
[18] - Quote
As someone who actually ISBox's bombers I'm a little upset.
The problem isn't ISBoxer. The problem is that bombs as they currently stand are completely broken Sure isboxer exacerbates the problem significantly, but you can still get 30 dudes into a fleet easily and go kill anything with 4 waves that isn't a T3 or a faction battleship. I'd be happy to see my bomber accounts become useless and de-sub them if it meant I didn't have to worry about getting hell bombed every other fleet. |
Capqu
Love Squad
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
850
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:21:41 -
[19] - Quote
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
473
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:21:46 -
[20] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not.
Your response is a bit like "Well, bumping Titans is kind of not allowed in some circumstances". Being a bit more specific on this topic would probably be appreciated. |
|
|
Tineoidea Asanari
Heeresversuchsanstalt
The Bastion
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:22:05 -
[21] - Quote
CCP Falcon - I love you (and CCP)
Thanks for drawing a sharp line where we know what is allowed and what is not. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5525
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:22:21 -
[22] - Quote
Interesting....
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Capqu
Love Squad
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
850
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:22:46 -
[23] - Quote
Capri Sun KraftFoods wrote:As someone who actually ISBox's bombers I'm a little upset.
The problem isn't ISBoxer. The problem is that bombs as they currently stand are completely broken Sure isboxer exacerbates the problem significantly, but you can still get 30 dudes into a fleet easily and go kill anything with 4 waves that isn't a T3 or a faction battleship. I'd be happy to see my bomber accounts become useless and de-sub them if it meant I didn't have to worry about getting hell bombed every other fleet.
LOL
ISBABBY TEARS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
216
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:23:04 -
[24] - Quote
RIP those 20 accounts, mining sucks anyways. |
DragonHelm III
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:23:09 -
[25] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not.
For god's sake CCP stop all the bluster and give a straight answer
ISBOXER banned or not? It just needs a yes or no
|
Citricioni
Stille Gewalt
Dead Terrorists
173
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:23:12 -
[26] - Quote
@ISBoxers thats a CCP Falcon punch in your face :'D
Deutschsprachige Publicfleets
Channel: Stille Gewalt
|
Shaqil
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:23:29 -
[27] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:Ban all russians!
Pain of the Russian's pet. |
El Space Mariachi
Love Squad
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
172
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:23:32 -
[28] - Quote
thank god
thank you falcon
eve is saved
gay gamers for jesus
|
Citricioni
Stille Gewalt
Dead Terrorists
173
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:24:15 -
[29] - Quote
DragonHelm III wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. For god's sake CCP stop all the bluster and give a straight answer ISBOXER banned or not? It just needs a yes or no
if you use the login feature or fps feature or features like that no
if you use the broadcast funcion to navigate, activate modules or something like that yes
its easy...
Deutschsprachige Publicfleets
Channel: Stille Gewalt
|
Abe Atlas
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
107
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:24:20 -
[30] - Quote
Vladimir Putin will hear of this. |
|
|
Commander Insignia
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Fatal Ascension
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:24:43 -
[31] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not.
it really doesnt |
eiedu
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:24:51 -
[32] - Quote
RIP incursions
RIP Ratting
RIP bombing
Time to go back to wow, where it makes no sense to have multiple accounts
How are you even going to "catch" people who are input-multiplexing hardware-wise
|
Fonac
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
98
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:25:59 -
[33] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned.
I'm seriously lacking faith in the eve population, that they can understand such a policy... All it takes is a few clicks, and bam you're doing something illegal. |
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:26:07 -
[34] - Quote
eiedu wrote:RIP incursions
RIP Ratting
RIP bombing
Time to go back to wow, where it makes no sense to have multiple accounts
How are you even going to "catch" people who are input-multiplexing hardware-wise
Bye :) |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5526
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:26:13 -
[35] - Quote
DragonHelm III wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. For god's sake CCP stop all the bluster and give a straight answer ISBOXER banned or not? It just needs a yes or no All this crap about terms like Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing mean squat to me as I have no idea what they are.
For these things, yes it is banned.
Quote:
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇó Activation and control of ships and modules
GÇó Navigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇó Movement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇó Interaction with other characters
It seemed pretty clear to me.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Mierin Arthie
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:26:29 -
[36] - Quote
How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard?
for those that dont know what a kvm switch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch |
Robert Harris
Black Omega Security
Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:26:29 -
[37] - Quote
About time, dont know why this took so long.... finally CCP, well done. |
Anthar Thebess
809
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:26:34 -
[38] - Quote
Thank you CCP.
We where waiting for this.
When we will get list of sov changes ... and those changes.
PHOEBE Retrospective
|
Chingy Chonga
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:26:36 -
[39] - Quote
Thank you for finally straightening this out!
o7 CCP |
Lyron-Baktos
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
468
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:26:38 -
[40] - Quote
Jesus, can you be any more vague Falcon?
How the fuck do you remove a signature?
|
|
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
163
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:26:49 -
[41] - Quote
So, does this mean no more Mac support? |
Kono Lotus
Helios Alliance
Tactical Narcotics Team
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:27:11 -
[42] - Quote
so this means using keyboard macro's will be prohibited?
regards |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1051
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:27:21 -
[43] - Quote
Commander Insignia wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. it really doesnt
It's moderately useful for manual multiboxing. When I was more active with Goonswarm Federation's combat special interest groups, I'd use isboxer to make it a little easier to switch between windows, and to tile windows across my screen. I'm not technically apt enough to understand how to do input multiplexing properly, and the type of PvP I was doing wasn't really conducive to it anyways.
That being said, the primary benefit for using it is definitely being castrated.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
The Ironfist
Nordbot Capitals
Northern Associates.
71
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:27:40 -
[44] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? To be clear, Input broadcasting (whether done through ISBoxer or any other method) will be banned. However some other uses of ISBoxer (like window management) are not being banned.
How about fixing your fu!cking ga!rbage client? So we don't have to use 3th party software to get decent window management? Its not like we're paying your sh!tty company right? |
Nimrod vanHall
Martyr's Vengence
Nulli Secunda
98
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:28:07 -
[45] - Quote
Corey Lean wrote:This is a good change and can only lead to a healthier game. Much courage, much respect
Amen!
GÇóFake edit: dafuq i'm agreeing with a Goon!GÇó |
Nick Moretti
Jump Drive Appreciation Society
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:28:13 -
[46] - Quote
Goodbye ISBoxer (for the most part), you won't be missed. |
Tarsas Phage
Freight Club
338
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:28:18 -
[47] - Quote
The poor 1-account pubbies who would rather complain to mom about rules instead of upping their game win again. |
Frozen Hairdresser
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:28:30 -
[48] - Quote
Just to be clear, are we still allowed to bind all our hardeners to the same key? |
Seandals
Derp Legion Hobo Division
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:28:40 -
[49] - Quote
Soooo...
What if we used wooden dowels: https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/_/rsrc/1300193073723/home/closeup2.jpg ?
from https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/oldrigs
|
Warr Akini
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
161
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:28:59 -
[50] - Quote
I've had a good suicide ganking run, but the wave of nerfs against it don't seem to be stopping anytime soon.
Thanks. It's been fun. |
|
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5526
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:29:09 -
[51] - Quote
Mierin Arthie wrote:How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard? for those that dont know what a kvm switch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch
That doesn't broadcast, it just changes where input goes - it should be fine.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Nick Starkey
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
99
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:29:32 -
[52] - Quote
I am impressed by CCP's decisions that might hurt their wallet in the short term, but are of positive effect to the game in long term. This is a very welcome change and this comes from someone that has actually used and seen what that tool can do. well done. I'm curious how you're going to find out/enforce for sure if people are broadcasting commands, though.
..
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
258
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:29:42 -
[53] - Quote
Never establish a rule that you cannot enforce with considerable accuracy. |
Volcane Nephilim
The Magic Roundabout Initiative
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:30:24 -
[54] - Quote
Mierin Arthie wrote:How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard? for those that dont know what a kvm switch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch
You're not broadcasting a command to multiple clients in that case. You are choosing a different computer to do something manually on. This seems totally legit and inline with the post to me?
+1 to banning input broadcasters of all description. |
Capqu
Love Squad
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
858
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:30:25 -
[55] - Quote
Lyron-Baktos wrote:Jesus, can you be any more vague Falcon?
ill explain for u
u can no longer press one button, and have things happen on more than one client
you can still use isboxer to tile ur clients on the same screen
you still can't automate pushing a button
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
Stephan Schneider
Love Squad
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:30:28 -
[56] - Quote
all the lost money for ccp
i can see hundreds of mining alts just die
just change it so the ban only goes for pvp related activities |
eiedu
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:30:38 -
[57] - Quote
Also, let's unsub 10% of the accounts cus we can't use em anymore |
DaReaper
Net 7
1365
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:30:40 -
[58] - Quote
DragonHelm III wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. For god's sake CCP stop all the bluster and give a straight answer ISBOXER banned or not? It just needs a yes or no All this crap about terms like Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing mean squat to me as I have no idea what they are.
Its not that hard to understand. If you use isbox as a way to organize multiple clients to make it easier to see what going on, then its allowed.
if you use isbox to send input to all yoru clients its not allowed.
Allowed: ISbox set up so you can easily manage your miner, hauler, and pvp escort without the need to alt tab
Not allowed: isboxer setup you you lock a target with one key stroke and 20 clients all lock the same target.
Understand?
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Innominate
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
604
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:30:54 -
[59] - Quote
https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/oldrigs
What's the ruling on a setup like this? |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC
Goonswarm Federation
345
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:30:56 -
[60] - Quote
come on people read the whole thing:
Quote:
"We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe."
|
|
|
Fiberton
StarFleet Enterprises
Almost Awesome.
60
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:31:03 -
[61] - Quote
Hrm so Mining goods are about to sky rocket. Ok so I have never used one of these things you speak of but even I after over 10 years in the game know that this is a terrible idea. So when you are making decisions did you consult an accountant? You realize that you are prob going to reduce CCP income about 3M a year just from logins who will drop accounts that are used for that sort of thing ? Ok not to tell you guys how to run a company but just flying around for so many years and knowing persons who use that.. At least 5% of eve is just miners on isboxer. Good luck on driving into a brick wall or whatever you dudes do.. Phobe great idea. this.. I would consult an accountant.
GÇ£Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.GÇ¥ -- -áAlbert -áEinstein-á
"War is a mere continuation of politics by other means,"
|
progstate
1st Steps Academy
Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:31:30 -
[62] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. Your response is a bit like "Well, bumping Titans is kind of not allowed in some circumstances". Being a bit more specific on this topic would probably be appreciated.
Well then be more specific in asking questions. @CCP : is using ISBOXER broadcasting to run a bomber wing or a synchronised fleet of mining vessels now against the EULA? |
Rossi Tenmar
Decadence.
RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:31:44 -
[63] - Quote
eiedu wrote:RIP incursions
RIP Ratting
RIP bombing
Or join a fleet with other people maybe?  |
DaReaper
Net 7
1365
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:32:31 -
[64] - Quote
Frozen Hairdresser wrote:Just to be clear, are we still allowed to bind all our hardeners to the same key?
no. that it interation of ship and moduels and is no longer allowed
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
12019
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:32:39 -
[65] - Quote
progstate wrote:knobber Jobbler wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. Your response is a bit like "Well, bumping Titans is kind of not allowed in some circumstances". Being a bit more specific on this topic would probably be appreciated. Well then be more specific in asking questions. CCP is using ISBOXER broadcasting to run a bomber wing or a synchronised fleet of mining vessels now against the EULA?
Using any method (including ISBoxer) to broadcast your clicks across multiple clients for bomber wings or mining vessels will be against the EULA starting January 1st.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Darkblad
584
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:32:41 -
[66] - Quote
DragonHelm III wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. For god's sake CCP stop all the bluster and give a straight answer ISBOXER banned or not? It just needs a yes or no All this crap about terms like Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing mean squat to me as I have no idea what they are. If you use ISBoxer (or any other kind of similar software capable of) input multiplexing (like AppleScript?): Bannable offense.
If you don't use it that way: All is well.
ISBoxer (and Mac OS X, the software that AppleScript gets installed with) is capable of providing further functionality that is no offense.
In hiatus, indefinitely
|
Gina Taroen
united system's commonwealth
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:32:49 -
[67] - Quote
lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1051
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:32:49 -
[68] - Quote
Cue several dozen pages of people trying to invent increasingly complex vignettes that attempt to subvert the letter of the decision to legitimize actions that violate its spirit.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Lilith5
Northstar Cabal
Tactical Narcotics Team
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:34:48 -
[69] - Quote
Capri Sun KraftFoods wrote:As someone who actually ISBox's bombers I'm a little upset.
The problem isn't ISBoxer. The problem is that bombs as they currently stand are completely broken Sure isboxer exacerbates the problem significantly, but you can still get 30 dudes into a fleet easily and go kill anything with 4 waves that isn't a T3 or a faction battleship. I'd be happy to see my bomber accounts become useless and de-sub them if it meant I didn't have to worry about getting hell bombed every other fleet.
I think a lot of people would be happy if you and others were to de-sub and play eve how its meant to be played. |
Arkon Olacar
Bearded BattleBears
Brave Collective
429
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:35:11 -
[70] - Quote
Capqu wrote:Lyron-Baktos wrote:Jesus, can you be any more vague Falcon? ill explain for u u can no longer press one button, and have things happen on more than one client you can still use isboxer to tile ur clients on the same screen you still can't automate pushing a button
thanks capqu
thanks obama
Warping to zero
|
|
|
Wibla
Tactical Narcotics Team
157
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:35:16 -
[71] - Quote
Querns wrote:Cue several dozen pages of people trying to invent increasingly complex vignettes that attempt to subvert the letter of the decision to legitimize actions that violate its spirit.
I have lots of popcorn |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
163
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:35:32 -
[72] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:progstate wrote:knobber Jobbler wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. Your response is a bit like "Well, bumping Titans is kind of not allowed in some circumstances". Being a bit more specific on this topic would probably be appreciated. Well then be more specific in asking questions. CCP is using ISBOXER broadcasting to run a bomber wing or a synchronised fleet of mining vessels now against the EULA? Using any method (including ISBoxer) to broadcast your clicks across multiple clients for bomber wings or mining vessels will be against the EULA starting January 1st.
OK, so if my commands are applescript based and use the keyboard and not a mouseclick, I am still OK??
I use my G15 keyboard to run the scripts, if it matters |
Fluoroantimonicacid
Nullbear Tear Extractors
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:35:37 -
[73] - Quote
Is broadcasting commands to dscan allowed?
Was I a large part of triggering this change, just like when I made the best of insurance fraud to the point it had to be patched?
-Replicator |
Marc Callan
Thrall Nation
Brave Collective
490
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:35:52 -
[74] - Quote
Seems clear enough: slaving multiple ships to one set of controls is going to be a violation as of New Year's Day. And since CCP can presumably access input logs, and determine how well synchronized a group of ships is, they can make a reasonably accurate determination as to whether a fleet is controlled by a well-coordinated group of players, or slaved to a single player's controls.
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."
- Kurt Vonnegurt
|
Arkon Olacar
Bearded BattleBears
Brave Collective
429
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:36:07 -
[75] - Quote
eiedu wrote:Also, let's unsub 10% of the accounts cus we can't use em anymore
No one cares
Give me your stuff already
Warping to zero
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5528
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:36:39 -
[76] - Quote
Querns wrote:Cue several dozen pages of people trying to invent increasingly complex vignettes that attempt to subvert the letter of the decision to legitimize actions that violate its spirit.
"But what if I set it up to delay my "broadcasts" by a random few milliseconds, so it looks like I'm pushing buttans on 32 computers in a row really fast... is that ok?"
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
alpha36
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:37:19 -
[77] - Quote
Change we can believe in. |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
20
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:37:58 -
[78] - Quote
Warr Akini wrote:I've had a good suicide ganking run, but the wave of nerfs against it don't seem to be stopping anytime soon.
Thanks. It's been fun.
seriously you needed isboxer for suicide ganking? |
BadAssMcKill
ElitistOps
910
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:38:09 -
[79] - Quote
Top lol |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC
Goonswarm Federation
345
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:38:35 -
[80] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:
OK, so if my commands are applescript based and use the keyboard and not a mouseclick, I am still OK??
I use my G15 keyboard to run the scripts, if it matters
are you multiplying the same input to multiple instances of the game, via any method whatsoever?
Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game.
then no, you are not ok |
|
|
Max Croxford
Golden Raiders
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:38:52 -
[81] - Quote
Excellent job CCP, this has been something needed done for a while now. |
alpha36
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:39:02 -
[82] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:progstate wrote:knobber Jobbler wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. Your response is a bit like "Well, bumping Titans is kind of not allowed in some circumstances". Being a bit more specific on this topic would probably be appreciated. Well then be more specific in asking questions. CCP is using ISBOXER broadcasting to run a bomber wing or a synchronised fleet of mining vessels now against the EULA? Using any method (including ISBoxer) to broadcast your clicks across multiple clients for bomber wings or mining vessels will be against the EULA starting January 1st.
Beautiful |
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
153
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:39:04 -
[83] - Quote
Frozen Hairdresser wrote:Just to be clear, are we still allowed to bind all our hardeners to the same key?
From what I understand that would be illegal too. I can live with that but it would be a nice time to make tank modules groupable. Hitting f1 to f8 was ridiculous, they fixed that, now I think it would be a good idea to fix hitting alt/ctrl f1 to f5
|
Capqu
Love Squad
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
863
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:39:29 -
[84] - Quote
progstate wrote:knobber Jobbler wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. Your response is a bit like "Well, bumping Titans is kind of not allowed in some circumstances". Being a bit more specific on this topic would probably be appreciated. Well then be more specific in asking questions. @CCP : is using ISBOXER broadcasting to run a bomber wing or a synchronised fleet of mining vessels now against the EULA?
i told u son
you can still use isboxer to have multiple clients on the same screen
you can no longer use isboxer to send commands to more than one client at a time
you have never been able to use isboxer to automatically send commands
is that clear enough? thats pretty much what the OP says btw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
Powers Sa
1383
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:39:57 -
[85] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned.
It sounds like I can still use it for what i've always used it for: window management.
At most I've run 4 accounts with isboxer managing all my windows. In very very rare occasions I've used it to repeat, but that was a long time ago when naga ratting was a thing. I've mainly used it to manage windows when fcing or scouting.
Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk
Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.
|
GOB the Magician
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:40:11 -
[86] - Quote
eiedu wrote:RIP incursions
RIP Ratting
RIP bombing
Time to go back to wow, where it makes no sense to have multiple accounts
lol. get out. |
Kaaeliaa
The Vendunari
End of Life
37143
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:40:27 -
[87] - Quote
Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D
Who gives a ****?
They're the kind of people EVE doesn't want because they **** things up for everyone else.
CCP, congratulations on having the stones to put your foot down and tell these idiots to GTFO. Maybe we can finally have nice things again.
LAGL Cosplayer. Princess of Sibyyl's Pillowfort. This is my jam!
|
padraig animal
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:40:35 -
[88] - Quote
eiedu wrote:RIP incursions
RIP Ratting
RIP bombing
Time to go back to wow, where it makes no sense to have multiple accounts
How are you even going to "catch" people who are input-multiplexing hardware-wise
Cool , can i have your stuff before you deactivate your accounts ? 
......
|
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
57
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:41:39 -
[89] - Quote
The Sandbox ....What can be will be......except when we decide it's not to be. Compliments of CCP...  |
Arkon Olacar
Bearded BattleBears
Brave Collective
430
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:41:54 -
[90] - Quote
Meilandra Vanderganken wrote:Frozen Hairdresser wrote:Just to be clear, are we still allowed to bind all our hardeners to the same key? From what I understand that would be illegal too. I can live with that but it would be a nice time to make tank modules groupable. Hitting f1 to f8 was ridiculous, they fixed that, now I think it would be a good idea to fix hitting alt/ctrl f1 to f5
Is this the hardeners on one account, or across multiple accounts?
Keyboard shortcuts on one account = legal
Multiplying that across more than one account = illegal
It really is not hard. Have you tried reading the OP?
Warping to zero
|
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1054
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:42:18 -
[91] - Quote
Capqu wrote:progstate wrote:knobber Jobbler wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. Your response is a bit like "Well, bumping Titans is kind of not allowed in some circumstances". Being a bit more specific on this topic would probably be appreciated. Well then be more specific in asking questions. @CCP : is using ISBOXER broadcasting to run a bomber wing or a synchronised fleet of mining vessels now against the EULA? i told u son you can still use isboxer to have multiple clients on the same screen you can no longer use isboxer to send commands to more than one client at a time you have never been able to use isboxer to automatically send commands is that clear enough? thats pretty much what the OP says btw
Honestly, I wouldn't waste your time trying to explain it. People are going to try to test the limits of the decision, regardless of how many people tell them they aren't helping. At this point, I think it is better to let them delude themselves. That way, when they continue doing whatever it is they are doing, they get banned. At that point, we get to laugh at them a lot for being idiots.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
SIR PRIME
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
20
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:42:21 -
[92] - Quote
Made my day. :) |
drummendejef maaktnietuit
Active Fusion
10
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:43:01 -
[93] - Quote
So, this will be banable too?
Hardware Method |
Kant Boards
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:43:07 -
[94] - Quote
CCP making bold and courageous and much needed changes. Whats next!? An end to AFK cloaking?! |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
163
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:43:50 -
[95] - Quote
Wait - hold on, just thought of something -
G15 and related keyboards are now banned??? They allow one keyboard click to do F1-F8 simultaneously
Although grouping guns in game does the same thing - except smartbombs |
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1425
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:43:58 -
[96] - Quote
Does this apply to inventory management within the same station?
For example... I occasionally go on a ship giveaway binge where I'll fit up several dozen frigs / destroyers, fill their cargo with the skills needed to fly them, and then give them out in newbie systems.
Obviously click dragging a dozen items one by one is tedious in the extreme and any automation would be a godsend.
Is it acceptable to load up a bunch of accounts at once and use broadcasting to speed up this process? |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC
Goonswarm Federation
345
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:44:01 -
[97] - Quote
drummendejef maaktnietuit wrote:
are you multiplying the same input to multiple instances of the game, via any method whatsoever?
Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game.
then no, you are not ok |
Arteriamus
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:44:12 -
[98] - Quote
So essentially:
PLEX prices are too high, we'll remove a lot of the demand? |
Masao Kurata
Z List
158
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:44:14 -
[99] - Quote
Wow, this is wonderful. Not only did you make the hard decision I thought CCP didn't have the guts to make for the long term health of EVE, but you actually wrote mostly a mostly unambiguous policy that isn't open to interpretation. That might be a first.
That said, I do have a couple of questions:
First, and importantly, how do we report strongly suspected input multiplexing/broadcasting going forward from 2015? Is the report bot function meant to be used for this too? Furthermore could this function please be given the option to add a message explaining the reason for suspicion?
Second, does input multiplexing refer to using software to e.g. bind F1 to actually input F1 on client 1, F2 -> F1 on client 2, F3 -> F1 on client 3 etc.? I'm not familiar with the exact capabilities of isboxer other than input broadcasting so I haven't seen this functionality, thank you for banning this too if that's what it means though. |
Kaliba Mort
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:44:27 -
[100] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:
OK, so if my commands are applescript based and use the keyboard and not a mouseclick, I am still OK??
I use my G15 keyboard to run the scripts, if it matters
I think it doesn't matter *how* you run scripts, on the main CPU or keyboard microcontroller,, it is that you run scripts which results in unfair advantage. Keyboard strokes are also "clicks".
|
|
|
Theon Severasse
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
84
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:44:29 -
[101] - Quote
drummendejef maaktnietuit wrote:
My understanding is that that counts as "modified hardware". |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
20
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:44:30 -
[102] - Quote
drummendejef maaktnietuit wrote:
yes. it is mentioned in the devblog :) |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC
Goonswarm Federation
353
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:44:47 -
[103] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Wait - hold on, just thought of something -
G15 and related keyboards are now banned??? They allow one keyboard click to do F1-F8 simultaneously
Although grouping guns in game does the same thing - except smartbombs
Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game.
|
Notorious Fellon
351
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:45:28 -
[104] - Quote
Best change yet!
Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
20
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:45:33 -
[105] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:Does this apply to inventory management within the same station?
For example... I occasionally go on a ship giveaway binge where I'll fit up several dozen frigs / destroyers, fill their cargo with the skills needed to fly them, and then give them out in newbie systems.
Obviously click dragging a dozen items one by one is tedious in the extreme and any automation would be a godsend.
Is it acceptable to load up a bunch of accounts at once and use broadcasting to speed up this process?
saved fittings dude.
just saying. |
Nituspar
Shiva
Nulli Secunda
8
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:45:38 -
[106] - Quote
As someone who has extensively used ISBoxer for the last year I'd like to thank CCP for having the courage to make this change, and the way it's being implemented.
The grace time will allow people who invested heavily into the program some reprieve to make their investments back, and the general playerbase will not have to deal with singular people wiping out their fleets or multi-billion ships anymore, which was always terrible gameplay.
I believe this is a very positive change to New Eden, and the short-term loss of subscriber revenue will be more than made up for in the long run by players enjoying the game more as a result of it
Thumbs up and keep up the good work CCP |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Brave Collective
1426
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:45:45 -
[107] - Quote
Christmas came early
I have to say, that's a pleasant surprise, and probably a tough decision to make for a company from a financial standpoint.
I can see PLEX prices dropping already.
Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1061
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:45:47 -
[108] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Wait - hold on, just thought of something -
G15 and related keyboards are now banned??? They allow one keyboard click to do F1-F8 simultaneously
Although grouping guns in game does the same thing - except smartbombs
I'm sure if you find enough edge cases, CCP will surely reverse the decision! Keep fishing! The fate of Eve depends on your efforts!
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
eiedu
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:45:56 -
[109] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:progstate wrote:knobber Jobbler wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. Your response is a bit like "Well, bumping Titans is kind of not allowed in some circumstances". Being a bit more specific on this topic would probably be appreciated. Well then be more specific in asking questions. CCP is using ISBOXER broadcasting to run a bomber wing or a synchronised fleet of mining vessels now against the EULA? Using any method (including ISBoxer) to broadcast your commands across multiple clients for bomber wings or mining vessels will be against the EULA starting January 1st.
Leave it to the lawyers fozzie. You make it sound like it's OK to rat with ISBoxer |
Kant Boards
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:46:01 -
[110] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Using any method (including ISBoxer) to broadcast your commands across multiple clients for bomber wings or mining vessels will be against the EULA starting January 1st.
Hi Fozzie. You're doing a good job man |
|
|
BoBoZoBo
Paragon Fury
Tactical Narcotics Team
501
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:46:10 -
[111] - Quote
If the automation in question allows for conditions that could not exist in EVE if a normal human operation was in effect, it should be gone.
Primary Test Subject GÇó SmackTalker Elite
|
Brink Albosa
Screaming Hayabusa
Neo-Bushido Movement
54
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:46:44 -
[112] - Quote
Good ******* riddance |
Kaliba Mort
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:47:20 -
[113] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Wait - hold on, just thought of something -
G15 and related keyboards are now banned??? They allow one keyboard click to do F1-F8 simultaneously
Although grouping guns in game does the same thing - except smartbombs
Grouping guns does not do the same thing. Grouping guns is something you do *in game*. Pressing F1-F8 at same time via scripts outside the game is banned.
Using G15 is not banned. Using scripting features of the keyboard to broadcast multiple keystrokes is and has been for a while.
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
65
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:47:23 -
[114] - Quote
I hope that on or shortly before 1 January that the Policies page is updated with this information. In the past, CCP has had a bad habit of just posting this type of information on the forums. This information really needs to either have its own page or added to the Suspension and Ban Policy and Third Party Policies pages. Thinking about it, those two pages will need to be updated anyway.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
163
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:47:38 -
[115] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Wait - hold on, just thought of something -
G15 and related keyboards are now banned??? They allow one keyboard click to do F1-F8 simultaneously
Although grouping guns in game does the same thing - except smartbombs Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game.
Yeah, so that means my Core OS - OSX and my keyboard are both not allowed
Kinda sucks, not going to buy windows to run the stinking game
I sure as hell won't buy a new keyboard
so stupid, if you want to ban isboxer fine, but leave the mac guys out of it |
Kubiq
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:47:53 -
[116] - Quote
Kant Boards wrote:CCP making bold and courageous and much needed changes. Whats next!? An end to AFK cloaking?!
Cloaking creates content (victims form defense fleets) isboxer does not |
Rollo Brinalle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:47:57 -
[117] - Quote
YEAAAAHHHH Thanks for early holiday gift! |
Peritas Inmortalis
Dis0wned
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:48:11 -
[118] - Quote
Thank you CCP Falcon with that update your going to help me save money, 6 less accounts to pay  |
Shp3
TEC-NOLOGY
Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:48:25 -
[119] - Quote
All these lovely ISboxer tears here already!!!
GÖÑ ccp falcon! |
eiedu
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:48:41 -
[120] - Quote
Rossi Tenmar wrote:eiedu wrote:RIP incursions
RIP Ratting
RIP bombing
Or join a fleet with other people maybe?
Buy me dinner first |
|
|
Johann VandeBur
Examen Mortis
Spears of Destiny
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:48:55 -
[121] - Quote
Thanks for the changes,
we all will have lots of fun to buy a ship for 300 mil t1 cruiser or some t3 for atleast 3b
Well so much accounts will be going to sleep and good job letting the game die CCP
have fun at pvp with 10 guys in frigets in 0sec |
BANDZIOR PL
ETANOL Corporation
Circle-Of-Two
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:49:12 -
[122] - Quote
Thank you Santa Claus for this gift! :)
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC
Goonswarm Federation
353
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:49:37 -
[123] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Yeah, so that means my Core OS - OSX and my keyboard are both not allowed
Kinda sucks, not going to buy windows to run the stinking game
I sure as hell won't buy a new keyboard
so stupid, if you want to ban isboxer fine, but leave the mac guys out of it
im sorry what about your os and keyboard require you to multiplex input to multiple instances of eve
is there some dark gateway that requires precise coordinated action from several eve clients at once to unlock the portal to mac compatibility that must be opened every day |
SheShell
State War Academy
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:50:21 -
[124] - Quote
subsciptions will have dropped a lot by the end of this month |
MASSADEATH
MASS A DEATH
Mordus Angels
59
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:51:09 -
[125] - Quote
FINALLY !!!!
wow that took a while....
KUDOS CCP FINALLY !!!!
Let the ban hammer swing free and swing HARD |
Gorila Vengaza
The New Dis-Order
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:51:53 -
[126] - Quote
WHOOO! it's about time ;) |
Arkon Olacar
Bearded BattleBears
Brave Collective
432
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:52:10 -
[127] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Yeah, so that means my Core OS - OSX and my keyboard are both not allowed
Kinda sucks, not going to buy windows to run the stinking game
I sure as hell won't buy a new keyboard
so stupid, if you want to ban isboxer fine, but leave the mac guys out of it
Mac owners aren't people
Warping to zero
|
Kant Boards
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:52:23 -
[128] - Quote
Kubiq wrote:Kant Boards wrote:CCP making bold and courageous and much needed changes. Whats next!? An end to AFK cloaking?! Cloaking creates content (victims form defense fleets) isboxer does not
Well yeah but if they did something entirely reasonable like booting you from the server after 15-20 minutes of not interacting with the client like most games do it would end afk cloaking and Jita would never be capped out.
DARE TO BELIEVE |
CC Avalos
Multiplex Gaming
The Bastion
73
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:52:50 -
[129] - Quote
I think this is a great move by CCP. Policing it might be a bit of a challenge, but good move. Im sure this thread is really going to slam open that can of worms!
Make sure you tune into Podside (Podcast) tonight to hear what other players think!
Looking for Rookie Miners & Industrial types to join our Corp!
https://gate.eveonline.com/Corporation/0033%20Trading%20Corp
|
Pandora Myuki
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:53:12 -
[130] - Quote
Okay it's pretty simple, if you have 2 or more accounts logged INTO EVE and you PRESS ONE KEY OR MAKE ONE CLICK to make all the accounts do the same thing such as warping all your accounts to a station at the same time or launching 20 bombs at a target you will be banned.t IT IS A VERY SIMPLE RULE. |
|
|
Kaaeliaa
The Vendunari
End of Life
37149
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:53:16 -
[131] - Quote
Peritas Inmortalis wrote:Thank you CCP Falcon with that update your going to help me save money, 6 less accounts to pay
Bye! Don't let the door hit you on the way out. GTFO and stay gone.
Johann VandeBur wrote:Thanks for the changes,
we all will have lots of fun to buy a ship for 300 mil t1 cruiser or some t3 for atleast 3b
Well so much accounts will be going to sleep and good job letting the game die CCP
have fun at pvp with 10 guys in frigets in 0sec
Bye! We won't miss you, either. GTFO and stay gone.
LAGL Cosplayer. Princess of Sibyyl's Pillowfort. This is my jam!
|
Radkiel
Everlasting Vendetta.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:53:22 -
[132] - Quote
Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D
I just unsubbed all of my accounts, I'll play until the 1st then find another game.
I fail to see how multiboxing affects anyone around me. |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1296
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:53:39 -
[133] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Wait - hold on, just thought of something -
G15 and related keyboards are now banned??? They allow one keyboard click to do F1-F8 simultaneously
Although grouping guns in game does the same thing - except smartbombs Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game. Yeah, so that means my Core OS - OSX and my keyboard are both not allowed Kinda sucks, not going to buy windows to run the stinking game I sure as hell won't buy a new keyboard so stupid, if you want to ban isboxer fine, but leave the mac guys out of it
They are both allowed; your os and your keyboard. Using them to do the specified activities, is not. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger
Nulli Secunda
1575
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:54:06 -
[134] - Quote
brb, buying ice and selling my plex
Build your empire !
Start today ! Rent Space in Perrigen Falls and Feythabolis
Contact me for details :)
|
padraig animal
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:54:07 -
[135] - Quote
Johann VandeBur wrote:Thanks for the changes,
we all will have lots of fun to buy a ship for 300 mil t1 cruiser or some t3 for atleast 3b
Well so much accounts will be going to sleep and good job letting the game die CCP
have fun at pvp with 10 guys in frigets in 0sec
I know a option if you don't want to be one of those 10 .....unsub !!!! oh and contract your stuff to me 
......
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1368
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:54:12 -
[136] - Quote
drummendejef maaktnietuit wrote:
yup, read the first post again
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Galmas
united system's commonwealth
186
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:54:41 -
[137] - Quote
This has potential to become the second best expansion since w-space. The best part about it is that basically nothing can go wrong since not a single line of code will have to be changed! |
Arkon Olacar
Bearded BattleBears
Brave Collective
432
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:54:57 -
[138] - Quote
Radkiel wrote:Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D I just unsubbed all of my account, I'll play until the 1st then find another game.
Your stuff, please can I have
Warping to zero
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1368
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:55:28 -
[139] - Quote
Radkiel wrote:Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D I just unsubbed all of my accounts, I'll play until the 1st then find another game. I fail to see how multiboxing affects anyone around me.
I'l be happy to take yoru stuff on the first, just contract to me thanks
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Denarius Demar
Die..Brut
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:55:38 -
[140] - Quote
Perfect way, die ISBoxer!!!
and welcome back to "Handworking" Multiboxing cause this is the Championship-League
This is the right way! |
|
|
Fluoroantimonicacid
Nullbear Tear Extractors
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:55:38 -
[141] - Quote
Galmas wrote:This has potential to become the second best expansion since w-space. The best part about it is that basically nothing can go wrong since not a single line of code will have to be changed!
challenge accepted
-Replicator |
Thalen Draganos
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
51
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:55:45 -
[142] - Quote
Fluoroantimonicacid wrote:Is broadcasting commands to dscan allowed? Is broadcasting control-c to copy something displayed in the client allowed, for example dscan or market windows?
Was I a large part of triggering this change, just like when I made the best of insurance fraud to the point it had to be patched?
-Replicator
When you were fighting against goons then it must have been ok but when you started to work with us, that must have been the catalyst for this. lol
Remember, Goons can NOT prosper from anything that some one else can't do. lmao
Just adapt people. Damn.
Page 8 SNIPE! |
Utari Onzo
united system's commonwealth
21
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:56:10 -
[143] - Quote
I'd use ISBoxer to get all my alts to 'like' this thread, but I'd get banned....
YES/10 |
Elena Morin'staal
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:56:41 -
[144] - Quote
Radkiel wrote:Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D I just unsubbed all of my accounts, I'll play until the 1st then find another game. I fail to see how multiboxing affects anyone around me.
You can still multi-box. It just means you have to alt-tab between client windows and make each command in each client, rather than pressing one key and having all 20 of your miners start mining. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
163
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:56:45 -
[145] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:
Yeah, so that means my Core OS - OSX and my keyboard are both not allowed
Kinda sucks, not going to buy windows to run the stinking game
I sure as hell won't buy a new keyboard
so stupid, if you want to ban isboxer fine, but leave the mac guys out of it
im sorry what about your os and keyboard require you to multiplex input to multiple instances of eve is there some dark gateway that requires precise coordinated action from several eve clients at once to unlock the portal to mac compatibility that must be opened every day
No, but the fact I am running Mac OSX and it provides these functions, how would the distinguish between legal and illegal actions. I run 6 monitors and typically have 12-25 clients running, i can see every client on the screens simultaneously, so clicking from screen to screen and pressing keyboard buttons happens super fast and I can broadcast to multiple clients or a single client, but clicking from one to the other is instant.
The default would be ban first and sort it out later. I dont' have that kind of time, it took me 5 months to get a simple reimbursement thru the CCP bureaucracy, i can't imagine how many years a petition here would take.
Just thinking outloud, I could make a script to cycle the windows and do the commands a window at a time, them I am not broadcasting to multiple clients - this may work after all
|
Kaaeliaa
The Vendunari
End of Life
37168
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:56:54 -
[146] - Quote
Radkiel wrote:Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D I just unsubbed all of my accounts, I'll play until the 1st then find another game. I fail to see how multiboxing affects anyone around me.
Bye-bye, botter! You won't be missed.
LAGL Cosplayer. Princess of Sibyyl's Pillowfort. This is my jam!
|
padraig animal
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:57:13 -
[147] - Quote
Radkiel wrote:Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D I just unsubbed all of my accounts, I'll play until the 1st then find another game. I fail to see how multiboxing affects anyone around me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48H34ukFe8g !!
......
|
Romana Erebus
Eve Minions
Poopstain Removal Team
19
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:57:49 -
[148] - Quote
It took this long to sort that isboxer was a EULA breach.....
GOODBYE 25 TORNADOS
GOODBYE 25 NYXES
Heres a song for this blessed event...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NelVX9y0es
Loving Eve again. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2443
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:57:50 -
[149] - Quote
CCP finally read their EULA I guess.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Tiberius Zol
turaagaq
GANOR INC.
40
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:58:11 -
[150] - Quote
What a wonderfull pre christmas gift.
Thank you Sir o7
Ps: all you guys, unsubbing your isboxer accounts: just send me a nice little contract with your stuff. i will use it wise. :) |
|
|
Artemis Dalvik
Arxersize Industries
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:58:43 -
[151] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:So, does this mean no more Mac support?
wtf does this have to do with mac support? |
CameronCZ
Id Est
The Volition Cult
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:59:07 -
[152] - Quote
Wow, totally agree, nice work!
Im only wondering about this:
Quote:Just to be clear, are we still allowed to bind all our hardeners to the same key?
Like in example, press Key1 to activate all Hardeners on only one account.
Prohibited or ok?
|
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
Unsettled.
150
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:59:13 -
[153] - Quote
Thank you CCP! This was long overdue. |
Thalen Draganos
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
51
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 16:59:33 -
[154] - Quote
Not ISBoxer, just one of it's functions. CCP just added a ton of effort to multiboxers. That's all. |
Sarah Shadow
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:00:01 -
[155] - Quote
So 35 days notice on a feature that pretty seriously affects our decision to keep multiple accounts subbed.,..
That's a load of bullshit by itself.
The other load is the question of why activities couldn't be segregated based on their impact to others. |
Otto Erich Stollmmler
Deutsche EvE Lehranstalt
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:00:04 -
[156] - Quote
Vielen Dank CCP Falcon und das ganze Team!
Es geschehen noch Zeichen und Wunder!
MfG
Otto E. Stollmmler |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger
Nulli Secunda
1575
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:00:16 -
[157] - Quote
Kant Boards wrote:Kubiq wrote:Kant Boards wrote:CCP making bold and courageous and much needed changes. Whats next!? An end to AFK cloaking?! Cloaking creates content (victims form defense fleets) isboxer does not Well yeah but if they did something entirely reasonable like booting you from the server after 15-20 minutes of not interacting with the client like most games do it would end afk cloaking and Jita would never be capped out. DARE TO BELIEVE
jita cap has nothing to do with the inactive players. it's only there to limit gatejumps and undocking/docking. That's where the load comes from
Build your empire !
Start today ! Rent Space in Perrigen Falls and Feythabolis
Contact me for details :)
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC
Goonswarm Federation
353
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:00:16 -
[158] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:
No, but the fact I am running Mac OSX and it provides these functions, how would the distinguish between legal and illegal actions. I run 6 monitors and typically have 12-25 clients running, i can see every client on the screens simultaneously, so clicking from screen to screen and pressing keyboard buttons happens super fast and I can broadcast to multiple clients or a single client, but clicking from one to the other is instant.
The default would be ban first and sort it out later. I dont' have that kind of time, it took me 5 months to get a simple reimbursement thru the CCP bureaucracy, i can't imagine how many years a petition here would take.
Just thinking outloud, I could make a script to cycle the windows and do the commands a window at a time, them I am not broadcasting to multiple clients - this may work after all
you are running eve on a turing-complete computer, just like the rest of us
a turing-complete computer can bot
ergo, you probably would already have been banned under this theory that if you use a computer that can violate the rules you will be banned
also, your planned countermeasure IS botting |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1064
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:00:19 -
[159] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:No, but the fact I am running Mac OSX and it provides these functions, how would the distinguish between legal and illegal actions. I run 6 monitors and typically have 12-25 clients running, i can see every client on the screens simultaneously, so clicking from screen to screen and pressing keyboard buttons happens super fast and I can broadcast to multiple clients or a single client, but clicking from one to the other is instant.
The default would be ban first and sort it out later. I dont' have that kind of time, it took me 5 months to get a simple reimbursement thru the CCP bureaucracy, i can't imagine how many years a petition here would take.
Just thinking outloud, I could make a script to cycle the windows and do the commands a window at a time, them I am not broadcasting to multiple clients - this may work after all
The bold part is the part you should probably cease.
If you're worried about it, don't do it. Simple.
You've got a month and change to start practicing.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Radkiel
Everlasting Vendetta.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:00:26 -
[160] - Quote
Kaaeliaa wrote:Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D Who gives a ****? They're the kind of people EVE doesn't want because they **** things up for everyone else. CCP, congratulations on having the stones to put your foot down and tell these idiots to GTFO. Maybe we can finally have nice things again.
How did I mess things for you? I've seen people cry about multi-boxing for years and I've never understood why.
FU,
Radkiel |
|
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
5705
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:00:37 -
[161] - Quote
Imagine if you will a setting whereby there is not enforcement or a lack of regulation about the age of consent to have sex.
Believe it or not, it was like that back in the 1980s. It was quite common for say a 16 yo to date a 14 yo, or an 18 with 15 year old. Nobody really cared as long as the two were teenagers and the "maturity level of the individual" was taken into account.
You know, that whole "she won't date me I'm just a Freshman" clich+¬ from all those dumb films in the 80s.
Now imagine if, lacking regs or enforcement, you have men in their 20s and up dating 12 year old girls. It becomes a bit too much, a bit "in your face" and most of all, a little difficult to pretend it's still OK.
So, there was no problem with the multi box thing, all "within the rules" and an area where while it appeared illegal it was not.....
and then, like the 30 year old dating the 12 year old, suddenly you have entire fleets gratuitously hoovering up entire belts, each pilot not even having a real name, all in the safety of highsec.
If there is one mistake that CCP tends to make, it's the underestimation of the Min-Max player. If there is one little tiny atom-sized little teensy iota of a chance that something will be taken all the way in one direction as the mechanics allow it, then it WILL. If there is a "possibility" of something, anything, and that possibility leads to more ISK or more stats, then that possibility by itself becomes the reality. Thera for example, if the stations can be death bubbled by dictors, it WILL and by people who have all the time in the world for it.
So, while the multibox fleet may be OK per the rules and all that, we have seen the min max sperglords take that all the way to the absurd.
And absurd, even if in the rules, eventually starts to look bad. People get to wondering "what kind of people am I dealing with here?" and nobody is really having a good time when hit with crazy vibes.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Red Rose
Thundercats
The Initiative.
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:00:48 -
[162] - Quote
First nerf since Falcon range / strengh nerf back in 2009 which does not f*** me over
I approve this product - make it real! |
white male privilege
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
93
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:00:49 -
[163] - Quote
Lyron-Baktos wrote:Jesus, can you be any more vague Falcon?
Its not vague at all? You can use isboxer to manage your clients but you can't use it to replicate commands. What is vague about that? |
Makhpella
Temet Nosce Ex Astra
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:01:20 -
[164] - Quote
Hi CPP if I warp squad do I get banned? |
big miker
Eve Minions
Poopstain Removal Team
237
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:01:36 -
[165] - Quote
CCP is going places!
Finaly real skill and teamwork is needed again instead of boxing 10+ accounts.
Goodbye ISboxers, happy to see you leaving o/
-A very glad Miker
Latest video: Ferocious 4.0 Official Release
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
223
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:01:43 -
[166] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇóEVE Online client settings
GÇóWindow positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
GÇóThe login process [/i]
Emphasis added.
I'm confused by why this would be something you would ever have to expressly say you're not trying to control, unless you're simultaneously of the opinion that you could.
Is CCP actually claiming they have the right to police where I put my client window on my desktop?
|
Jarod Garamonde
Sardaukar Merc Guild
General Tso's Alliance
2244
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:01:49 -
[167] - Quote
Goodbye, ISBoxer. We won't miss you.
That moment when you realize the crazy lady with all the cats was right...
[#savethelance]
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
Forged of Fire
639
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:01:49 -
[168] - Quote
I Alt-tabbed for years to run multiple accounts, so that's not a very big loss. The only question in my mind is whether the windows management aspect of ISBoxer is worth the money.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Laughable Xhosa Girl
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:02:45 -
[169] - Quote
Let me tell you how I, the downtrodden, every day Joe Eve Player With 25 Accounts is harmed by this. |
Angela Daemonic
Jaded.
The Natural Order
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:02:52 -
[170] - Quote
There will be tears from a few, but joy from the many. Eve has needed this for a while and I am excited for the future. |
|
|
Maxxor Brutor
Imperial Collective
Unsettled.
52
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:03:04 -
[171] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
is there some dark gateway that requires precise coordinated action from several eve clients at once to unlock the portal to mac compatibility that must be opened every day
Yeah mac users need isboxer because they only have one mouse button :( |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
800
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:03:11 -
[172] - Quote
thank you, CCP, finally. |
Aram Kachaturian
Love Squad
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
135
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:03:21 -
[173] - Quote
Get rekt love squad h4ck3rs
**Official Poster:-á**http://i.imgur.com/oTdKSTi.jpg (Limited stock, contact me to order)
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC
Goonswarm Federation
353
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:03:28 -
[174] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇóEVE Online client settings
GÇóWindow positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
GÇóThe login process [/i] Emphasis added. I'm confused by why this would be something you would ever have to expressly say you're not trying to control, unless you're simultaneously of the opinion that you could. Is CCP actually claiming they have the right to police where I put my client window on my desktop?
i know why you'd say something like that: because dumb people will make the above dumb post if you don't, just with some words changed around
but for not-dumb people this is clearer |
Zishy Linaris
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:03:36 -
[175] - Quote
goodbye ccp. 12 accounts unsubbed as of now. i feel bullshitted for my time i invested but **** happens |
Act-Mack PVT
Adversity.
Psychotic Tendencies.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:03:46 -
[176] - Quote
So Fozzie, Is CCP adverse from making money? The way its going it looks like your trying to get rid of your current fan base and replace it with a new one. The only problem is that your current fanbase has multiple accounts and pays for them (if an account buys a plex CCP still technically has made 15-20 usd/euro) compared to newbros with one or two accounts. Its ok really, lowsec is dying because of phoebe, the only contested regions are placid and black rise (OE/TISHU, Snuff and Shadow cartel) Null sec is in flames as usual but who cares. |
Prince Amygdala
The Dutch East India Company
Fidelas Constans
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:04:15 -
[177] - Quote
This is, without any doubt, the best thing I have ever seen CCP do to improve this game. Well done. Seriously. It was getting old seeing people pay to win by strapping smart bombers together and calling them independent accounts/characters.
Thank you. |
Prince Amygdala
The Dutch East India Company
Fidelas Constans
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:05:34 -
[178] - Quote
Zishy Linaris wrote:goodbye ccp. 12 accounts unsubbed as of now. i feel bullshitted for my time i invested but **** happens
Good riddance. |
Angry Arnst
W.O.R.M-S.W.A.R.M
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:05:59 -
[179] - Quote
All have do now is get rid of the awoxers who too lazy play game can only ruin it for others |
Romana Erebus
Eve Minions
Poopstain Removal Team
19
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:06:03 -
[180] - Quote
I think prescriptions for psyche meds just tripled
big miker wrote:CCP is going places! Finaly real skill and teamwork is needed again instead of boxing 10+ accounts. Goodbye ISboxers, happy to see you leaving o/ > A very glad Miker
|
|
|
Lady Ayeipsia
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
828
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:06:12 -
[181] - Quote
DragonHelm III wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. For god's sake CCP stop all the bluster and give a straight answer ISBOXER banned or not? It just needs a yes or no All this crap about terms like Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing mean squat to me as I have no idea what they are.
It's really simple. using Isboxer to setup your overview on 20 clients at once so they all match is fine. It has no impact on the game world.
using Isboxer to then simultaneously control your 20 accounts to mine is banned.
Using isboxer to open 20 market windows to see the price of trit in 20 regions (1 account per region) is fine. Using isboxer to then set a new buy order in all 20 regions at once is banned. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
802
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:06:25 -
[182] - Quote
Zishy Linaris wrote:goodbye ccp. 12 accounts unsubbed as of now. i feel bullshitted for my time i invested but **** happens
bye, dont let ya hit by the door on your way out.
Its gonna be a healthier game without people of your kind. |
Soren Oboro
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:06:54 -
[183] - Quote
DEAD EVE !!!!!
All the players in eve have more then two, or 10 accounts do you really think what all of us will go out and buy an computer that had 10 or 20 ******* monitors REALLY!!! **** NO!!!! I will Not
unsubbed will play until the First!!!! GOOD BYE CCP AND ITS DUMM ASS POLITICS |
Fluoroantimonicacid
Nullbear Tear Extractors
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:06:54 -
[184] - Quote
Angela Daemonic wrote:There will be tears from a few, but joy from the many. Eve has needed this for a while and I am excited for the future.
I plan to use whatever I can within the rules until it gets patched. After it is patched, I consider it a huge success and move onto the next strategy. EvE favors the players that adapt the fastest, and with the new faster release cycle it is more important than ever to be able to adapt and have 2-3 unrelated strategies in your arsenal or be able to find new ones quickly, to be ready for the day your current strategy (like ishtars or 250 man slow cat fleets) gets nerfed to a shadow of its former self.
-Replicator |
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
215
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:07:09 -
[185] - Quote
Capri Sun KraftFoods wrote:As someone who actually ISBox's bombers I'm a little upset.
The problem isn't ISBoxer. The problem is that bombs as they currently stand are completely broken Sure isboxer exacerbates the problem significantly, but you can still get 30 dudes into a fleet easily and go kill anything with 4 waves that isn't a T3 or a faction battleship. I'd be happy to see my bomber accounts become useless and de-sub them if it meant I didn't have to worry about getting hell bombed every other fleet.
That can be handled by balance. But the mere fact that you thought it was okay to single-handedly instapwn someone with a fleet of bombers ALONE was okay is quite frankly making me question your sanity. If 30 dudes (as in individuals) did it, I'm more fine with it than if some rotten ******* on the other side of a screen somewhere pressed one button and blew up my hopes and dreams.
[i]"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka[/i]
|
Kant Boards
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:07:13 -
[186] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:No, but the fact I am running Mac OSX and it provides these functions, how would the distinguish between legal and illegal actions. I run 6 monitors and typically have 12-25 clients running, i can see every client on the screens simultaneously, so clicking from screen to screen and pressing keyboard buttons happens super fast and I can broadcast to multiple clients or a single client, but clicking from one to the other is instant.
The default would be ban first and sort it out later. I dont' have that kind of time, it took me 5 months to get a simple reimbursement thru the CCP bureaucracy, i can't imagine how many years a petition here would take.
Just thinking outloud, I could make a script to cycle the windows and do the commands a window at a time, them I am not broadcasting to multiple clients - this may work after all
Haha isnt this guy the one who went on and on about how people need to adapt and put in more work when the reprocessing and jump changes went in?? Sounds like you need to practice what you preach bud |
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1638
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:07:18 -
[187] - Quote
Props. You are going to see a pretty nasty sub hit from this. However, this is necessary. I just hope you can recover those subs quickly.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Prince Kobol
2366
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:07:31 -
[188] - Quote
As much as I dislike ISBoxer all you are doing is treating the symptom and not fixing the actual problem.
How about you actually fix the problem and make PvE involving and interesting and not the mind numbing crap it is now.
(No I do not use ISboxer)
Also, I think you are going lose quite a few hundred subs.. just saying |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation
DemSal Unlimited
1979
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:08:02 -
[189] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Never establish a rule that you cannot enforce with considerable accuracy.
Have you ANY experience in the real world. That would negate most laws and legal systems.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
Soviet-Union
294
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:08:16 -
[190] - Quote
Zishy Linaris wrote:goodbye ccp. 12 accounts unsubbed as of now. i feel bullshitted for my time i invested but **** happens
I've a feeling that, by this rate - this thread is going to account for more unsubbed characters than there were ever subbed.
(Obligatory your stuff, can i haz remark) |
|
|
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
Unsettled.
153
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:08:49 -
[191] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Props. You are going to see a pretty nasty sub hit from this. However, this is necessary. I just hope you can recover those subs quickly.
It just shows that CCP values players over bot accounts. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1068
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:08:49 -
[192] - Quote
Kant Boards wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:No, but the fact I am running Mac OSX and it provides these functions, how would the distinguish between legal and illegal actions. I run 6 monitors and typically have 12-25 clients running, i can see every client on the screens simultaneously, so clicking from screen to screen and pressing keyboard buttons happens super fast and I can broadcast to multiple clients or a single client, but clicking from one to the other is instant.
The default would be ban first and sort it out later. I dont' have that kind of time, it took me 5 months to get a simple reimbursement thru the CCP bureaucracy, i can't imagine how many years a petition here would take.
Just thinking outloud, I could make a script to cycle the windows and do the commands a window at a time, them I am not broadcasting to multiple clients - this may work after all
Haha isnt this guy the one who went on and on about how people need to adapt and put in more work when the reprocessing and jump changes went in?? Sounds like you need to practice what you preach bud
You are quite correct. It makes his lamentations all the more enjoyable.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
2231
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:09:00 -
[193] - Quote
A little overboard with this change don't you think? Your game is far to slow for most activities.
While I can understand taking down the 30 man IsBoxer fleets, you should consider allowing small groups of 2 or 3 to multi-broadcast.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
|
Rear Admiral Charlie
DR. SloMo and the G.I. Clinic
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:09:07 -
[194] - Quote
To everybody complaining about isboxer I hope your ready to strap a miner to your ass because mineral prices are going to spike. |
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:09:15 -
[195] - Quote
Soren Oboro wrote: DEAD EVE !!!!!
All the players in eve have more then two, or 10 accounts do you really think what all of us will go out and buy an computer that had 10 or 20 ******* monitors REALLY!!! **** NO!!!! I will Not
unsubbed will play until the First!!!! GOOD BYE CCP AND ITS DUMM ASS POLITICS
Bye :)
|
Notorious Fellon
351
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:09:22 -
[196] - Quote
Better save links to this thread. We will need these links a whole lot over the next year!
Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.
|
Longtom McGregor
Perkone
Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:09:58 -
[197] - Quote
I just logged in one last time to say, "Thank you."
It was a brave decision for any corporation to make, and I understand that completely. Well done, and very intelligently executed.
Reddit, Twitter, and other forums I've stumbled across have exploded with cheers.
Again, thank you. |
Zishy Linaris
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:09:59 -
[198] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned.
isboxer has just been officialy banned you numbnut. logging in 12 clients at once is something i dont necesarly care about rofl. not being able to do what isboxer enabled me to do. warp all at once, and generaly clone the input to all at once for mining/etc will screw it tough. |
Tsikuu
Inappropriate Contact
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:10:17 -
[199] - Quote
Capri Sun KraftFoods wrote:As someone who actually ISBox's bombers I'm a little upset.
The problem isn't ISBoxer. The problem is that bombs as they currently stand are completely broken Sure isboxer exacerbates the problem significantly, but you can still get 30 dudes into a fleet easily and go kill anything with 4 waves that isn't a T3 or a faction battleship. I'd be happy to see my bomber accounts become useless and de-sub them if it meant I didn't have to worry about getting hell bombed every other fleet.
Yours and all your isboxing mates tears are sweet. For a few years now you have had risk free PVP, and although CCP may not have nerfed bombers with the cloaking mechanics your personal abuse of software input has finally been stopped.
You are the problem, CCP has the cure. |
Ming Vue
The Scope
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:10:21 -
[200] - Quote
well thats 22 accounts unsubbed time to head ot highsec |
|
|
Xander Phoena
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
454
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:10:40 -
[201] - Quote
As was noted in the CSM Summer Summit Minutes, I pushed hard for this change and I am delighted to see it finally implemented. The grey area that was simultaneous input commands needed to be killed off and I'm over the moon to see CCP go through with it.
www.crossingzebras.com
|
Andrea Portaro
Paxton Industries
Tactical Narcotics Team
20
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:11:10 -
[202] - Quote
HAHAHA Replicator now you can finally GTFO, yep you wasted time of your life with all those accounts that you will now unsub, we won't miss you. CCP I L O V E YOU! |
Escobar Slim III
YOLOSWAGHASHTAGDOLLARBILLZSWIMMINGPOOLICECREAMS
102
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:11:15 -
[203] - Quote
ONE ACCOUNT TO RULE THEM ALL, ONE ACCOUNT TO FIND THEM; ONE ACCOUNT TO BRING THEM ALL,
AND IN THE DARKNESS KEYBIND THEM. |
Kant Boards
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:11:36 -
[204] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:A little overboard with this change don't you think? Your game is far to slow for most activities.
While I can understand taking down the 30 man IsBoxer fleets, you should consider allowing small groups of 2 or 3 to multi-broadcast.
No because that would save the interceptor ratter hunters. If you cant control multiple windows manually then play one account like normal people. |
Naburi NasNaburi
A Little Peculiar
borealis
280
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:11:39 -
[205] - Quote
Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D
And I wonder how many of the old people will return :) |
Nie'eine Hier
From Our Cold Dead Hands
The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:11:40 -
[206] - Quote
finally a good decision
how about limiting access in a system to 500 characters in the same time so blob fleets be history too and give smaller alliances or coalitions a chance to have a good fight not get slaughtered |
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:11:44 -
[207] - Quote
How might one go about getting a refund if say....
X person subbed Y accounts to do Z activity.....
Don't think its fair for those people to play $$$ money and not be able to do their activity |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
802
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:12:13 -
[208] - Quote
Rear Admiral Charlie wrote:To everybody complaining about isboxer I hope your ready to strap a miner to your ass because mineral prices are going to spike.
if minerals go up and mining gets profitable again, maybe real miners will start mining again. |
Flail the Runner
Revolt Industry Corp
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:12:15 -
[209] - Quote
The TRUE reasoning behind all this!
CCP is now backing CODE.
Oh. Em. Gee. |
Anslo
Scope Works
22574
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:12:20 -
[210] - Quote
ISBoxing Scrublord wrote:grr CCP I quit.
HTFU nerd.
[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
|
|
|
Volcane Nephilim
The Magic Roundabout Initiative
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:12:25 -
[211] - Quote
Soren Oboro wrote: DEAD EVE !!!!!
All the players in eve have more then two, or 10 accounts do you really think what all of us will go out and buy an computer that had 10 or 20 ******* monitors REALLY!!! **** NO!!!! I will Not
unsubbed will play until the First!!!! GOOD BYE CCP AND ITS DUMM ASS POLITICS
you can still run many clients with whatever tool you have. Just don't send the command to many at once. Nothing to do with how many monitors you have.
No-one can be this dumb though, gotta be trollin' |
JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
Soviet-Union
294
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:12:35 -
[212] - Quote
Xander Phoena wrote:..., I pushed hard ...
I pushed hard this morning, mate ... you don't want to know what came out.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
219
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:12:50 -
[213] - Quote
I'm directly impacted by this, but this is still a great change, to be honest.
Subs will immediately be hit, plex price will drop by a significant margin, and income from professions like Mining will increase. I can only see this as a good change in the long run, as there is more value in an individual player's time rather than one player being able to actively control 20+ accounts.
|
Fluoroantimonicacid
Nullbear Tear Extractors
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:13:00 -
[214] - Quote
Andrea Portaro wrote:HAHAHA Replicator now you can finally GTFO, yep you wasted time of your life with all those accounts that you will now unsub, we won't miss you. CCP I L O V E YOU!
I am not unsubbing :)
I only started using isboxer in the last few months, and I have had 32 accts for over a year. |
Notorious Fellon
351
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:13:04 -
[215] - Quote
Xander Phoena wrote:As was noted in the CSM Summer Summit Minutes, I pushed hard for this change and I am delighted to see it finally implemented. The grey area that was simultaneous input commands needed to be killed off and I'm over the moon to see CCP go through with it.
Many thanks for the efforts of all who talked, debated and pushed for these changes.
Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.
|
MASSADEATH
MASS A DEATH
Mordus Angels
59
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:13:15 -
[216] - Quote
Zishy Linaris wrote:goodbye ccp. 12 accounts unsubbed as of now. i feel bullshitted for my time i invested but **** happens
BYE BYE ..dont let the BAN HAMMER hit you on the way out
this will have a secondary effect of lowering inflationary pressure on the game....which will only help new players..and the game needs to help new players IMO . |
Ariana Industrialis
Society of Penguins
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:13:31 -
[217] - Quote
Angry Arnst wrote:All have do now is get rid of the awoxers who too lazy play game can only ruin it for others
Awoxing is getting removed in december. |
Schelyra Elyte
ELYTE INC
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:14:20 -
[218] - Quote
Finally! Thanks! |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
21
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:14:24 -
[219] - Quote
Nie'eine Hier wrote:finally a good decision
how about limiting access in a system to 500 characters in the same time so blob fleets be history too and give smaller alliances or coalitions a chance to have a good fight not get slaughtered
goons squash 500 people into the system before your side can get in 1.
you gained what? |
Max Kolonko
WATAHA.
Unseen Wolves
489
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:14:51 -
[220] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Never establish a rule that you cannot enforce with considerable accuracy.
Do You have any idea how trivial it is to detect? with nothing less than 100% accuracy?
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
|
|
Dosperado
Denial of Service
Freelancer Coalition
39
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:15:08 -
[221] - Quote
Very good decision! I really appreciate it!
EVE Veteran
|
Otto Erich Stollmmler
Deutsche EvE Lehranstalt
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:15:45 -
[222] - Quote
Naburi NasNaburi wrote:Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D And I wonder how many of the old people will return :)
That's it !!!!! Thanks CCP !!!! |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
805
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:16:00 -
[223] - Quote
best thread for years so far
good job CCP ;) |
Simsung Padecain
Hard Knocks Inc.
49
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:16:07 -
[224] - Quote
At last.
Eve was the only MMO game I've played in my long career that allowed automation in such manner, for a very, very long time.
Now that this option isn't available for much longer, all I can say is thank you for finally sobering up and making this step.
THANK YOU |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC
Goonswarm Federation
354
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:16:09 -
[225] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote:Nie'eine Hier wrote:finally a good decision
how about limiting access in a system to 500 characters in the same time so blob fleets be history too and give smaller alliances or coalitions a chance to have a good fight not get slaughtered goons squash 500 people into the system before your side can get in 1. you gained what?
the ability to blame ccp for his unbroken string of failure |
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
218
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:16:19 -
[226] - Quote
Soren Oboro wrote: DEAD EVE !!!!!
All the players in eve have more then two, or 10 accounts do you really think what all of us will go out and buy an computer that had 10 or 20 ******* monitors REALLY!!! **** NO!!!! I will Not
unsubbed will play until the First!!!! GOOD BYE CCP AND ITS DUMM ASS POLITICS
Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out, botman ;)
[i]"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka[/i]
|
CameronCZ
Id Est
The Volition Cult
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:16:41 -
[227] - Quote
Nie'eine Hier wrote:finally a good decision
how about limiting access in a system to 500 characters in the same time so blob fleets be history too and give smaller alliances or coalitions a chance to have a good fight not get slaughtered
Are u insane? This is best sandbox I-¦ve ever seen and u would like to kill one of its best features? |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
164
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:16:44 -
[228] - Quote
Querns wrote:Kant Boards wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:No, but the fact I am running Mac OSX and it provides these functions, how would the distinguish between legal and illegal actions. I run 6 monitors and typically have 12-25 clients running, i can see every client on the screens simultaneously, so clicking from screen to screen and pressing keyboard buttons happens super fast and I can broadcast to multiple clients or a single client, but clicking from one to the other is instant.
The default would be ban first and sort it out later. I dont' have that kind of time, it took me 5 months to get a simple reimbursement thru the CCP bureaucracy, i can't imagine how many years a petition here would take.
Just thinking outloud, I could make a script to cycle the windows and do the commands a window at a time, them I am not broadcasting to multiple clients - this may work after all
Haha isnt this guy the one who went on and on about how people need to adapt and put in more work when the reprocessing and jump changes went in?? Sounds like you need to practice what you preach bud You are quite correct. It makes his lamentations all the more enjoyable.
Yeah, i am trying my workarounds already, working pretty good so far, jus have to tweak a bit for lag and I'll be golden.
I'll be out of your thread soon |
Laughable Xhosa Girl
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:16:57 -
[229] - Quote
Nie'eine Hier wrote:finally a good decision
how about limiting access in a system to 500 characters in the same time so blob fleets be history too and give smaller alliances or coalitions a chance to have a good fight not get slaughtered
I'm sorry you're unable to make enough friends to be competitive in this game. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
13992
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:17:04 -
[230] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote:Nie'eine Hier wrote:finally a good decision
how about limiting access in a system to 500 characters in the same time so blob fleets be history too and give smaller alliances or coalitions a chance to have a good fight not get slaughtered goons squash 500 people into the system before your side can get in 1. you gained what?
A system full of goons.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
Schelyra Elyte
ELYTE INC
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:17:11 -
[231] - Quote
JIeoH Mocc wrote:Xander Phoena wrote:..., I pushed hard ... I pushed hard this morning, mate ... you don't want to know what came out. Here's a bag of credit for you, anyway. (damned space politicians)
I'd say, as usual, Bullshit came out? |
Almethea
Trans Stellar Express
186
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:17:27 -
[232] - Quote
eiedu wrote:RIP incursions
RIP Ratting
RIP bombing
Time to go back to wow, where it makes no sense to have multiple accounts
How are you even going to "catch" people who are input-multiplexing hardware-wise
by chance ED will be available
Keeping active account just to shitpost
there's so many thing to fix in eve.... and they fix forum ! GJ! but ok i like it !
CCP Fozzie : AFK cloaking, however, is an entirely social form of power
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2989
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:18:12 -
[233] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:So, does this mean no more Mac support?
Oh, don't be silly. You can have any hardware or software, you just cannot use it to multicast to multiple clients.
One key press sends one command to one client. Adhere to that rule, and you're fine.
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/
|
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
218
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:18:42 -
[234] - Quote
eiedu wrote:RIP incursions
RIP Ratting
RIP bombing
Time to go back to wow, where it makes no sense to have multiple accounts
How are you even going to "catch" people who are input-multiplexing hardware-wise
G'bye. Get a bloody corp, you bot.
[i]"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka[/i]
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1639
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:19:00 -
[235] - Quote
It is funny how many dudes are already dumping mass plex. Lawwwl.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
embrel
BamBam Inc.
Outlanders United
203
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:19:08 -
[236] - Quote
Stephan Schneider wrote:all the lost money for ccp
i can see hundreds of mining alts just die
just change it so the ban only goes for pvp related activities
They'll hardly lose a buck. Don't see a ISboxer actually paying for his accounts. Any drop in PLEX prices already??
A good day for Eve.
And the whiners who whine that other people whined successfully... LOL |
Ariana Industrialis
Society of Penguins
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:19:21 -
[237] - Quote
Fluoroantimonicacid wrote:Andrea Portaro wrote:HAHAHA Replicator now you can finally GTFO, yep you wasted time of your life with all those accounts that you will now unsub, we won't miss you. CCP I L O V E YOU! I am not unsubbing :) I only started using isboxer in the last few months, and I have had 32 accts for over a year.
I like your attitude a lot more than these ragequit posts I see in this thread. Keep on being cool ! |
CameronCZ
Id Est
The Volition Cult
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:19:32 -
[238] - Quote
Still wondering about that keyboard binding. Not for managing multiple accounts at once, but fe. to enable all hardeners at once on one char. Allowed or not? |
Michelle Monteleone
Rhongomiant Legion Industries
The Explicit Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:20:06 -
[239] - Quote
Guess my 12 accounts are done as of January 1, 2015. I had fun while it lasted. First Warcraft removed /follow from pvp because of all the cry babies now CCP has removed multiboxing all together. The Eve universe is going to change quite a bit when all the resources people were pumping out with multiple accounts goes away.
Merry Christmas CCP. Thanks for the lump of coal.
See you cry babies in the next mmo I multibox in. |
Pakokkie
Under Heavy Fire
Mordus Angels
74
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:20:13 -
[240] - Quote
First. Thanks CCP for clearing this up.
Second. This will change the economy and pvp a lot.
Third. The people that will quit because of this will not be missed by the people that stay, the majority.
|
|
|
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
218
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:20:35 -
[241] - Quote
Mierin Arthie wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe. How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard? for those that dont know what a kvm switch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch
How you can mix up KVM switching with multiplexing is beyond me, mate. Obviously KVM is going to be allowed because you're not automating anything. It's the technical equivelant of getting off your arse and moving to another computer.
[i]"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka[/i]
|
Capqu
Love Squad
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
871
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:20:51 -
[242] - Quote
CameronCZ wrote:Still wondering about that keyboard binding. Not for managing multiple accounts at once, but fe. to enable all hardeners at once on one char. Allowed or not?
input duplication m8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
473
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:21:14 -
[243] - Quote
Nie'eine Hier wrote:finally a good decision
how about limiting access in a system to 500 characters in the same time so blob fleets be history too and give smaller alliances or coalitions a chance to have a good fight not get slaughtered
Yet you fight alongside N3, which holds the entire south as a renter empire . |
Strata Maslav
V0LTA
Triumvirate.
105
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:21:16 -
[244] - Quote
I can see both sides of the coin on this decision. My issue with this decision by CCP is the tardiness of it. CCP have done a u-turn on this stance and therefore left many players who have made significant investment in a specific play style out in the cold with little to show for it.
This thread seems mostly centred on people gloating on a 'victory' over people pursuing this play style. I for one would like my money back on accounts I will no longer have use for.
If CCP are going make a u-turn on policy they should be willing to reimburse those affected. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1073
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:21:19 -
[245] - Quote
embrel wrote:Stephan Schneider wrote:all the lost money for ccp
i can see hundreds of mining alts just die
just change it so the ban only goes for pvp related activities They'll hardly lose a buck. Don't see a ISboxer actually paying for his accounts. Any drop in PLEX prices already?? A good day for Eve. And the whiners who whine that other people whined successfully... LOL
Do you really think that people subscribing with PLEX somehow deny CCP a sale? People who PLEX their accounts are just paying with someone else's money. CCP gets theirs no matter what. In fact, every account sustained via PLEX grosses CCP 33% MORE money than the same account kept alive with a traditional subscription, due to PLEX costing $20 (compared to the traditional sub costing $15.)
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Angelique Duchemin
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
919
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:22:24 -
[246] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Airi Cho wrote:Nie'eine Hier wrote:finally a good decision
how about limiting access in a system to 500 characters in the same time so blob fleets be history too and give smaller alliances or coalitions a chance to have a good fight not get slaughtered goons squash 500 people into the system before your side can get in 1. you gained what? A system full of goons.
Followed by z0r chain, conga line and margaritas.
RIP peace isboxer.
The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.
|
Anslo
Scope Works
22576
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:22:45 -
[247] - Quote
Michelle Monteleone wrote:Guess my 12 accounts are done as of January 1, 2015. I had fun while it lasted. First Warcraft removed /follow from pvp because of all the cry babies now CCP has removed multiboxing all together. The Eve universe is going to change quite a bit when all the resources people were pumping out with multiple accounts goes away. Merry Christmas CCP. Thanks for the lump of coal. See you cry babies in the next mmo I multibox in.
Good.
As a vet of 7 years, get out. People like you, and other ~new~ scrubs who came in a few years ago after other vets left Eve made this game change, for the worse. With the changes being made now, the new rules, the new content, I am seeing old friends come back to Eve with a bit of hope that it won't be ****.
If getting 1 or 2 honest to goodness pirate vets back, the ones who made pirating classy, means losing 100 ISBoxing scublords, I say good riddance.
Now GET THE **** OUT
[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
|
Invisusira
The Rising Stars
Tactical Narcotics Team
274
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:22:59 -
[248] - Quote
About time.
EVE Music
|
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
218
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:23:12 -
[249] - Quote
Stephan Schneider wrote:all the lost money for ccp
i can see hundreds of mining alts just die
just change it so the ban only goes for pvp related activities
Lol, wat? So you and your 20 mining alts can keep dumping mineral prices in the gutter? How about no?
[i]"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka[/i]
|
Laughable Xhosa Girl
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:23:35 -
[250] - Quote
Michelle Monteleone wrote:Guess my 12 accounts are done as of January 1, 2015. I had fun while it lasted. First Warcraft removed /follow from pvp because of all the cry babies now CCP has removed multiboxing all together. The Eve universe is going to change quite a bit when all the resources people were pumping out with multiple accounts goes away. Merry Christmas CCP. Thanks for the lump of coal. See you cry babies in the next mmo I multibox in.
With an attitude like this its easy to understand why no one wants to play with you |
|
|
Longtom McGregor
Perkone
Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:23:45 -
[251] - Quote
Capri Sun KraftFoods wrote:As someone who actually ISBox's bombers I'm a little upset.
*GRIN* |
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
218
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:24:00 -
[252] - Quote
Fiberton wrote:Hrm so Mining goods are about to sky rocket. Ok so I have never used one of these things you speak of but even I after over 10 years in the game know that this is a terrible idea. So when you are making decisions did you consult an accountant? You realize that you are prob going to reduce CCP income about 3M a year just from logins who will drop accounts that are used for that sort of thing ? Ok not to tell you guys how to run a company but just flying around for so many years and knowing persons who use that.. At least 5% of eve is just miners on isboxer. Good luck on driving into a brick wall or whatever you dudes do.. Phobe great idea. this.. I would consult an accountant.
Adapt.
Or.
Die.
The door is over there. ->
[i]"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka[/i]
|
Kant Boards
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:24:39 -
[253] - Quote
Michelle Monteleone wrote:Guess my 12 accounts are done as of January 1, 2015. I had fun while it lasted. First Warcraft removed /follow from pvp because of all the cry babies now CCP has removed multiboxing all together. The Eve universe is going to change quite a bit when all the resources people were pumping out with multiple accounts goes away. Merry Christmas CCP. Thanks for the lump of coal. See you cry babies in the next mmo I multibox in.
Get out |
Marc Callan
Thrall Nation
Brave Collective
492
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:25:15 -
[254] - Quote
By the way, out of curiosity, what's the difference between Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing?
(I ask as someone who'd be more likely to use ISBoxer to store frozen veggies than to slave multiple ships to one controller.)
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."
- Kurt Vonnegurt
|
Ssabat Thraxx
Dominion Tenebrarum
Reverberation Project
1012
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:25:38 -
[255] - Quote
CCP, I just want to say THANK YOU, and that you have TOTALLY REGAINED my respect. For once in this world, Integrity trumped the Almighty Dollar. I never thought Id see it.
MAD props to you, CCP. You got ballz, you got heart, you got my non-isboxing 5 accounts for a long time to come
\m/ O.o \m/
"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
|
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
2231
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:26:04 -
[256] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Aryth wrote:Props. You are going to see a pretty nasty sub hit from this. However, this is necessary. I just hope you can recover those subs quickly. It just shows that CCP values players over bot accounts.
Hate to break it to you but at least when it comes to mining, instead of players you can interact with controlling fleets, you'll see nothing but bots. You can look to resource gathering in every single mmo out there and the early years of this mmo for definitive proof.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
|
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
129
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:26:05 -
[257] - Quote
Michelle Monteleone wrote:Guess my 12 accounts are done as of January 1, 2015. I had fun while it lasted. First Warcraft removed /follow from pvp because of all the cry babies now CCP has removed multiboxing all together. The Eve universe is going to change quite a bit when all the resources people were pumping out with multiple accounts goes away. Merry Christmas CCP. Thanks for the lump of coal. See you cry babies in the next mmo I multibox in.
Bye :) |
350125GO
Transcendent Sedition
Protean Concept
134
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:26:56 -
[258] - Quote
With the multiboxers gone maybe the profit margins on manufacturing will rise again and make it a viable way to earn isk. It'll be great to watch the market. Wish Dr. E was still with CCP.
You're young, you'll adjust.
I'm old, I'll get used to it.
|
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
220
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:27:01 -
[259] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:The Sandbox ....What can be will be......except when we decide it's not to be. Compliments of CCP...
Feed me your multiboxing tears <3
[i]"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka[/i]
|
Thedaius
Repercussus
Goonswarm Federation
32
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:27:14 -
[260] - Quote
Capri Sun KraftFoods wrote:As someone who actually ISBox's bombers I'm a little upset.
The problem isn't ISBoxer. The problem is that bombs as they currently stand are completely broken Sure isboxer exacerbates the problem significantly, but you can still get 30 dudes into a fleet easily and go kill anything with 4 waves that isn't a T3 or a faction battleship. I'd be happy to see my bomber accounts become useless and de-sub them if it meant I didn't have to worry about getting hell bombed every other fleet.
That's bombs as intended. They are supposed to be able to do that if a successful bomber squadron can do it!
The key factor here is that one single person can no longer be the bombing squad for larger alliances like BL and GSF... Instead actual fleets will have to be formed with multiple people which increases the amount of mistakes made and reduces the overall success of Bombers. I do feel for you and several other's as you were independently valuable to your respective alliances.
But now this becomes an inclusive process that requires 10-30 dudes rather than an exclusive process that can be handled by 1-2 dudes.
Best of luck! |
|
|
DragonHelm III
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:27:24 -
[261] - Quote
padraig animal wrote:Radkiel wrote:[quote=Gina Taroen]lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D I just unsubbed all of my accounts, I'll play until the 1st then find another game. I fail to see how multiboxing affects anyone around me.
Why tell us you just unsubbed no-one here cares just leave quietly.
|
Mezzo Vaggio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:27:38 -
[262] - Quote
And now make Local in 0.0 Delayed so we can all Macrobots and EVE will be fine :) |
Errious
Stille Gewalt
Dead Terrorists
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:27:40 -
[263] - Quote
Yes CCP Falcon !
Bann them, bann them all and bann them really hard !!!
GòæGòÉGòÉGòÉGû¦MOONSIPHON BLOG (GERMAN)GùäGòÉGòÉGòÉGòæ
|
Fluoroantimonicacid
Nullbear Tear Extractors
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:27:44 -
[264] - Quote
Marc Callan wrote:By the way, out of curiosity, what's the difference between Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing?
(I ask as someone who'd be more likely to use ISBoxer to store frozen veggies than to slave multiple ships to one controller.)
Broadcast = send to all
Multicast = send to some |
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
129
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:27:57 -
[265] - Quote
Strata Maslav wrote:I can see both sides of the coin on this decision. My issue with this decision by CCP is the tardiness of it. CCP have done a u-turn on this stance and therefore left many players who have made significant investment in a specific play style out in the cold with little to show for it.
This thread seems mostly centred on people gloating on a 'victory' over people pursuing this play style. I for one would like my money back on accounts I will no longer have use for.
If CCP are going make a u-turn on policy they should be willing to reimburse those affected.
You paid for access to EVE. CCP has not taken that access away. |
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
220
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:28:25 -
[266] - Quote
Nituspar wrote:As someone who has extensively used ISBoxer for the last year I'd like to thank CCP for having the courage to make this change, and the way it's being implemented.
The grace time will allow people who invested heavily into the program some reprieve to make their investments back, and the general playerbase will not have to deal with singular people wiping out their fleets or multi-billion ships anymore, which was always terrible gameplay.
I believe this is a very positive change to New Eden, and the short-term loss of subscriber revenue will be more than made up for in the long run by players enjoying the game more as a result of it
Thumbs up and keep up the good work CCP
Holy crap mate! A sensible response? Here, have all my likes!
[i]"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka[/i]
|
DragonHelm III
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:28:57 -
[267] - Quote
Anslo wrote:Michelle Monteleone wrote:Guess my 12 accounts are done as of January 1, 2015. I had fun while it lasted. First Warcraft removed /follow from pvp because of all the cry babies now CCP has removed multiboxing all together. The Eve universe is going to change quite a bit when all the resources people were pumping out with multiple accounts goes away. Merry Christmas CCP. Thanks for the lump of coal. See you cry babies in the next mmo I multibox in. Good. As a vet of 7 years, get out. People like you, and other ~new~ scrubs who came in a few years ago after other vets left Eve made this game change, for the worse. With the changes being made now, the new rules, the new content, I am seeing old friends come back to Eve with a bit of hope that it won't be ****. If getting 1 or 2 honest to goodness pirate vets back, the ones who made pirating classy, means losing 100 ISBoxing scublords, I say good riddance. Now GET THE **** OUT
Could not have said it better myself |
Myopic Thyne
Shattered Paradigm
Eon.Apocalypse
31
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:29:19 -
[268] - Quote
Strata Maslav wrote:I can see both sides of the coin on this decision. My issue with this decision by CCP is the tardiness of it. CCP have done a u-turn on this stance and therefore left many players who have made significant investment in a specific play style out in the cold with little to show for it.
This thread seems mostly centred on people gloating on a 'victory' over people pursuing this play style. I for one would like my money back on accounts I will no longer have use for.
If CCP are going make a u-turn on policy they should be willing to reimburse those affected.
Still waiting on the reimbursement for the Drake and Hurricane pilots pre-teiricide. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2990
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:29:37 -
[269] - Quote
PLEX price crash in 3....2.....1....
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/
|
Prisoner11213
iMmortal Wings
Most Valuable Player
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:30:07 -
[270] - Quote
Ehm did someoen watch the plex prices ?? They are kind of droping fast .... ? Does that have anything to do whit this ?
http://i.imgur.com/Odqpt7c.gif
|
|
|
XXXMina
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:30:23 -
[271] - Quote
this is not right, you cant change the rules after 10 years, i got 5 accounts because it made sense with how the game is. now i cant use what little automation i take advantage of (just pressing the f keys ) . also jump fatigue and jump range change suxx: this is a space sim, way to clip our wings.
PS: im unsubbing all my accounts . you have till my 3 month sub runs out to fix this game. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1076
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:30:26 -
[272] - Quote
It is pretty funny that some folks think they have a case for getting reimbursed for following the Flavor Of The Month.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Riku Klayton
Positive Failure
Black Legion.
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:30:27 -
[273] - Quote
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:eiedu wrote:RIP incursions
RIP Ratting
RIP bombing
Time to go back to wow, where it makes no sense to have multiple accounts
How are you even going to "catch" people who are input-multiplexing hardware-wise
Bye :)
you took my words out of my fingers... |
Nevil Kincade
Dissident Aggressors
Mordus Angels
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:30:32 -
[274] - Quote
This comes over a decade too late. However, thanks !
The EULA has always been clear about input automation of any kind being forbidden. It's just that the company now starts living up to it's own standards. And that's why I am concerned that CCP will go too soft on the people searching for loopholes already.
Anyway it's a small step in the right direction and if CPP goes on, disperses the blob and breaks up the RMT cartell i might just end up paying real money for this game again one day. |
Aida Azizora
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:31:15 -
[275] - Quote
Quote:I fail to see how multiboxing affects anyone around me.
Because you're a special little snowflake.
How about playing with the big kids who manage multiple accounts without special assistance? |
Almethea
Trans Stellar Express
186
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:32:32 -
[276] - Quote
Radkiel wrote:Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D I just unsubbed all of my accounts, I'll play until the 1st then find another game. I fail to see how multiboxing affects anyone around me.
you are blind, we are sorry for you
Keeping active account just to shitpost
there's so many thing to fix in eve.... and they fix forum ! GJ! but ok i like it !
CCP Fozzie : AFK cloaking, however, is an entirely social form of power
|
embrel
BamBam Inc.
Outlanders United
203
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:32:37 -
[277] - Quote
Querns wrote:embrel wrote:Stephan Schneider wrote:all the lost money for ccp
i can see hundreds of mining alts just die
just change it so the ban only goes for pvp related activities They'll hardly lose a buck. Don't see a ISboxer actually paying for his accounts. Any drop in PLEX prices already?? A good day for Eve. And the whiners who whine that other people whined successfully... LOL Do you really think that people subscribing with PLEX somehow deny CCP a sale? People who PLEX their accounts are just paying with someone else's money. CCP gets theirs no matter what. In fact, every account sustained via PLEX grosses CCP 33% MORE money than the same account kept alive with a traditional subscription, due to PLEX costing $20 (compared to the traditional sub costing $15.)
What I am saying is that I doubt ISboxers paid money for their boxes. The guy buying plex does and most prolly will continue to do so. CCP cashflow will only marginally be affected by this wise decision. |
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1426
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:33:01 -
[278] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote:saved fittings dude.
just saying.
Fittings ain't the problem. Separating out a few hundred skillbooks is.
|
F3X5ON
Zero Fun Allowed
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:33:15 -
[279] - Quote
About time. |
Globby
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:33:28 -
[280] - Quote
Nevil Kincade wrote:This comes over a decade too late. However, thanks !
The EULA has always been clear about input automation of any kind being forbidden. It's just that the company now starts living up to it's own standards. And that's why I am concerned that CCP will go too soft on the people searching for loopholes already.
Anyway it's a small step in the right direction and if CPP goes on, disperses the blob and breaks up the RMT cartell i might just end up paying real money for this game again one day.
I hope you realize that subscribing your account with PLEX is as supportive of CCP as subscribing it with real money. |
|
|
Terrorfrodo
Renegade Hobbits for Mordor
696
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:33:35 -
[281] - Quote
Was the new trailer so successful in drawing new players that CCP think they can afford to lose all those multi accounts?
Well anyway, I support this. I don't think these auto-multiboxers contributed much to the game experience of anyone.
.
|
Radkiel
Everlasting Vendetta.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:33:48 -
[282] - Quote
Ancy Denaries wrote:Fiberton wrote:Hrm so Mining goods are about to sky rocket. Ok so I have never used one of these things you speak of but even I after over 10 years in the game know that this is a terrible idea. So when you are making decisions did you consult an accountant? You realize that you are prob going to reduce CCP income about 3M a year just from logins who will drop accounts that are used for that sort of thing ? Ok not to tell you guys how to run a company but just flying around for so many years and knowing persons who use that.. At least 5% of eve is just miners on isboxer. Good luck on driving into a brick wall or whatever you dudes do.. Phobe great idea. this.. I would consult an accountant. Adapt. Or. Die. The door is over there. ->
You didn't adapt, you just cried like a little ***** until you got you way. Anti-multi-boxers are all the same, they see something they can't or won't do, so it must be stopped. I really excepted a much more mature community in EvE but reading this thread reminds me of the WoW forums. Enjoy your shrinking community Ancy, you earned!
|
Cloora
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
131
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:34:38 -
[283] - Quote
So I use Synergy to connect 3 computers to a single KB/M. I run 5 accounts at the same time. I have to send commands to each client separately. Most of the time each character is using a different kind of ship. This is still allowed correct?
http://www.altaholics.blogspot.com
|
Luscius Uta
114
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:34:57 -
[284] - Quote
As a fan of replicator, I'm genuienely saddened by this :(
I think it's pretty easy to figure out who pushed forward this change as replicator's bombers caused more Goon losses than entire 0.0 alliances
But I still think CCP shot themselves in a foot with this decision as it will cause a big drop in active subsciptions
Highsec sucks.
|
Reznoriam
Viziam
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:35:23 -
[285] - Quote
After CCP tanked WhiteWolf and the WOD MMO, this is just the last straw.
http://s11.postimg.org/x6ftdxve7/Capture.jpg |
Skippy Peanut
The Great Harmon Institute Of Technology
Enemy Spotted.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:35:27 -
[286] - Quote
will this guy with accounts called "replicator00xx" be an example to be banned ?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/smp1j3m6bh41jf1/Replicator00%202014.08.23.22.38.44.png?dl=0
replicator00
o/ |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2992
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:35:28 -
[287] - Quote
Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D
I wonder how many people will come back and re-sub because of this.
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/
|
Aida Azizora
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:36:19 -
[288] - Quote
XXXMina wrote:this is not right, you cant change the rules after 10 years, i got 5 accounts because it made sense with how the game is. now i cant use what little automation i take advantage of (just pressing the f keys ) . also jump fatigue and jump range change suxx: this is a space sim, way to clip our wings.
This IS right. You want 5 accounts, PLAY 5 accounts. Or is that beyond your capabilities?
Quote:PS: im unsubbing all my accounts . you have till my 3 month sub runs out to fix this game.
Buh bye! |
Not Primary Disengage
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:36:41 -
[289] - Quote
this is a mistake. i would not have resubscribed if I knew this would be restricted.
No other MMO restricts this and no other MMO is as well suited towards it as EVE.
Perhaps fixing your game is the solution and not banning activities that exploit its flaws.
Disappointing how Devs can make a complete 180.
Please refund my accounts. |
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
132
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:36:51 -
[290] - Quote
Cloora wrote:So I use Synergy to connect 3 computers to a single KB/M. I run 5 accounts at the same time. I have to send commands to each client separately. Most of the time each character is using a different kind of ship. This is still allowed correct?
Yes. because you are manually playing each client on it's own. |
|
|
irion felpamy
The Drag queen in space fan club
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:37:05 -
[291] - Quote
I give CCP a lot of crap over a lot of things, I really feel it would be unfair not to give them a honest "good job" for this one. |
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
132
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:37:39 -
[292] - Quote
Bye :) |
Ssabat Thraxx
Dominion Tenebrarum
Reverberation Project
1015
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:37:44 -
[293] - Quote
DragonHelm III wrote:padraig animal wrote:Radkiel wrote:[quote=Gina Taroen]lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D I just unsubbed all of my accounts, I'll play until the 1st then find another game. I fail to see how multiboxing affects anyone around me. Why tell us you just unsubbed no-one here cares just leave quietly.
Oh no, I don't want them to leave quietly, I want to savor every single tear! CRY MOAR BITCHES!!
\m/ O.o \m/
"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
|
Longtom McGregor
Perkone
Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:38:10 -
[294] - Quote
I AM JUS REGULAR ORDNARY PLAYER.
I JUS USUB MAH 36 ACCOUNT. AH CAN NO LONGER FARM ISK FOR EBAY.
CCP SUK BIG TIEM ****.
HOW WIL I KILL CAPITAL WITH 30 DAY TRIAL FRIGAT NOW? HUH U TEL ME THAT? U SUK CCP.
OR HOLD GATE FROM WHOL FLEET MYSELF?
YOU TEL ME THAT, CPC. |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
2232
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:38:47 -
[295] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D I wonder how many people will come back and re-sub because of this.
How many old MMOs have you resubed to because they banned multiboxing?
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
|
Chalithra Lathar
Rhongomiant Legion Industries
The Explicit Alliance
21
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:39:06 -
[296] - Quote
ISboxer here.
To be completely honest, multiboxing was the primary reason I even considered trying EVE online in the first place. I would not be posting on these forums today if not for the fact that ISboxing was allowed in the game.
Seeing a move like this is a real bummer, but kudos for spelling it out before hand instead of doing it Blizzard style and ninjaing it in.
unfortunately, I like to speak with my wallet with this issue, and can no longer support CCP at this time.
It will be interesting to see the effect of not only the in-game markets, but the subscriber numbers as a whole.
fly safe o7 |
Infinite Destruction
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:39:36 -
[297] - Quote
Lol at all the fake "I'm going to unsub all (xxx) of my accounts" posts that always happen every time CCP changes something (like they don't know what a load of BS that is). Here's a hint - they actually do have accountants and people who can make fancy graphs and charts and see just how few people (if any) actually do unsub their accounts, especially on a whim minutes after a new change is posted.
I've been running 6 accounts on yearly subs for almost 6 years now. Still don't have a clue how to macro anything and can't be bothered trying to automate anything. Just alt-tab my @ss off (my left thumb and middle finger are almost twice as big and muscly as the ones on my right hand) ! At best I run 4 clients on one computer and 2 on the other, crappier (Alienware POS). Fine for indy, PI, research, but for PvP I rarely run more than 2 clients at a time.
Then again, I pay to play because I enjoy playing the game. I could care less what my "isk/hour" ratio is because I don't play to make isk, I play for fun and entertainment. That is also why I've never try to automate anything. It's a challenge to me to run everything manually, having to flip back and forth between clients and remember what each was doing. Just the idea of being able to click one button and having all 6 clients do the same thing at the same time seems.......boring. Even when I have all 6 running at the same time, I rarely have more than 2-3 of them doing the same thing at once anyways.
I recall back in my earliest days of EVE that "botters" and people running scripts were despised and hunted down (and/or reported). Seems the problem just kept getting worse to the point where you enter a system and see 25 names (miner1, miner2, miner3...miner 25) and people keep coming up with new ways to get around the rules.
Won't be any different this time. Lots of moaners threatening to quit. Lots of "but my case is different, even if it's exactly the same as 2,000 other people have already mentioned". Lots of tears (from indies and gankers it seems) but in the end very little will change. |
HC GularTog
HC Dude's Rough Riders
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:40:08 -
[298] - Quote
Great news .... been watching too many isboxers just vaporizing a target using this crap. I myself got toasted in a 115K HP Gnosis ... instantly & podded in the blink of any eye by 10 Maelstroms ... or that Borg Sphere that loves to have like 47 ships wipe out a entire ice belt in 12 min ....
CCP, I understand that "To err is human", but it shouldn't be the Company Motto...
|
Bisu Deckryder
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:40:40 -
[299] - Quote
Not Primary Disengage wrote:this is a mistake. i would not have resubscribed if I knew this would be restricted.
No other MMO restricts this and no other MMO is as well suited towards it as EVE.
Perhaps fixing your game is the solution and not banning activities that exploit its flaws.
Disappointing how Devs can make a complete 180.
Please refund my accounts.
Well then, go back to wow. |
Budsin Adar
Blue Angel's
Joint Alliance Blue
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:41:44 -
[300] - Quote
My Question is okay multi boxing is okay!! i can understand that now the ones that are allowing it as bots instead of banning them which makes sense to all of us. My question is when they do that why can't we shoot them and keep the ships or loot just have them show also as an NPC free kills they would get the hint and have to start over when there pods are floating in space.. we all could use the practice Right guys and gals?  not being a care bare on this but it would be fun and give others points shoot for the lulz and others grab the ore we all could use it thanks fly safe or freely everyone o7 |
|
|
Sarah Shadow
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:42:02 -
[301] - Quote
I would really like a refund on the guys ive had training for a month and just got moved into null.
Tad frustrating that this is the material change in the EULA they made. |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
27
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:42:38 -
[302] - Quote
he already posted in this thread that he will find other uses for his 32 accounts. :) |
Alexa Machavela
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:44:24 -
[303] - Quote
Capri Sun KraftFoods wrote:As someone who actually ISBox's bombers I'm a little upset.
The problem isn't ISBoxer. The problem is that bombs as they currently stand are completely broken Sure isboxer exacerbates the problem significantly, but you can still get 30 dudes into a fleet easily and go kill anything with 4 waves that isn't a T3 or a faction battleship. I'd be happy to see my bomber accounts become useless and de-sub them if it meant I didn't have to worry about getting hell bombed every other fleet.
So, let me get this straight. You're upset because you don't have 29 friends to go out on bomber runs with you and you're blaming said lack of friends on bomber mechanics? Most people rely on their personality for acquiring friends, but not you clearly. Perhaps you should reevaluate your problem, as I think the people with friends have already found that relying on personality, and not bomber mechanics, is a much better solution.
Wait, we can't stop here, this is Bat Country
-Nulli
|
Laughable Xhosa Girl
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:44:31 -
[304] - Quote
YOU HAVE BEEN FREED FROM THE SHACKLES OF PLAYING EVE |
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union
The Unthinkables
178
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:44:46 -
[305] - Quote
I support this change and/or tear-generating feature.
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2008"
|
Jur Grady
Red Ochre Mining and Exploration
Fatal Ascension
8
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:45:23 -
[306] - Quote
Not Primary Disengage wrote:this is a mistake. i would not have resubscribed if I knew this would be restricted.
No other MMO restricts this and no other MMO is as well suited towards it as EVE.
Perhaps fixing your game is the solution and not banning activities that exploit its flaws.
Disappointing how Devs can make a complete 180.
Please refund my accounts.
I would also point out that they are fixing the game they are closing this loophole you have been using to ISbox. Also you admit to exploiting the game in a post on their forums sounds like a good plan. |
Bisu Deckryder
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:46:18 -
[307] - Quote
Sarah Shadow wrote:I would really like a refund on the guys ive had training for a month and just got moved into null.
Tad frustrating that this is the material change in the EULA they made.
Renter tears, its glorious. Maybe just learn to alt tab?
In Seagull we trust. |
Anslo
Scope Works
22584
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:46:25 -
[308] - Quote
QUEUE THE 1812 OVERTURE
[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
|
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
226
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:47:18 -
[309] - Quote
Radkiel wrote:You didn't adapt, you just cried like a little ***** until you got you way. Anti-multi-boxers are all the same, they see something they can't or won't do, so it must be stopped. I really excepted a much more mature community in EvE but reading this thread reminds me of the WoW forums. Enjoy your shrinking community Ancy, you earned!
*cackle*
That's cute, botboy. But yes, I will thoroughly enjoy my more active and participating community without the likes of you, thank you very much! ^_^
[i]"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka[/i]
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1084
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:47:29 -
[310] - Quote
Jur Grady wrote:Not Primary Disengage wrote:this is a mistake. i would not have resubscribed if I knew this would be restricted.
No other MMO restricts this and no other MMO is as well suited towards it as EVE.
Perhaps fixing your game is the solution and not banning activities that exploit its flaws.
Disappointing how Devs can make a complete 180.
Please refund my accounts. I would also point out that they are fixing the game they are closing this loophole you have been using to ISbox. Also you admit to exploiting the game in a post on their forums sounds like a good plan.
To be fair, they are instituting a grace period whereupon anyone who mulitplexes inputs is not banned.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
|
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
Unsettled.
157
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:47:53 -
[311] - Quote
Sarah Shadow wrote:I would really like a refund on the guys ive had training for a month and just got moved into null.
Tad frustrating that this is the material change in the EULA they made.
Why? This change doesn't affect your characters in any way. |
Literally Space Moses
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
108
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:48:11 -
[312] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:As a fan of replicator, I'm genuienely saddened by this :(
I think it's pretty easy to figure out who pushed forward this change as replicator's bombers caused more Goon losses than entire 0.0 alliances
But I still think CCP shot themselves in a foot with this decision as it will cause a big drop in active subsciptions
Uhh, Replicator works for the CFC. Like, he's on our side, sorry.
#T2013
|
Pivke Anneto
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:48:22 -
[313] - Quote
this is just full of awesomeness :D
BEFORE YOU PEOPLE START UNSUBSCRIBING!
i would like to buy:
-one scuicide ganking character (catalyst&talos trained)
-one perfect miner (all T2 crystals and stuff)
FOR VERY CHEAP!
i will post in character bazaar forum soon, so you can start undercutting each other :)
its your chance to make a little bit of ISK on character you wont use any more! |
Michael Ignis Archangel
Caveat Emptor Technologies LP
Spaceship Samurai
62
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:48:26 -
[314] - Quote
Personally, I like this, and I use ISboxer. Yes, I'll have to cycle through screens to launch and recall drones, take gates, set up cap chains, etc. now - but for the sake of the game's health it's a great trade. I'll still keep the program for the tiling and window-switching alone.
At the end of the day, if you have too many accounts to make this feasible, you have too many accounts. I believe there should be a cost to controlling an additional account.
Thanks for the clarification, I think this will help the game a great deal. Something felt funny about bomber/ganking fleets of 10+ controlled by a single person.
And if this is the precursor to some more-interactive form of mining, well, I might actually go back to doing it more often! |
Galmas
united system's commonwealth
187
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:48:38 -
[315] - Quote
Fluoroantimonicacid wrote:Galmas wrote:This has potential to become the second best expansion since w-space. The best part about it is that basically nothing can go wrong since not a single line of code will have to be changed! challenge accepted -Replicator note: it only takes a few bombers to cap out a w space cap escalation carrier, and I can easily do this if you triage in a site, also with 32 accts, lets say I put 8 in each WH... I can have 12 C5 holes permanently camped with 8 bombers each.
Sorry mate, we only use triage carriers for pvp.
|
Utari Onzo
united system's commonwealth
26
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:49:52 -
[316] - Quote
The thing that makes me laugh are the ISBoxer users asking for refunds.
They have paid for subscription time, and been given that time. CCP was under no obligation to 'garauntee' to customers that their intentions for the characters use would still be applicable in the future. CCP didn't explicitely state that my training for a sentry drone Dominix for PVP last year would be a garaunteed OK and my 'playstyle' wouldn't get nerfed.
These characters could all be retrained into market alts, scouts, fleet boosters, or heavens forbid the ISboxers could just manually operate them, but no. Instead they demand a refund when they have recieved exactly what CCP promised them. A set amount of time to play in the sandbox. Please take your entitled attitude elsewhere. |
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
226
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:49:54 -
[317] - Quote
XXXMina wrote:this is not right, you cant change the rules after 10 years, i got 5 accounts because it made sense with how the game is. now i cant use what little automation i take advantage of (just pressing the f keys ) . also jump fatigue and jump range change suxx: this is a space sim, way to clip our wings.
PS: im unsubbing all my accounts . you have till my 3 month sub runs out to fix this game.
Cry moar? "You can't". Err, they very much can. It's their game. Their rules.
[i]"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka[/i]
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1390
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:50:43 -
[318] - Quote
SheShell wrote:subsciptions will have dropped a lot by the end of this month
no, probably not even one if they are all financed from buying plex in Jita.
Play the Game, You never know you may find the game fun, After all you cannot roll naked in a mountain of isk.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Jarod Garamonde
Sardaukar Merc Guild
General Tso's Alliance
2248
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:51:04 -
[319] - Quote
Zishy Linaris wrote:goodbye ccp. 12 accounts unsubbed as of now. i feel bullshitted for my time i invested but **** happens
Give me your stuff.
That moment when you realize the crazy lady with all the cats was right...
[#savethelance]
|
Anslo
Scope Works
22584
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:51:16 -
[320] - Quote
THE STRUGGLE IS OVER
[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
|
|
|
RoAnnon
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
15911
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:51:35 -
[321] - Quote
Artemis Dalvik wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:So, does this mean no more Mac support? wtf does this have to do with mac support?
I use MAC and have no idea what this could possibly do to my gameplay
So, you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.
|
Civ Zomas
Deep Space Engineering INC
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:52:14 -
[322] - Quote
This is possibly the best news ever.
Dear ISBoxers, I look forward to buying some of your surplus alts.
Might start PLEXing my accounts again if the price goes down like I anticipate. |
Viktor Fel
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
78
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:53:03 -
[323] - Quote
About time CCP, a step in the right direction.
Who is Viktor Fel?
Killboard
|
Bisu Deckryder
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:53:24 -
[324] - Quote
Echoing the previous poster, wtb perfecting mining and or ganking toon for dirt cheap. Maybe a afktar pilot as well |
Utari Onzo
united system's commonwealth
26
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:53:44 -
[325] - Quote
Bisu Deckryder wrote:Echoing the previous poster, wtb perfecting mining and or ganking toon for dirt cheap. Maybe a afktar pilot as well
NOT EVEN EMPTY QUOTING |
Alexa Machavela
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:54:13 -
[326] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:As a fan of replicator, I'm genuienely saddened by this :(
I think it's pretty easy to figure out who pushed forward this change as replicator's bombers caused more Goon losses than entire 0.0 alliances
But I still think CCP shot themselves in a foot with this decision as it will cause a big drop in active subsciptions
Funny. Players were complaining about automated multiboxers (ISBox) is highsec when the ISBoxers would clean out all the belts in many highsec systems, and none of those miners were Goons. FYI, replicator got tired on the nonsense and joined us. So much for the usual GRR GONS argument.
Wait, we can't stop here, this is Bat Country
-Nulli
|
Lady Ayeipsia
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
829
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:54:15 -
[327] - Quote
Ming Vue wrote:well thats 22 accounts unsubbed time to head ot highsec
I doubt you paid in cash for those accounts. instead you bought 22 plex. Those 22 plex are now on the market, adding to the overall supply. Higher supply, less demand means a drop in price for Plex.
So 22 accounts that could not buy plexs at 1 bil can resubscribe when prices hit 750 mil maybe. No net loss in accounts.
Plus, as Plex prices drop, people will have to pay more cash to CCP to equal the same isk value.
Seems like a win for CCP and for the indivuals as a whole over the 1%er ISBoxers. |
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria
Yulai Federation
36
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:54:51 -
[328] - Quote
ISbox headshot, pimp bomber again now ;D
|
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:55:10 -
[329] - Quote
Utari Onzo wrote:The thing that makes me laugh are the ISBoxer users asking for refunds.
They have paid for subscription time, and been given that time. CCP was under no obligation to 'garauntee' to customers that their intentions for the characters use would still be applicable in the future. CCP didn't explicitely state that my training for a sentry drone Dominix for PVP last year would be a garaunteed OK and my 'playstyle' wouldn't get nerfed.
These characters could all be retrained into market alts, scouts, fleet boosters, or heavens forbid the ISboxers could just manually operate them, but no. Instead they demand a refund when they have recieved exactly what CCP promised them. A set amount of time to play in the sandbox. Please take your entitled attitude elsewhere.
35 days notice on 180degree turnaround on their own policy is not okay
It's downright extortion
Example:
If you pay me money to go to theme park for a specific ride, you like the rollercoasters cause of the pretty lights n stuff
I say of course you may enter, I have a policy that dictates how I must behave and such, what you want to do is legal and hundreds of other people have been doing it for years
You grin, pay over your moneyzzzz and enter
3 feet in Miley comes in like a wrecking ball and bye bye the rollercoasters
Sad right? |
Alexa Machavela
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:57:15 -
[330] - Quote
Radkiel wrote:Ancy Denaries wrote:Fiberton wrote:Hrm so Mining goods are about to sky rocket. Ok so I have never used one of these things you speak of but even I after over 10 years in the game know that this is a terrible idea. So when you are making decisions did you consult an accountant? You realize that you are prob going to reduce CCP income about 3M a year just from logins who will drop accounts that are used for that sort of thing ? Ok not to tell you guys how to run a company but just flying around for so many years and knowing persons who use that.. At least 5% of eve is just miners on isboxer. Good luck on driving into a brick wall or whatever you dudes do.. Phobe great idea. this.. I would consult an accountant. Adapt. Or. Die. The door is over there. -> You didn't adapt, you just cried like a little ***** until you got you way. Anti-multi-boxers are all the same, they see something they can't or won't do, so it must be stopped. I really excepted a much more mature community in EvE but reading this thread reminds me of the WoW forums. Enjoy your shrinking community Ancy, you earned!
When you ISBox more accounts than you could ever play by individually controlling your characters, you are actually paying for ISBox to play EVE. Why pay for a program (that doesn't actually care) to play games? Play them yourself. What a novel idea.
Wait, we can't stop here, this is Bat Country
-Nulli
|
|
|
Nostonica
Heart of Pyerite
Imperial Outlaws.
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:57:42 -
[331] - Quote
Was rather disheartened by this news i had rather fuzzy idea's about running 2 guardians via isboxer some time in the future.
But...
This will make mining worth doing again.
And the best dps from bombers will take the best co-ordination. Those groups that shine will do the big dps and those that are subpar will do subpar dps.
All in all this is one less way that players can break the game. |
Ginger Barbarella
2033
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:58:05 -
[332] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned.
Well that's clear as mud.
"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
|
Anslo
Scope Works
22589
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:58:06 -
[333] - Quote
HostageTaker wrote:2003 Vet here, CCP you're making me less bitter!... STOP!
LIGHT THE SIGNAL FIRES AND SOUND THE HORNS OF GONDOR, LET THE BITTER VETS KNOW EVE IS ALIVE AGAIN AND TO RESUB
[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
|
Kant Boards
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:58:09 -
[334] - Quote
ITS HAPPENING
(9:11:20 AM) Price information for 30 Day Pilot's License Extension (PLEX) in Jita:
Buy - Max: 910,000,900.00 Min: 4,750,000.00 Average: 745,481,861.72 Volume: 1,422
Sell - Min: 934,988,999.00 Max: 2,500,000,000.00 Average: 994,303,052.94 Volume: 1,405
(9:31:34 AM) Price information for 30 Day Pilot's License Extension (PLEX) in Jita:
Buy - Max: 898,611,111.00 Min: 2,500,000.00 Average: 722,243,575.98 Volume: 1,247
Sell - Min: 908,898,897.00 Max: 2,500,000,000.00 Average: 987,750,257.58 Volume: 1,387 |
FZappa
Heretics Corp
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:59:03 -
[335] - Quote
this is .. interesting  .
i guess its time to downsize my mining fleet , i only used to isbox 6 miners ,
but since broadcasting is not allowed anymore i dont see a point in subbing all 6 . probably go
down to 3 , more manageable to manually control. i can imagine the people using 20+ accounts dropping
most of those now.
side effect would include massive amounts of mining toons going up for sale , steep increase in
mineral and ice prices , decrease in plex prices (?) . fun fun.
|
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1296
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:59:27 -
[336] - Quote
Simsung Padecain wrote:At last.
Eve was the only MMO game I've played in my long career that allowed automation in such manner, for a very, very long time.
Now that this option isn't available for much longer, all I can say is thank you for finally sobering up and making this step.
THANK YOU
Since you're living in a cave or a hole somewhere, many games like WoW, FFXIV, and others actually allow this. they allow multi-client broadcasting, just not botting. |
Sven Viko VIkolander
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
306
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:00:22 -
[337] - Quote
PRAISE BOB
Praise the flying-spaghetti monster and its noodly appendages.
CCP, making the right choices! Nice work! |
Mikalas T
Free Throbbing Veinal Penii For Spacmens
Mutually Assured Destruction.
10
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:00:28 -
[338] - Quote
I have a space hard-on for soon tm good times and flourishing this will bring.
Also, boxerbros, please remember the longer you wait to character bazaar your miners/VG toons, the more saturated the market will be. So go do it quickly, i'm after some nightmare pilots.
|
Not Primary Disengage
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:02:17 -
[339] - Quote
Utari Onzo wrote:The thing that makes me laugh are the ISBoxer users asking for refunds.
They have paid for subscription time, and been given that time. CCP was under no obligation to 'garauntee' to customers that their intentions for the characters use would still be applicable in the future. CCP didn't explicitely state that my training for a sentry drone Dominix for PVP last year would be a garaunteed OK and my 'playstyle' wouldn't get nerfed.
These characters could all be retrained into market alts, scouts, fleet boosters, or heavens forbid the ISboxers could just manually operate them, but no. Instead they demand a refund when they have recieved exactly what CCP promised them. A set amount of time to play in the sandbox. Please take your entitled attitude elsewhere.
Of course they are under no obligation, just like I am under no obligation to give to charity or do nice things for other people. But it is certainly misleading this whole situation. |
Scarlett IX
Super Squirrel Omni Jump League
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:02:27 -
[340] - Quote
Aww this is so Awesome been waiting for this day a very long time. Life is sweet
Christmas did come early |
|
|
Bisu Deckryder
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:02:56 -
[341] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned. Well that's clear as mud.
Using isboxxer to input a command once and have multiple toons do it is banned, or any other thing that does that. You can still use it to manage your overlay. |
KeeperRus
Exanimo Inc
Gentlemen's.Club
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:03:11 -
[342] - Quote
I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly. |
Utari Onzo
united system's commonwealth
26
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:03:22 -
[343] - Quote
Lee Sin Priest wrote:Utari Onzo wrote:The thing that makes me laugh are the ISBoxer users asking for refunds.
They have paid for subscription time, and been given that time. CCP was under no obligation to 'garauntee' to customers that their intentions for the characters use would still be applicable in the future. CCP didn't explicitely state that my training for a sentry drone Dominix for PVP last year would be a garaunteed OK and my 'playstyle' wouldn't get nerfed.
These characters could all be retrained into market alts, scouts, fleet boosters, or heavens forbid the ISboxers could just manually operate them, but no. Instead they demand a refund when they have recieved exactly what CCP promised them. A set amount of time to play in the sandbox. Please take your entitled attitude elsewhere. 35 days notice on 180degree turnaround on their own policy is not okay It's downright extortion Example: If you pay me money to go to theme park for a specific ride, you like the rollercoasters cause of the pretty lights n stuff I say of course you may enter, I have a policy that dictates how I must behave and such, what you want to do is legal and hundreds of other people have been doing it for years You grin, pay over your moneyzzzz and enter 3 feet in Miley comes in like a wrecking ball and bye bye the rollercoasters Sad right?
Funny that, because that's 5 days more notice then a landlord has to give you in this contry before raising the rent or evicting you. That's more then enough time to change skill plans, sell the characters, find a new play style, or find a different game to play.
To go on with your anaology, in this example I have paid a ticket at the theme park to enter the theme park. There are other rides available and other services there I can use. By law, I cannot recieve a refund as I was given exactly what I paid for. The company might give me a refund if I complain, but they are udner no obligation to do so.
You have not had EVE taken away from you, you have simply had one of a myriad of options to play this game taken and now like a child you are spitting out the dummy and refusing to try something else. If you can only play eve by using broadcasting software and not by actually manually using your alts, that is not CCPs fault. |
Godfrey Silvarna
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
154
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:03:24 -
[344] - Quote
Pivke Anneto wrote:this is just full of awesomeness :D
BEFORE YOU PEOPLE START UNSUBSCRIBING!
i would like to buy:
-one scuicide ganking character (catalyst&talos trained)
-one perfect miner (all T2 crystals and stuff)
FOR VERY CHEAP!
i will post in character bazaar forum soon, so you can start undercutting each other :)
its your chance to make a little bit of ISK on character you wont use any more!
I like your way of thinking, good madam. I will eagerly follow your example, and keep an eye open in the character bazaar for cheap bomber alts. |
Nerdz Rool
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:04:07 -
[345] - Quote
Lol Awesome!
My wife thanks you ccp. Thats 105$ she can spend on Qwertee each month now.
Im dropping 7 out of 8 accounts for now then. No hard feelings, I understand that many people in EVE didn't like players multiboxing in PVP or PVE, so whatever you feel will bring up the player experience im cool with.
Everyone just needs to learn how to adapt. I really hope that this doesn't hurt the bottom line for EVE too much though as I really love this game.
|
Rawthorm
D.M.T inc
Circle-Of-Two
24
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:05:01 -
[346] - Quote
While I've never used software like ISBoxer, I can imagine that it's use probably increased quality of life for most non-ISBox using eve players.
BomberBox fleets were quite rare and despite the number of butt hurt people who've clearly not been paying attention and got caught by one, I don't think they began to come close to outweighing the benefits such as making Ice easy to harvest leaving the rest of us time to actually play the more fun aspects of EvE rather than spend half our lives slowly grinding icecubes.
Almost every player in EvE has benefited from cheaper fuel and cheaper ships because of those using ISBoxer, so is an overriding ban worth it just to get rid of a few trolling bombers on your space?
I think it's seriously time for CCP to look into quality of life improvements for running infrastructure and give us bigger and better gear to use (and put at risk) to cut down the time spent doing all the boring monotonous stuff. |
Jasahl Toruken
DNS Requiem
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:05:03 -
[347] - Quote
I use ISBoxer with 5 accounts. The way I use it does not include any automation. I use the DxNothing feature to bring multiple aspects of the UI from each client to one screen. Every click and mouse movement is unique to each client. And from my interpretation, that type of use is acceptable.
"Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing"
Is using one account to broadcast the mouse movements and clicks to multiple other clients. Much like one might do with a mining or pvp fleet. Where the UI layouts are identical for each client and the user only moves and clicks on one client.
Basically if one click equals multiple actions, then stop doing it. |
Odysseus Rhodes
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:05:43 -
[348] - Quote
+1 for the return of cooperative mining ... with other players.
ISBoxer can die in a plasma fire and buried in a pile of *****. |
Herrin Asura
Vengance Inc.
Nulli Secunda
23
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:05:53 -
[349] - Quote
This is great.
Good decision CCP.
You will lose subs but the game and the economy will get healthier and in my opinion that will help to get more real people into Eve Online.
Today you showed us that you have the balls to make decisions against your income in favor of Eve and the Community. Thank you. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
13994
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:07:03 -
[350] - Quote
KeeperRus wrote:I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly.
If they are banning its use after all this time then its safe to say they figured out how.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
Utari Onzo
united system's commonwealth
27
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:07:09 -
[351] - Quote
Nerdz Rool wrote:Lol Awesome!
My wife thanks you ccp. Thats 105$ she can spend on Qwertee each month now.
Im dropping 7 out of 8 accounts for now then. No hard feelings, I understand that many people in EVE didn't like players multiboxing in PVP or PVE, so whatever you feel will bring up the player experience im cool with.
Everyone just needs to learn how to adapt. I really hope that this doesn't hurt the bottom line for EVE too much though as I really love this game.
Multiboxing is still a-ok, especially in PVP. I multibox in PVP ALL THE TIME. It's being able to do it across multiple accounts simultaniously off one button press that is going. You can still multibox 30 bombers with ISBoxer, you just have to manually click all the buttons now. |
KeeperRus
Exanimo Inc
Gentlemen's.Club
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:07:28 -
[352] - Quote
What many people don't understand is that they won't sell their accounts. You can still use 10+ accounts and mouse 5 and manually select each broadcast from the window which was actually easier than the broadcast by itself. This won't change anything. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
13994
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:07:51 -
[353] - Quote
Mharius Skjem wrote:Ginger Barbarella wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned. Well that's clear as mud. Well that was a CSM post, the Dev post is the one that I am interested in. That made it pretty clear IS boxer is banned.
They didnt ban IS boxer, just everything it does
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Bisu Deckryder
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:07:54 -
[354] - Quote
Jasahl Toruken wrote:I use ISBoxer with 5 accounts. The way I use it does not include any automation. I use the DxNothing feature to bring multiple aspects of the UI from each client to one screen. Every click and mouse movement is unique to each client. And from my interpretation, that type of use is acceptable.
"Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing"
Is using one account to broadcast the mouse movements and clicks to multiple other clients. Much like one might do with a mining or pvp fleet. Where the UI layouts are identical for each client and the user only moves and clicks on one client.
Basically if one click equals multiple actions, then stop doing it.
Yup you're safe next year |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4265
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:08:11 -
[355] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned. Well that's clear as mud.
Good thing that it's after an devblog which goes into a lot more detail.
People focus on isboxer doing input multiplexing. But that's not all it does. The multiplexing and broadcasting are banned activities. The screen management isn't.
(note: I'm not a lawyer, and I don't speak for CCP. So you can't point at this, in the event I'm wrong. I'm pretty sure I'm not)
It's like a gun in the US. you can take it to a range and shoot. that's legal. Or you can take it to a mall and shoot people. That's not legal.
Guns aren't banned by making shooting people with them illegal. Clearer?
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
105
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:08:22 -
[356] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:
Good Stuffz
Better late than never +1 |
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
281
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:08:35 -
[357] - Quote
CCP Falcon, you stated multi boxing isn't banned in the thread of mine you locked.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5241567#post5241567
But In your own policy you seem to walk a very fine line between multi boxing and input duplication (using a mouse and keyboard to control multiple clients).
Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters
So per your last statement you called my post rumor mongering, which I really am not. The entire point of isboxer is to allow a mouse and keyboard to control multiple clients effectively. This will kill a major reason to use such software.
http://eveservers.info/index.php?topic=123.msg126#new
A fully functional Server platform dedicated to your Corp / Alliances IT needs!
|
Petrus Blackshell
Scrap Metal Squadron
3215
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:08:53 -
[358] - Quote
ISBotters be like.
Accidentally The Whole Frigate (blog) - Learning how to pew pew, one loss at a time - www.thewholefrigate.com
|
Strata Maslav
V0LTA
Triumvirate.
108
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:09:13 -
[359] - Quote
The SMUG in this thread is pretty sickening not very conducive for discussion. I play and love the same game you guys do and unfortunately I will be removing some of my monetary support from this game as a result of a decision that CCP has made out of the blue.
This change will not effect my over all eve game play. I am not a heavy user of the broadcast function of the Isboxing software. I mainly use it to manage my windows and have used the controversial 'Isboxer broadcast + bomber' combination with 5 characters only once.
Recently and before this u-turn by CCP, I did invest in a couple more accounts but this recent change has pretty much condemned them to be immediately unsubbed. Even with this action the 'investment' of time and money that I have put into these accounts feels like it has been wasted.
I purchased these subscriptions from CCP to play their game in a specific fashion which at the time was considered legitimate by CCP. I have liked the direction that CCP have been moving towards with EVE Online and I will by no means be quitting the game due to this change but I do have a bad taste left in my mouth.
I cannot speculate CCP's reasoning for announcing this today but the delay on making this statement has caused some people supporting the game to feel they have been deceived. |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
67
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:09:34 -
[360] - Quote
Not Primary Disengage wrote:this is a mistake. i would not have resubscribed if I knew this would be restricted.
No other MMO restricts this and no other MMO is as well suited towards it as EVE.
Perhaps fixing your game is the solution and not banning activities that exploit its flaws.
Disappointing how Devs can make a complete 180.
Please refund my accounts.
No other MMO restricts this? NCSoft bans ISBoxer from its games.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
|
|
July Manson
Breaking Bones
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:10:06 -
[361] - Quote
That are great news, damned, i have to open up a beer! |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
13994
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:10:12 -
[362] - Quote
So honest question here. Is this rig still legit or is it also banned?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Hulasikali Walla
Never Mind the Bollocks
83
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:11:00 -
[363] - Quote
Great move CCP . |
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
238
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:11:04 -
[364] - Quote
*failpost*
[i]"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka[/i]
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1092
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:11:06 -
[365] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:CCP Falcon, you stated multi boxing isn't banned in the thread of mine you locked. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5241567#post5241567
But In your own policy you seem to walk a very fine line between multi boxing and input duplication (using a mouse and keyboard to control multiple clients). Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters So per your last statement you called my post rumor mongering, which I really am not. The entire point of isboxer is to allow a mouse and keyboard to control multiple clients effectively. This will kill a major reason to use such software.
The point is that isboxer has legitimate uses outside of input multiplexing, and that those uses aren't being banned. You can continue to use the CPU management properties of the software, as well as its ability to tile windows and its hotkeys for switching between them. Yes, the primary benefit of using the software is being castrated, but it does not render the whole thing against the rules.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources
Silent Infinity
57
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:11:18 -
[366] - Quote
Who are you and what have you done to the CCP as we knew it (not only this change but what's been happening over maybe the last half year)?
The irony is that a woman had to take the helm in order for CCP to grow some balls.
I love it. Keep it up!
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Sir Constantin
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:11:41 -
[367] - Quote
Goodbye ISBoxers!
We wont miss you as you barely generate any content, only isk printing and deflation.
If -10 isboxer = +2 real players that's a win for the game.
I'm gonna start paying for my alts just to counter the isboxer unsub rage! |
Kant Boards
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:11:54 -
[368] - Quote
Strata Maslav wrote:The SMUG in this thread is pretty sickening not very conducive for discussion. I play and love the same game you guys do and unfortunately I will be removing some of my monetary support from this game as a result of a decision that CCP has made out of the blue.
This change will not effect my over all eve game play. I am not a heavy user of the broadcast function of the Isboxing software. I mainly use it to manage my windows and have used the controversial 'Isboxer broadcast + bomber' combination with 5 characters only once.
Recently and before this u-turn by CCP, I did invest in a couple more accounts but this recent change has pretty much condemned them to be immediately unsubbed. Even with this action the 'investment' of time and money that I have put into these accounts feels like it has been wasted.
I purchased these subscriptions from CCP to play their game in a specific fashion which at the time was considered legitimate by CCP. I have liked the direction that CCP have been moving towards with EVE Online and I will by no means be quitting the game due to this change but I do have a bad taste left in my mouth.
I cannot speculate CCP's reasoning for announcing this today but the delay on making this statement has caused some people supporting the game to feel they have been deceived.
You can still use it to manage windows dummy you just cant broadcast mouse clicks and key commands to those 5 windows |
Mmmmm Danone Aulmais
Moon Of The Pheonix
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:12:24 -
[369] - Quote
I will with grate joy take all free stuff from but hurt IS boxers.
Grater joy will be had if it comes from a big alliance. |
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
238
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:12:30 -
[370] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:Who are you and what have you done to the CCP as we knew it (not only this change but what's been happening over maybe the last half year)?
The irony is that a woman had to take the helm in order for CCP to grow some balls.
I love it. Keep it up!
That made me lol. For real. I mean as in the real "laugh out loud". ^^ Thank you!
[i]"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka[/i]
|
|
|
Niko Fudan
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:12:37 -
[371] - Quote
eiedu wrote:RIP incursions
RIP Ratting
RIP bombing
Time to go back to wow, where it makes no sense to have multiple accounts
How are you even going to "catch" people who are input-multiplexing hardware-wise
One less Goon. Mission accomplished
GÇ£I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.GÇ¥
|
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
2233
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:12:40 -
[372] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:
No other MMO restricts this? NCSoft bans ISBoxer from its games.
Heh NCsoft. NCsoft lets full blown bot parties run rampant. Ever play Lineage 2?
Probably the reason they ban IsBoxer is because they don't get a cut of the sales.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
|
Bisu Deckryder
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:13:02 -
[373] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:CCP Falcon, you stated multi boxing isn't banned in the thread of mine you locked. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5241567#post5241567
But In your own policy you seem to walk a very fine line between multi boxing and input duplication (using a mouse and keyboard to control multiple clients). Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters So per your last statement you called my post rumor mongering, which I really am not. The entire point of isboxer is to allow a mouse and keyboard to control multiple clients effectively. This will kill a major reason to use such software.
Multi boxxing is not the same thing as input duplication. I begin to suspect that people in this thread haven't read the whole OP, much less the entire thread. |
KeeperRus
Exanimo Inc
Gentlemen's.Club
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:13:02 -
[374] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:KeeperRus wrote:I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly. If they are banning its use after all this time then its safe to say they figured out how.
They haven't. |
Astroyka
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
148
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:13:15 -
[375] - Quote
I think this is great news for EvE as a whole. I really don't think the unsubs will hit CCP that hard since most of the multiboxers were probably "paying" for their accounts with PLEX anyway.
I concur with many that this will affect mineral prices, but in the long run this will be good for the game and new players too. As for people multiboxing PvP, I won't be sad to see them go!
Astroyka - A Mirkur Draug'Tyr pilot, fighting against slavery in New Eden
www.astroyka.net
GÖÑ proud EvE fansites member GÖÑ
|
Sentenced 1989
Data Venia
126
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:13:24 -
[376] - Quote
I would like to know if having my extra mouse key set to press ctrl + f1 + f2 + f3 + f4 + f5 in period of 1 second is considered as breach of EULA?
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
Konrad Kane
115
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:13:29 -
[377] - Quote
Great news, now ban o/ in local |
Cor'len
Remnant of an Empire
Independent Stars Allied Forces
8
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:13:42 -
[378] - Quote
Awesome! I'm all for it.
Also super happy they're not going "ARGH NO 3RD PARTY THINGS EVEN LOOKING AT OUR CLIENT"; means I can still continue using various tools to rearrange things to suit my tastes. I just don't replicate inputs.
Very good move, CCP! |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
811
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:14:19 -
[379] - Quote
rip in ****, isbotter :D |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
13994
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:14:47 -
[380] - Quote
KeeperRus wrote:
They haven't.
How do you know?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
Kaaeliaa
37187
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:14:56 -
[381] - Quote
Strata Maslav wrote:The SMUG in this thread is pretty sickening not very conducive for discussion. I play and love the same game you guys do and unfortunately I will be removing some of my monetary support from this game as a result of a decision that CCP has made out of the blue.
This change will not effect my over all eve game play. I am not a heavy user of the broadcast function of the Isboxing software. I mainly use it to manage my windows and have used the controversial 'Isboxer broadcast + bomber' combination with 5 characters only once.
Recently and before this u-turn by CCP, I did invest in a couple more accounts but this recent change has pretty much condemned them to be immediately unsubbed.
I purchased these subscriptions from CCP to play their game in a specific fashion which at the time was considered legitimate by CCP at the time. I have liked the direction that CCP have been moving towards with EVE Online and I will by no means be quitting the game due to this change but I do have a bad taste left in my mouth.
I cannot speculate CCP's reasoning for announcing this today but the delay on making this statement has caused some people supporting the game to feel they have been deceived.
Get the **** out. Nobody lied to you - YOU chose to create additional accounts, YOU agreed to the EULA, which has stated since time out of mind that automation is not allowed, YOU chose to ignore the obvious as **** fact that a third-party program allowing you to control more clients than a human could is the very definition of automation (regardless of CCP's silence), now YOU have to deal with the consequences.
Why don't you try actually PLAYING the game for once, scrubbie? You might actually have fun, although you'll have to make some ******* friends first, because this is an MMO.
LAGL Cosplayer. Princess of Sibyyl's Pillowfort. This is my jam!
|
Ginger Barbarella
2035
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:16:06 -
[382] - Quote
Strata Maslav wrote:The SMUG in this thread is pretty sickening not very conducive for discussion. I play and love the same game you guys do and unfortunately I will be removing some of my monetary support from this game as a result of a decision that CCP has made out of the blue.
Um, wut? CCP has never approved opf or overtly allowed botting (ignoring the black-hat large alliance botting). All they've really done is further define what's what in terms of third-party tools and mechanisms used to control action in multiple clients. They still don't allow botting any more than they did a month ago. What's the problem?
There are other games that allow automated farming: go there. Those of us that respect the spirit of the game don't want you or your kind here.
"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1092
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:16:30 -
[383] - Quote
The EULA also has a provision that allows CCP to change the game however they want, including in ways that might be detrimental to your choice of gameplay, without owing you anything.
It's pretty safe to say that there was significant decision WRT the bottom line involved in making this decision.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Astroyka
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
148
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:16:42 -
[384] - Quote
KeeperRus wrote:baltec1 wrote:KeeperRus wrote:I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly. If they are banning its use after all this time then its safe to say they figured out how. They haven't.
It really isn't that hard, everything is logged, all they need is:
- User ID
- IP Address
- Action
- Timestamp
A simple stored procedure to query for duplicate timestamps that correlate to a single IP... done.
Astroyka - A Mirkur Draug'Tyr pilot, fighting against slavery in New Eden
www.astroyka.net
GÖÑ proud EvE fansites member GÖÑ
|
Anslo
Scope Works
22591
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:16:46 -
[385] - Quote
Kaaeliaa wrote:Strata Maslav wrote:The SMUG in this thread is pretty sickening not very conducive for discussion. I play and love the same game you guys do and unfortunately I will be removing some of my monetary support from this game as a result of a decision that CCP has made out of the blue.
This change will not effect my over all eve game play. I am not a heavy user of the broadcast function of the Isboxing software. I mainly use it to manage my windows and have used the controversial 'Isboxer broadcast + bomber' combination with 5 characters only once.
Recently and before this u-turn by CCP, I did invest in a couple more accounts but this recent change has pretty much condemned them to be immediately unsubbed.
I purchased these subscriptions from CCP to play their game in a specific fashion which at the time was considered legitimate by CCP at the time. I have liked the direction that CCP have been moving towards with EVE Online and I will by no means be quitting the game due to this change but I do have a bad taste left in my mouth.
I cannot speculate CCP's reasoning for announcing this today but the delay on making this statement has caused some people supporting the game to feel they have been deceived. Get the **** out. Nobody lied to you - YOU chose to create additional accounts, YOU agreed to the EULA, which has stated since time out of mind that automation is not allowed, YOU chose to ignore the obvious as **** fact that a third-party program allowing you to control more clients than a human could is the very definition of automation (regardless of CCP's silence), now YOU have to deal with the consequences. Why don't you try actually PLAYING the game for once, scrubbie? You might actually have fun, although you'll have to make some ******* friends first, because this is an MMO.
PREACH GURL PREEEAACH
U
S
A
U
S
A
U
S
A
[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
|
Theodoric Darkwind
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
309
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:17:38 -
[386] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned.
Most of the things Isboxer does will be banned.
I wonder how many accounts CCP will lose from the Isboxer users cancelling their multibox accounts.
I personally have never had a problem with multiboxing, If people are willing to pay for that many accounts, let them.
|
RudinV
Hard Knocks Inc.
455
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:17:43 -
[387] - Quote
u know nothing about whine, just wait a bit, those who stockpiled plexes will come very soon |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1100
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:19:49 -
[388] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Big +1 on the decision, but I'm worried it doesn't go far enough. People will just purchase more screens, and manually control multiple accounts. It'll be harder, surely, but it's still viable to manually control a 10 ship tornado gank fleet or procurer mining fleet. The only sure way to get rid of multiboxing, and entitle everyone equally to the actions of one character at a time, is to get rid of multiboxing entirely.
This will probably never happen. This game is pretty much impossible to play on any meaningful level without multiboxing.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Alundil
Isogen 5
764
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:20:09 -
[389] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Wait - hold on, just thought of something -
G15 and related keyboards are now banned??? They allow one keyboard click to do F1-F8 simultaneously
Although grouping guns in game does the same thing - except smartbombs Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game. Yeah, so that means my Core OS - OSX and my keyboard are both not allowed Kinda sucks, not going to buy windows to run the stinking game I sure as hell won't buy a new keyboard so stupid, if you want to ban isboxer fine, but leave the mac guys out of it
Perfect example of 'not getting it' right here folks. ^
Of course Falcon's blog post implies that not only is the main functionality of isboxer banned, but also that all Mac clients and G15 keyboards are as well. That Falcon, so evil. Amirite?
I'm right behind you
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
316
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:20:18 -
[390] - Quote
Mierin Arthie wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe. How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard? for those that dont know what a kvm switch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch
That would be keyboard multiplexing. The definitions in the OP are pretty clear.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
|
|
|
CCP Falcon
9594
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:21:16 -
[391] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:CCP Falcon, you stated multi boxing isn't banned in the thread of mine you locked. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5241567#post5241567
But In your own policy you seem to walk a very fine line between multi boxing and input duplication (using a mouse and keyboard to control multiple clients). Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters So per your last statement you called my post rumor mongering, which I really am not. The entire point of isboxer is to allow a mouse and keyboard to control multiple clients effectively. This will kill a major reason to use such software.
Multiboxing is not against the rules. Read the OP again.
CCP Falcon || Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon
Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
|
|
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
106
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:21:29 -
[392] - Quote
LOL @PLEX market crashing btw Too bad I just bought some this morning -.- |
Zechariah Jericho
State War Academy
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:21:48 -
[393] - Quote
Guys the toxic is getting high
Was in the middle of showing a friend this game, got to general discussion "what's that?" >>> 6 minutes later he decides he doesn't want to play because of our community and how badly we're reacting to the news that people cannot play the way they want to.
last words of the discussion were (and I quote) "Some sandbox, lets just go play LoL" |
Radkiel
Everlasting Vendetta.
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:21:48 -
[394] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Mharius Skjem wrote:Ginger Barbarella wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned. Well that's clear as mud. Well that was a CSM post, the Dev post is the one that I am interested in. That made it pretty clear IS boxer is banned. They didnt ban IS boxer, just everything it does
Not everything |
Kronarn
Dirty Old Bastards
Nulli Secunda
24
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:22:11 -
[395] - Quote
This is interesting. I know a few people who mine with 20+ clients using ISBOXER, there is no way anyone will mine with 5 maybe 10 accounts or more without a tool to help such as ISBOXER, now the question is, will they quit eve seeing as they only mine?
Will the cost of capitals go through the roof again? Will the cost of all things go through the roof.
Looking forward to seeing the outcome of the end result here.
I use ISBOXER at times to mine ice (10 accounts) and I don't think I could be bothered managing 10 clients to mine ice or ore, that would be so painful
I also don't plex my accounts, I don't have enough time to make 10b a month just to be able to login, I pay for everyone of them.
Really love the new strategy of CCP, I genuinly hope this does what they intend it to do and it's not a negative backlash to the subscriber base. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1100
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:22:21 -
[396] - Quote
Zechariah Jericho wrote:Guys the toxic is getting high
Was in the middle of showing a friend this game, got to general discussion "what's that?" >>> 6 minutes later he decides he doesn't want to play because of our community and how badly we're reacting to the news that people cannot play the way they want to.
last words of the discussion were (and I quote) "Some sandbox, lets just go play LoL"
This is a lie.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
316
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:22:39 -
[397] - Quote
What part of "it doesn't matter nhow the broadcasting or multiplexing is accomplished" was unclear to you?
It's really not that difficult to understand ladies and gentleman. If you press 1 key and 1 client responds you're fine. If you press one key and more than one client responds, you're ******.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:22:45 -
[398] - Quote
I suppse one off my friends going to unsub 28 accounts when he see this. lol. Well, He got other games he can sub to that allows this. so, Yeah. Also i got 2-3 other friends that proably also.. Dam, all the People i know who multibox're Nice... lol, if this going to make them quit. Idk what to do then.. Well, abount total 60 accounts across them all. so, Yeah.. (just facts tho, but idk what to say) it's allways possible that i missread something here.  |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5532
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:22:46 -
[399] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Mierin Arthie wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe. How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard? for those that dont know what a kvm switch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch That would be keyboard multiplexing. The definitions in the OP are pretty clear.
No, KVM switch is just that - a switch. It connects you to one computer at a time, not multiple.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
239
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:22:58 -
[400] - Quote
Zechariah Jericho wrote:Guys the toxic is getting high
Was in the middle of showing a friend this game, got to general discussion "what's that?" >>> 6 minutes later he decides he doesn't want to play because of our community and how badly we're reacting to the news that people cannot play the way they want to.
last words of the discussion were (and I quote) "Some sandbox, lets just go play LoL"
And? If he can't understand how awfully detrimental to the game it is to have people single-handedly manning giant fleets of ships, then well...I guess we're better off without him?
[i]"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka[/i]
|
|
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
13337
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:23:01 -
[401] - Quote
Good call. And also good to see that you still allow some room for certain things (login in this case).
/c
GÿàGÿàGÿà Secure 3rd party service GÿàGÿàGÿà
Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'
Twitter @Chribba
|
|
Daneel Trevize
Faster Path Than of Light Exiles
518
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:23:08 -
[402] - Quote
Better late than never, CCP. GJ, finally. |
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
21
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:23:21 -
[403] - Quote
KeeperRus wrote:I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly.
Easy.
Multiple accounts, multtiple clients, all logged in from the same machine / IP address, all payed with plex, using the same fitting, following the same commands without delays, sitting in the same system and in a lot of cases running more than 2-3 clients at the same time.
It's like spotting a fish swarm within an area where only individual/single fish float around.
|
Astroyka
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
149
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:23:40 -
[404] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Big +1 on the decision, but I'm worried it doesn't go far enough. People will just purchase more screens, and manually control multiple accounts. It'll be harder, surely, but it's still viable to manually control a 10 ship tornado gank fleet or procurer mining fleet. The only sure way to get rid of multiboxing, and entitle everyone equally to the actions of one character at a time, is to get rid of multiboxing entirely.
Running multiple accounts should not be removed, it has its place. Human control of multiple accounts is fine with me, software control of multiple accounts is not.
Simply put, human error will creep in and that's good for EvE.
Astroyka - A Mirkur Draug'Tyr pilot, fighting against slavery in New Eden
www.astroyka.net
GÖÑ proud EvE fansites member GÖÑ
|
Apo Lamperouge
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:23:54 -
[405] - Quote
Fiberton wrote:Hrm so Mining goods are about to sky rocket. Ok so I have never used one of these things you speak of but even I after over 10 years in the game know that this is a terrible idea. So when you are making decisions did you consult an accountant? You realize that you are prob going to reduce CCP income about 3M a year just from logins who will drop accounts that are used for that sort of thing ? Ok not to tell you guys how to run a company but just flying around for so many years and knowing persons who use that.. At least 5% of eve is just miners on isboxer. Good luck on driving into a brick wall or whatever you dudes do.. Phobe great idea. this.. I would consult an accountant.
Just like every other "you do this CCP and I swear to god i will unsub" and "....everyone will unsub" post that goes up with every change.
Some changes I don't like. Jump drive changes. Don't like em. But dealing with it.
How many of the 50,000 people who swore on their collection of awesome nintendo controllers actually did?
Less than 1% I'd wager.
This change? LOVE IT!!!! GO GO ISBOXER BOMBER BAN!
So go ahead, unsub, can I haz yer lewts and all that. Bye bye and bye bonds.
Don't let the space dock door hit you in the ass on the way out scrub.
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
Mildew Wolf
215
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:24:27 -
[406] - Quote
))) |
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
316
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:24:49 -
[407] - Quote
Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D
None of the ones that care about the game.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
239
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:26:03 -
[408] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:So honest question here. Is this rig still legit or is it also banned?
Quote:We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe.
Christ, why are you people so bad at reading?
"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1747
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:26:05 -
[409] - Quote
can anyone help me put my foot in my mouth? I cant seem to reach... |
Jack Harvey
Iron Inquisition
No Safe Haven
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:26:09 -
[410] - Quote
This topic is very interesting. There is a phrase/concept called 'round robin' where the user (for example) presses F1, and then the software is sequenced to the next client. So he hits F1 again and it broadcasts to the second client. Because the broadcasts aren't simultaneous, it appears that you can rapidly hit F1 and still be within the rules laid out. Will be interested to see how a lot of the niche questions are addressed! |
|
|
RudinV
Hard Knocks Inc.
455
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:26:22 -
[411] - Quote
Zechariah Jericho wrote:Guys the toxic is getting high
Was in the middle of showing a friend this game, got to general discussion "what's that?" >>> 6 minutes later he decides he doesn't want to play because of our community and how badly we're reacting to the news that people cannot play the way they want to.
last words of the discussion were (and I quote) "Some sandbox, lets just go play LoL"
pff seems legit.
LoL community is famous to be tolerant and newbie welcome.
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
318
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:26:29 -
[412] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:The Sandbox ....What can be will be......except when we decide it's not to be. Compliments of CCP...
You don't understand the term sandbox.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
Colin Wilson
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:26:30 -
[413] - Quote
Querns wrote:Do you really think that people subscribing with PLEX somehow deny CCP a sale? People who PLEX their accounts are just paying with someone else's money. CCP gets theirs no matter what. In fact, every account sustained via PLEX grosses CCP 33% MORE money than the same account kept alive with a traditional subscription, due to PLEX costing $20 (compared to the traditional sub costing $15.)
I don't know why this is so had to understand for so many. While the buyer and seller PLEX markets are obviously tied together by the isk transferring, the buying of PLEX by the sellers and the consuming of PLEX by the account PLEX'ers are effectively independent, other than the PLEX sellers needing to buy more if the price drops or less if the price increases. The loss of EVE players not paying a sub fee or using PLEX will not translate into a material loss of revenue for CCP. |
Odysseus Rhodes
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:26:38 -
[414] - Quote
Warr Akini wrote:I've had a good suicide ganking run, but the wave of nerfs against it don't seem to be stopping anytime soon.
Thanks. It's been fun.
Best tears ... ever.
See ya!
Don't let the door hit ya in the ass! |
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
138
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:26:55 -
[415] - Quote
Kronarn wrote:This is interesting. I know a few people who mine with 20+ clients using ISBOXER, there is no way anyone will mine with 5 maybe 10 accounts or more without a tool to help such as ISBOXER, now the question is, will they quit eve seeing as they only mine? Will the cost of capitals go through the roof again? Will the cost of all things go through the roof. Looking forward to seeing the outcome of the end result here. I use ISBOXER at times to mine ice (10 accounts) and I don't think I could be bothered managing 10 clients to mine ice or ore, that would be so painful I also don't plex my accounts, I don't have enough time to make 10b a month just to be able to login, I pay for everyone of them. Really love the new strategy of CCP, I genuinly hope this does what they intend it to do and it's not a negative backlash to the subscriber base.
I've manually mined with 8 accounts. I could see myself going to 10, but no more. |
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
239
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:26:59 -
[416] - Quote
Querns wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Big +1 on the decision, but I'm worried it doesn't go far enough. People will just purchase more screens, and manually control multiple accounts. It'll be harder, surely, but it's still viable to manually control a 10 ship tornado gank fleet or procurer mining fleet. The only sure way to get rid of multiboxing, and entitle everyone equally to the actions of one character at a time, is to get rid of multiboxing entirely. This will probably never happen. This game is pretty much impossible to play on any meaningful level without multiboxing.
It really is not, but people are not willing to rely on specialised friends to do what you "can easily do with an alt".
"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka
|
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
832
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:27:08 -
[417] - Quote
Do we still get a Christmas gift from CCP this year, or is this it?
+1
Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul
|
Angelique Duchemin
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
919
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:27:17 -
[418] - Quote
XXXMina wrote:this is not right, you cant change the rules after 10 years, i got 5 accounts because it made sense with how the game is. now i cant use what little automation i take advantage of (just pressing the f keys ) . also jump fatigue and jump range change suxx: this is a space sim, way to clip our wings.
PS: im unsubbing all my accounts . you have till my 3 month sub runs out to fix this game.
I multibox Jump Freighters. If I can take the latest changes to Eve in stride then so can you. Man up.
The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.
|
Ginger Barbarella
2036
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:27:28 -
[419] - Quote
Zechariah Jericho wrote:Guys the toxic is getting high
Was in the middle of showing a friend this game, got to general discussion "what's that?" >>> 6 minutes later he decides he doesn't want to play because of our community and how badly we're reacting to the news that people cannot play the way they want to.
last words of the discussion were (and I quote) "Some sandbox, lets just go play LoL"
There's a reason I don't discuss cap warfare: I don't know d!ck about it. You and your friend clearly don't have a clue. Perhaps you should consider not discussing the concept of "sandbox" as it applies to this world.
"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
|
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
474
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:28:09 -
[420] - Quote
The rage, the smug, the self important CSM posts, it's all to much to take in. |
|
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
223
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:28:25 -
[421] - Quote
KeeperRus wrote:I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly.
Pretty damned easily: do the accounts receive the same command from the same IP at the same time?
You're communicating with their server. How hard will it be for them to detect? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1105
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:29:09 -
[422] - Quote
Ancy Denaries wrote:Querns wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Big +1 on the decision, but I'm worried it doesn't go far enough. People will just purchase more screens, and manually control multiple accounts. It'll be harder, surely, but it's still viable to manually control a 10 ship tornado gank fleet or procurer mining fleet. The only sure way to get rid of multiboxing, and entitle everyone equally to the actions of one character at a time, is to get rid of multiboxing entirely. This will probably never happen. This game is pretty much impossible to play on any meaningful level without multiboxing. It really is not, but people are not willing to rely on specialised friends to do what you "can easily do with an alt".
You and I have differing definitions of "meaningful," I suppose.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Needmore Longcat
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
216
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:30:00 -
[423] - Quote
Finally. |
Ikaika Wahine Khashour
Fault Line Industries
Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:30:10 -
[424] - Quote
Capri Sun KraftFoods wrote:As someone who actually ISBox's bombers I'm a little upset.
The problem isn't ISBoxer. The problem is that bombs as they currently stand are completely broken Sure isboxer exacerbates the problem significantly, but you can still get 30 dudes into a fleet easily and go kill anything with 4 waves that isn't a T3 or a faction battleship. I'd be happy to see my bomber accounts become useless and de-sub them if it meant I didn't have to worry about getting hell bombed every other fleet.
With IsBoxer there is pretty much Zero chance to screw up as long as you are good. with 30 dudes there are chances to accidental De-cloaks and bad bomb runs.. plus in all due honesty.. Isboxer gave WAY to much power to 1 person. I knew someone in my old Corp who use to 5 box tengues and Ospreys. Honestly 1 person able to command 5 ships without having to worry about human error imput. Sorry, Isboxer has been a thorn in Eve's side for a long time. I use a Preview program that allows me to run my 3 accounts fairly well. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
316
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:30:28 -
[425] - Quote
Querns wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Big +1 on the decision, but I'm worried it doesn't go far enough. People will just purchase more screens, and manually control multiple accounts. It'll be harder, surely, but it's still viable to manually control a 10 ship tornado gank fleet or procurer mining fleet. The only sure way to get rid of multiboxing, and entitle everyone equally to the actions of one character at a time, is to get rid of multiboxing entirely. This will probably never happen. This game is pretty much impossible to play on any meaningful level without multiboxing.
Nonsense....I've always played single account at a time and done fine. Either do solo stuff or get friends. 10 man nado fleets controlled by a single player are ridiculous, whether using ISBoxer or not. |
Danalee
Somalian Coast Guard Authority
The Marmite Collective
978
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:31:17 -
[426] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:An eerily clear description of certain rules
Wow... Good to see you aren't thinking about your customers searching for the grey areas and/or testing the limits of these clear boundaries.
Can you now do the same for the big grey area that is hurting feelings, asking people to sing songs, stupids being stupid on teamspeak et all (a.k.a.: Bonus room shenanigans) please?
D.
Psychotic Monk:
I see nothing in a bonus room that hasn't been an accepted and celebrated part of eve online basically forever and I see no reason that we should fundamentally harm the uniqueness of this game for some people who seem to have forgotten that.
|
KeeperRus
Exanimo Inc
Gentlemen's.Club
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:32:23 -
[427] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:KeeperRus wrote:I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly. Easy. Multiple accounts, multtiple clients, all logged in from the same machine / IP address, all payed with plex, using the same fitting, following the same commands without delays, sitting in the same system and in a lot of cases running more than 2-3 clients at the same time. It's like spotting a fish swarm within an area where only individual/single fish float around.
I guess, but that's not proof of anything. |
stalkker matty
Kamekazie mofos
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:32:25 -
[428] - Quote
YES YES YES best thing to happen ever good riddance to isboxer scum well done CCP. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Suddenly Spaceships.
1682
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:32:40 -
[429] - Quote
Will be a hard transition for some but make no mistake this will benefit the vast majority of players and keep our game in a healthier place.
I give CCP major props for this much needed rules update. Cheers mates!
"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."
-Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM
Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
259
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:32:55 -
[430] - Quote
Astroyka wrote:I think this is great news for EvE as a whole. I really don't think the unsubs will hit CCP that hard since most of the multiboxers were probably "paying" for their accounts with PLEX anyway.
Stop being dumb. It irritates me the amount of people here who still seem to have no clue what PLEX does or how it works.
Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
|
|
|
Stird Aideron
Interstellar Teacups
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:03 -
[431] - Quote
Baibai eve was fun as long it lasted |
Shirolayyn
Nordgoetter
Viking Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:04 -
[432] - Quote
Ok, so using ISBoxer to manipulate multiple accounts (e.g. mining ships) is now illegal.
Result:
- all tasks that can be performed simultaneously in parallel with multiple accounts (e.g. mining) must now be performed fully manually (which will not happen). Most "industrial scale" mining has been performed this way.
- result: mineral prices will explode
- result: general prices will explode
- people doing "industrial scale" tasks using multiboxing will not continue their accounts subscriptions, resulting in a loss of plex throughput, resulting in long term financial loss for CCP. Note that the typical multiboxer supported 10-70 accounts (I myself had 12 accounts running, now reduced to 4).
I am very curious on which impact this change ("clarification") in policy will have on the game. And how CCP will cope with the very real life loss in player subscriptions. I still remember the times when regularly 50k players were online in Eve. Now we are at 30k players. Where will be, when this policy is enforced and players act accordingly on it?
My guess is: Voting with the wallet has been successful in the past. It will be successful in future as well.
|
Corey Lean
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:07 -
[433] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:KeeperRus wrote:I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly. Easy. Multiple accounts, multtiple clients, all logged in from the same machine / IP address, all payed with plex, using the same fitting, following the same commands without delays, sitting in the same system and in a lot of cases running more than 2-3 clients at the same time. It's like spotting a fish swarm within an area where only individual/single fish float around.
People can easily spot these guys with the naked eye, its probably even easier to detect server side. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1105
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:16 -
[434] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Querns wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Big +1 on the decision, but I'm worried it doesn't go far enough. People will just purchase more screens, and manually control multiple accounts. It'll be harder, surely, but it's still viable to manually control a 10 ship tornado gank fleet or procurer mining fleet. The only sure way to get rid of multiboxing, and entitle everyone equally to the actions of one character at a time, is to get rid of multiboxing entirely. This will probably never happen. This game is pretty much impossible to play on any meaningful level without multiboxing. Nonsense....I've always played single account at a time and done fine. Either do solo stuff or get friends. 10 man nado fleets controlled by a single player are ridiculous, whether using ISBoxer or not.
You can multibox in this game without operating a 10 man fleet. Adding as little as one account to your repertoire radically transforms your game experience. I highly recommend it.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
572
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:24 -
[435] - Quote
I love it how half of the people in this thread think that PLEXes take away from CCP's bottom line.
You should go biomass (in game). |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
604
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:42 -
[436] - Quote
Wow, ballsy move, I knew I loved you guys for some reason |
Utari Onzo
united system's commonwealth
30
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:43 -
[437] - Quote
Lets get some realness of this whole CCP losing money here.
I can't speak for loss of subs as I don't have the figures for those, but I feel I casn comment on those ISBoxers that pay with plex. Looking at the market data for plex, anyone can see that supply of plexes has been steady for some considerable time. People who purchase plex to sell generally sell an amount of plex to reach a given isk 'goal'. Demand for plex, however, has skyrocketed of late, allowing these regular plex resellers to sell less, offset my speculative plex resellers cashing in on the increased plex isk cost. This does not majorly affect CCP's wallet, as plex resellers continue to provide a steady amount of supply, therefore putting in general the same amount of cash in their pocket as if those accounts were subbed (likely with some give or take)
What a major loss of plexed ISBoxed alts, if they are mass unsubed, will cause is a reduction in the ISK value of plex (reduced demand). If anything, it will cause those who buy plex for isk to have to buy more to reach their isk goal, potentially increasing revenue for CCP. This is, of course pure speculation and only looks at one aspect of the PLEX market, but the fact is the market data is pretty consistent. Plex cash sales going by the amount of plex on the market has been pretty stable for year, plex ISK price is what has been fluctuating widly (recent big increases)
TL;DR I don't think a mass unsub of plexed accounts will hurt CCP's wallet too much. |
Xenuria
The Scope
Gallente Federation
960
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:48 -
[438] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned.
I see no problem with this. It should be allowed but it shouldn't be a cake walk like it is before this policy.
CSM 10 Candidate
|
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
832
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:56 -
[439] - Quote
Danalee wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:An eerily clear description of certain rules Wow... Good to see you aren't thinking about your customers searching for the grey areas and/or testing the limits of these clear boundaries. Can you now do the same for the big grey area that is hurting feelings, asking people to sing songs, stupids being stupid on teamspeak et all (a.k.a.: Bonus room shenanigans) please? D.
What happens on TS3 is none of CCP's concern or responsibility. That much should be obvious.
Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
318
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:34:28 -
[440] - Quote
Makhpella wrote:Hi CPP if I warp squad do I get banned?
Stop being deliberately obtuse.
Tool.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
|
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
259
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:34:56 -
[441] - Quote
Zechariah Jericho wrote:Guys the toxic is getting high
Was in the middle of showing a friend this game, got to general discussion "what's that?" >>> 6 minutes later he decides he doesn't want to play because of our community and how badly we're reacting to the news that people cannot play the way they want to.
last words of the discussion were (and I quote) "Some sandbox, lets just go play LoL"
Your friend doesn't have thick enough skin for this game. Nobody's shedding any tears for him.
Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
|
Neurotox
Brave Operations - Lollipop Division
Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:35:12 -
[442] - Quote
Haha that's the saddest thing I seen all day.
Thank you for the laughs. |
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
318
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:35:49 -
[443] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇóEVE Online client settings
GÇóWindow positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
GÇóThe login process [/i] Emphasis added. I'm confused by why this would be something you would ever have to expressly say you're not trying to control, unless you're simultaneously of the opinion that you could. Is CCP actually claiming they have the right to police where I put my client window on my desktop?
No dumbass, they're making it expressly clear that they aren't banning any one product or service (i.e. ISBoxer, which allows for client window position control), but rather a particular set of functionality.
I swear the amount of sideways, bent ass thinking going on in this thread is astounding.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
319
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:37:27 -
[444] - Quote
Zishy Linaris wrote:goodbye ccp. 12 accounts unsubbed as of now. i feel bullshitted for my time i invested but **** happens
Stuff. Yours. Geif.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
259
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:37:27 -
[445] - Quote
Astroyka wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Astroyka wrote:I think this is great news for EvE as a whole. I really don't think the unsubs will hit CCP that hard since most of the multiboxers were probably "paying" for their accounts with PLEX anyway. Stop being dumb. It irritates me the amount of people here who still seem to have no clue what PLEX does or how it works. Enlighten me, great one.
Here's a hint:
PLEX does not take subscription money away from CCP.
Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
|
Amely Miles
Exiled Tech
Space Monkey Protectorate
39
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:37:43 -
[446] - Quote
Powers Sa wrote:
It sounds like I can still use it for what i've always used it for: window management.
At most I've run 4 accounts with isboxer managing all my windows. In very very rare occasions I've used it to repeat, but that was a long time ago when naga ratting was a thing. I've mainly used it to manage windows when fcing or scouting.
there are other programs that allow for window management such as this one created by a eve player
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5241742#post5241742
Favorite Quotes:
In Space No one flings Poo!!
Yes that is a Banana in my Pocket
http://spacemp.net
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
4378
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:37:46 -
[447] - Quote
CCP, could we PLEASE get a definition of "broadcasting" and "multiplexing" added to the notice.
I can only guess, and I'm not sure what is meant by the latter.
Example:
* "Broadcasting" = sending the same keyboard or mouse events to multiple clients.
* "Multiplexing" = ? [I have no idea in this context.]
Keep in mind that I'm an embedded realtime operating system developer with decades of technical experience, and even I am unclear on what it meant.
Thank you.
|
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises
Almost Awesome.
313
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:38:03 -
[448] - Quote
And here I was about to give CCP more of my money by reactiving a few accounts.
There has never been a problem with ISBoxing and input multiplication. It is people who do not want to put the effort in to buy plexs or spend money, It it not the boxers fault. People did not understand that someone is still making the commands at the PC to mine or smart bomb or whatever.
Well, mineral prices are going to shoot up, CCP will probably lose a few hundred thousand dollars in revenue. ******* dumb decision by CCP.
Hate on my all you want. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
259
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:38:15 -
[449] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:So, because broadcasting is being banned as of 01 Jan 2015, does that mean on 01 Jan 2015, cloaks will be reverted again to not decloaking each other while cloaked since the main reason this was changed back was to nerf broadcasting bombers together?
No, because this change was never actually made.
Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1112
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:38:18 -
[450] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:So, because broadcasting is being banned as of 01 Jan 2015, does that mean on 01 Jan 2015, cloaks will be reverted again to not decloaking each other while cloaked since the main reason this was changed back was to nerf broadcasting bombers together?
Doubtful. If anything, it'll cement the current mechanics. AFAICT, the original intention was to nerf ISBoxered bombers. When they started speaking up and telling CCP that it wouldn't, they backed off on it.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
|
Malcolm Lionel
The Ascended Refugees
Skeleton Citizens
32
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:38:31 -
[451] - Quote
gg mining. It was fun. |
Jon Hellguard
X-COM
20
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:38:42 -
[452] - Quote
Prepare for epic inflation in the character transfer market starting january 1st, 2015.
For what it's worth - thank you CCP for taking action. Next up will be the Alliance Logo's, right? |
Marsha Mallow
1703
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:38:47 -
[453] - Quote
Apo Lamperouge wrote:Don't let the space dock door hit you in the ass on the way out scrub.
Well said (*arse tho). Ass is a type of donkey.
Looking forward to logging in and hearing/reading the outraged squawks of the Isboxers. From memory most of them are annoying smugmonkey peasants anyway.
Good move CCP. You might want to write MULTIBOXING IS ALLOWED a bit bigger, in neon. Maybe stick a picture up too, just for emphasis. Or maybe not, the hysteria is quite amusing
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
572
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:39:20 -
[454] - Quote
Astroyka wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Astroyka wrote:I think this is great news for EvE as a whole. I really don't think the unsubs will hit CCP that hard since most of the multiboxers were probably "paying" for their accounts with PLEX anyway. Stop being dumb. It irritates me the amount of people here who still seem to have no clue what PLEX does or how it works. Enlighten me, great one.
1x 12-month subscription = $9.99 per month to CCP.
12x PLEX for a yearly subscription = 12x $19.99 to CCP. |
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
319
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:39:47 -
[455] - Quote
Rear Admiral Charlie wrote:To everybody complaining about isboxer I hope your ready to strap a miner to your ass because mineral prices are going to spike.
Good. I can sell off some of my stockpiles.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
CruxArc
Black Souls Industries
YARRR and CO
8
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:40:06 -
[456] - Quote
Great news |
Neurotox
Brave Operations - Lollipop Division
Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:40:35 -
[457] - Quote
Bye bye botters! |
forever faithless
Paxton Industries
Tactical Narcotics Team
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:41:05 -
[458] - Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKu7TYWNxqA |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1296
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:41:47 -
[459] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Big +1 on the decision, but I'm worried it doesn't go far enough. People will just purchase more screens, and manually control multiple accounts. It'll be harder, surely, but it's still viable to manually control a 10 ship tornado gank fleet or procurer mining fleet. The only sure way to get rid of multiboxing, and entitle everyone equally to the actions of one character at a time, is to get rid of multiboxing entirely.
I knew the 'ban alts' people would start coming out of the cracks ;) |
Bisu Deckryder
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:42:14 -
[460] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote:And here I was about to give CCP more of my money by reactiving a few accounts.
There has never been a problem with ISBoxing and input multiplication. It is people who do not want to put the effort in to buy plexs or spend money, It it not the boxers fault. People did not understand that someone is still making the commands at the PC to mine or smart bomb or whatever.
Well, mineral prices are going to shoot up, CCP will probably lose a few hundred thousand dollars in revenue. ******* dumb decision by CCP.
Hate on my all you want.
Let me repeat myself, go back to wow |
|
|
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
35
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:42:15 -
[461] - Quote
a good thing i didn't reactivate those 40 extra accounts i have :D
i will miss isboxer, but CCP has spoken..
wts 100 chars as i dont need the acounts anymore :D (wrong thread .. brb ) |
Utari Onzo
united system's commonwealth
31
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:42:30 -
[462] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:So, because broadcasting is being banned as of 01 Jan 2015, does that mean on 01 Jan 2015, cloaks will be reverted again to not decloaking each other while cloaked since the main reason this was changed back was to nerf broadcasting bombers together?
They already pushed back this change 'indefinatly' so don't panic over it |
Lord Battlestar
Faulcon de Lazy
192
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:42:56 -
[463] - Quote
I totally agree it was starting to get out of hand, and was only marginally better than macros. Good going CCP!
I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart.
|
Astroyka
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
151
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:43:03 -
[464] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Astroyka wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Astroyka wrote:I think this is great news for EvE as a whole. I really don't think the unsubs will hit CCP that hard since most of the multiboxers were probably "paying" for their accounts with PLEX anyway. Stop being dumb. It irritates me the amount of people here who still seem to have no clue what PLEX does or how it works. Enlighten me, great one. Here's a hint: PLEX does not take subscription money away from CCP.
You have made my point.
Astroyka - A Mirkur Draug'Tyr pilot, fighting against slavery in New Eden
www.astroyka.net
GÖÑ proud EvE fansites member GÖÑ
|
Lykouleon
Trust Doesn't Rust
Triumvirate.
1477
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:43:38 -
[465] - Quote
:happysun:
Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
|
Ginger Barbarella
2036
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:43:55 -
[466] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Keep in mind that I'm an embedded realtime operating system developer with decades of technical experience, and even I am unclear on what it meant.
I think that's the intent. By being carefully vague they are ensuring their own wiggle room and misinterpretation by their own personnel. Clearly defining exactly what is meant makes room for development of a new technique or software that expressly isn't covered by their own EULA/policies.
Personally i think they're misusing both "broadcasting" and "multicasting", but whatever.
"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
165
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:44:06 -
[467] - Quote
Capqu wrote:Lyron-Baktos wrote:Jesus, can you be any more vague Falcon? ill explain for u u can no longer press one button, and have things happen on more than one client you can still use isboxer to tile ur clients on the same screen you still can't automate pushing a button
I always find it fascinating when someone uses "u" and "you" in the same post. |
darvane
404 Ship Not Found
Violent Declaration
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:44:15 -
[468] - Quote
Thank you. The tears in this threadnaught have been both epic, and tasty. Now that boxers won't over run incursions, and PLEX's may drop below a billion ISK, I may start running incursions a LOT more, as a direct result of this change. As much as I have really questioned some of the things CCP has done lately, this, and the handling of the monument incident, have restored my faith. |
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
1618
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:44:37 -
[469] - Quote
:applause:
Witty Image - Stream
Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
|
Danalee
Somalian Coast Guard Authority
The Marmite Collective
978
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:44:38 -
[470] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Danalee wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:An eerily clear description of certain rules Wow... Good to see you aren't thinking about your customers searching for the grey areas and/or testing the limits of these clear boundaries. Can you now do the same for the big grey area that is hurting feelings, asking people to sing songs, stupids being stupid on teamspeak et all (a.k.a.: Bonus room shenanigans) please? What happens on TS3 is none of CCP's concern or responsibility. That much should be obvious.
History would like to have a word with you good fellow.
I'm still waiting for these to be answered, looks like CCP finally saw the light so my wait will soon be over!
D.
Psychotic Monk:
I see nothing in a bonus room that hasn't been an accepted and celebrated part of eve online basically forever and I see no reason that we should fundamentally harm the uniqueness of this game for some people who seem to have forgotten that.
|
|
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
572
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:44:47 -
[471] - Quote
Astroyka wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Astroyka wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Astroyka wrote:I think this is great news for EvE as a whole. I really don't think the unsubs will hit CCP that hard since most of the multiboxers were probably "paying" for their accounts with PLEX anyway. Stop being dumb. It irritates me the amount of people here who still seem to have no clue what PLEX does or how it works. Enlighten me, great one. Here's a hint: PLEX does not take subscription money away from CCP. You have made my point.
An account subscribed with PLEX is equals to an account subscribed by a subscription package. There is no distinction between them and both options give money to CCP.
Your original point doesn't stand. |
NinjaTurtle
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
85
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:44:50 -
[472] - Quote
This is exactly what EVE needed right now. Take a small hit on your subscription numbers and level out the playing field/remove this insanely stupid exception to the rule. Kudos CCP
I do things.
http://declarationsofwar.com
|
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2587
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:44:50 -
[473] - Quote
Rear Admiral Charlie wrote:To everybody complaining about isboxer I hope your ready to strap a miner to your ass because mineral prices are going to spike.
And the people who are actually MANUALLY mining as used to be the norm will be gratefull for it .
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Utari Onzo
united system's commonwealth
31
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:45:25 -
[474] - Quote
Astroyka wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Astroyka wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Astroyka wrote:I think this is great news for EvE as a whole. I really don't think the unsubs will hit CCP that hard since most of the multiboxers were probably "paying" for their accounts with PLEX anyway. Stop being dumb. It irritates me the amount of people here who still seem to have no clue what PLEX does or how it works. Enlighten me, great one. Here's a hint: PLEX does not take subscription money away from CCP. You have made my point.
I'm a plex buyer for isk. if plex prices falls from less demand, I will now have to buy more plex to reach my isk 'goal'.
TL;DR I don't think CCP will lose much money from this so I think Astroyka's the winner in this one. |
Ginger Barbarella
2036
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:45:51 -
[475] - Quote
FunGu Arsten wrote:a good thing i didn't reactivate those 40 extra accounts i have :D
i will miss isboxer, but CCP has spoken..
wts 100 chars as i dont need the acounts anymore :D (wrong thread .. brb )
Buh-bye.
"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
|
rDyne
Pingouins Galactique
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:46:34 -
[476] - Quote
flakeys wrote:Rear Admiral Charlie wrote:To everybody complaining about isboxer I hope your ready to strap a miner to your ass because mineral prices are going to spike. And the people who are actually MANUALLY mining as used to be the norm will be gratefull for it .
Yup.
<3 CCP |
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2589
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:46:49 -
[477] - Quote
Don't try to explain it to him adrie , ignorance is bliss for some ...
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Saisin
State War Academy
Caldari State
197
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:47:00 -
[478] - Quote
At last, CCP is taking this action!
Congratulation on another bold, and long awaited, decision!!
The metacode is taking a step back, and the game becomes more fair for every player.
I am also glad to see it does not just limit the use of isboxer, but also self-made tools like autohotkeys or any other macro related programs.
Hopefully, CCP has the means to identify a warp fleet command to distinguish it from the soon-to-be-banned external automated input.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
869
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:47:34 -
[479] - Quote
Good decision. This will make EVE a better game. There's been some decent stuff this year.
Thank you CCP!
Remove insurance.
This thread is the reason, why CCP should stop advertising any aspect of EVE PvE
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC
Goonswarm Federation
362
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:48:16 -
[480] - Quote
Astroyka wrote:
You have made my point.
unless your point was to fall flat on your face, i don't believe he did
it is amazing how many idiots feel that people who pay with plex are giving CCP space money and ccp accepts that space money for the subscription |
|
|
Kuga
Bert and Ernie's Jihadi Militants
Drop the Hammer
15
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:48:21 -
[481] - Quote
Thanks for taking action on this, CCP. The issue of software using multi box bombers has been becoming a significant issue in null sec space of late. I hope this will also benefit non-keystroke replicating software using miners to become competitive again.
There will no doubt be many tears from those who would seek to abuse the multi boxing facility with the use of replicative keystroke software, but this change can only be good in the long term.
|
Zedutchman
The Miners of Hyperion
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:48:57 -
[482] - Quote
Thank god..... Time to start buying Ice..... |
Apo Lamperouge
23
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:49:08 -
[483] - Quote
Soren Oboro wrote: DEAD EVE !!!!!
All the players in eve have more then two, or 10 accounts do you really think what all of us will go out and buy an computer that had 10 or 20 ******* monitors REALLY!!! **** NO!!!! I will Not
unsubbed will play until the First!!!! GOOD BYE CCP AND ITS DUMM ASS POLITICS
I will buy your accounts for 1 isk.
Not like you need the isk anyway. Bye bye lardass
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
28
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:49:27 -
[484] - Quote
Rawthorm wrote:While I've never used software like ISBoxer, I can imagine that it's use probably increased quality of life for most non-ISBox using eve players.
BomberBox fleets were quite rare and despite the number of butt hurt people who've clearly not been paying attention and got caught by one, I don't think they began to come close to outweighing the benefits such as making Ice easy to harvest leaving the rest of us time to actually play the more fun aspects of EvE rather than spend half our lives slowly grinding icecubes.
Almost every player in EvE has benefited from cheaper fuel and cheaper ships because of those using ISBoxer, so is an overriding ban worth it just to get rid of a few trolling bombers on your space?
I think it's seriously time for CCP to look into quality of life improvements for running infrastructure and give us bigger and better gear to use (and put at risk) to cut down the time spent doing all the boring monotonous stuff.
bomber fleets got a bit less common because their most common pray (battleships) got less common. |
indig0F10w
Weed smokers HQ
The Amish Mafia
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:50:21 -
[485] - Quote
Good work CCP, no more one man armies. Botter tears are soaking this topic deep ;) |
Apo Lamperouge
23
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:50:25 -
[486] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:The rage, the smug, the self important CSM posts, it's all to much to take in.
OOOH OOH point me to the self important CSM posts!!!
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
28
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:50:39 -
[487] - Quote
PL really has a thing for Taylor Swift it seems :p
|
COMM4NDER
Legendary Umbrellas
151
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:50:56 -
[488] - Quote
Man this is awesome!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbIR51_J_qY
[url=https://github.com/CommanderAlchemy/.bin/blob/master/eve] EVE - Online Launcher [Linux] [/url]
Installs, launches character prefixes (both SISI & Tranquility).
Simplescreenrecorder shm inject
|
Rear Admiral Charlie
DR. SloMo and the G.I. Clinic
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:51:07 -
[489] - Quote
flakeys wrote:Rear Admiral Charlie wrote:To everybody complaining about isboxer I hope your ready to strap a miner to your ass because mineral prices are going to spike. And the people who are actually MANUALLY mining as used to be the norm will be gratefull for it .
i dont want to see "people" mining i want to see you mining |
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:51:18 -
[490] - Quote
Radkiel wrote:Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D I just unsubbed all of my accounts, I'll play until the 1st then find another game. I fail to see how multiboxing affects anyone around me.
Well let say it in a nice way: I don't believe you when you say "I fail to see..."
Here is s nice video of an isboxer demonstrating ratting with 14 clients at the same time on a single computer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlm4XrR0VvU
And look at the comments:
1) "once your rolling its about 80-100m per account per hourn++" -> 1.4 billion/hour
2) " I've been mining using IS Boxer for over a year [...]I do about 6b ISK a day mining in Null."
I don't believe you when you say "I pay for my accounts", I'd rather say you (just like the two quoted from YT) use isboxer to generate a lot of income which is used for buying plexes and what I also suspect to use the additional income for rmt.
I won't miss these kind of players for a single second. |
|
|
Astroyka
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
151
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:51:50 -
[491] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:An account subscribed with PLEX is equals to an account subscribed by a subscription package. There is no distinction between them and both options give money to CCP.
Your original point doesn't stand.
Both options do give cash to CCP at some point, but I doubt the majority of isboxers are actually paying hard cash for PLEX and instead are buying them from the open market. Sure the loss of so many accounts will hit the PLEX market, but people will still buy GTC (etc.) to convert to PLEX as its the easiest way to get large amounts of ingame currency.
CCP are clearly happy to take the hit, which I still think will be small, for the benefit of the game.
Astroyka - A Mirkur Draug'Tyr pilot, fighting against slavery in New Eden
www.astroyka.net
GÖÑ proud EvE fansites member GÖÑ
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5533
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:55:16 -
[492] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:So, because broadcasting is being banned as of 01 Jan 2015, does that mean on 01 Jan 2015, cloaks will be reverted again to not decloaking each other while cloaked since the main reason this was changed back was to nerf broadcasting bombers together?
Keep up with the times... they already changed their minds on that one before even implementing it. Nothing to revert.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Tollen Gallen
Glory of Reprisal Enterprise
8667
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:55:42 -
[493] - Quote
I like CCP Falcon.
Zimmy Zeta - I f*cking love martinis. the original ones, with gin, not that vodka martini crap.
Your old Friends can use me for 7 days, free!!!
|
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
17933
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:56:51 -
[494] - Quote
FINALLY.
Falcon added to 'Is owed a beer' list.
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
|
Sir SmashAlot
The League of Extraordinary Opportunists
Intergalactic Conservation Movement
143
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:58:05 -
[495] - Quote
The price of plex is going to CRASH!!!
Cash out or you will regret it. |
El Space Mariachi
Love Squad
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
178
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:58:53 -
[496] - Quote
Sir SmashAlot wrote:The price of plex is going to CRASH!!!
Cash out or you will regret it.
already far too late for that my friend ))) wise monocle baron cashed out at 1b per unit xaxaxaxaxa
gay gamers for jesus
|
Dmitry Kuvora
WAR TEAM
Flex Point
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:59:56 -
[497] - Quote
-â-Ç-¦ -é-+-¦-¦-Ç-+-ë-+ !
i glad to hear this news |
Pen Ris
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:00:27 -
[498] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Just thinking outloud, I could make a script to cycle the windows and do the commands a window at a time, them I am not broadcasting to multiple clients - this may work after all
It appears Falcon predicted that kind of work-a-round and reiterated input automation is strictly prohibited. Pushing one key and having it run a single or set of commands on individual clients, in an automated order is input automation.
Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy. |
Hendrick Tallardar
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
293
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:00:44 -
[499] - Quote
XXXMina wrote:this is not right, you cant change the rules after 10 years, i got 5 accounts because it made sense with how the game is. now i cant use what little automation i take advantage of (just pressing the f keys ) . also jump fatigue and jump range change suxx: this is a space sim, way to clip our wings.
PS: im unsubbing all my accounts . you have till my 3 month sub runs out to fix this game.
They can, and they did.
If they couldn't change the rules after 10 years, why did they change the jump drive range on supers? Or the clone costs? or a plethora of other things a video game company does to keep their game fresh?
It's called "changing with the times" my friend.
EVE 101 Tutorial Series | Monthly Nullsec Recap | EVE Online Weekly
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
326
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:02:20 -
[500] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Big +1 on the decision, but I'm worried it doesn't go far enough. People will just purchase more screens, and manually control multiple accounts. It'll be harder, surely, but it's still viable to manually control a 10 ship tornado gank fleet or procurer mining fleet. The only sure way to get rid of multiboxing, and entitle everyone equally to the actions of one character at a time, is to get rid of multiboxing entirely.
You misunderstand their intentions.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
|
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
5708
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:03:28 -
[501] - Quote
Anslo wrote:Michelle Monteleone wrote:Guess my 12 accounts are done as of January 1, 2015. I had fun while it lasted. First Warcraft removed /follow from pvp because of all the cry babies now CCP has removed multiboxing all together. The Eve universe is going to change quite a bit when all the resources people were pumping out with multiple accounts goes away. Merry Christmas CCP. Thanks for the lump of coal. See you cry babies in the next mmo I multibox in. Good. As a vet of 7 years, get out. People like you, and other ~new~ scrubs who came in a few years ago after other vets left Eve made this game change, for the worse. With the changes being made now, the new rules, the new content, I am seeing old friends come back to Eve with a bit of hope that it won't be ****. If getting 1 or 2 honest to goodness pirate vets back, the ones who made pirating classy, means losing 100 ISBoxing scublords, I say good riddance. Now GET THE **** OUT
you need to post that with a female avatar so I won't feel so gay when I kiss it.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
326
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:03:54 -
[502] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:
No, KVM switch is just that - a switch. It connects you to one computer at a time, not multiple.
You're right. My bad - I misunderstood the intention.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
white male privilege
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
97
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:04:28 -
[503] - Quote
If you've ever wanted a nightmare alt to keep in his ex for incursion, there's gonna be a lot hitting the market. Put them on the same account as your main and join an incursion group, the only fun over activity in eve. Now CCP just needs to add variety to missions. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5536
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:05:29 -
[504] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote:PL really has a thing for Taylor Swift it seems :p
It was a play off his Miley Cyrus example - did you miss that? I don't particularly care for either one.
And my corp name is a play off of PL, I don't particularly have any affiliation with them.
So you might be right, and you might be wrong, but my post doesn't connect the dots.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
white male privilege
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
98
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:06:18 -
[505] - Quote
Also like this post if you're gonna buy the devs a beer at fanfest this year has been amazing. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6025
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:06:40 -
[506] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Hopelesshobo wrote:So, because broadcasting is being banned as of 01 Jan 2015, does that mean on 01 Jan 2015, cloaks will be reverted again to not decloaking each other while cloaked since the main reason this was changed back was to nerf broadcasting bombers together? Keep up with the times... they already changed their minds on that one before even implementing it. Nothing to revert.
Hey! Thanks for that, I missed it.
So the decloak other cloaked ships thing is not going to be implemented eh? Excellent.
I much prefer this solution.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Dirritat'z Demblin
Unknown Dimension
Alpha Volley Union
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:07:30 -
[507] - Quote
Good Job CCP! :D
About time to kick those Single-Players that want the power of a community without actually interacting with said community from our MMO |
Sirinda
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium
393
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:07:32 -
[508] - Quote
My reaction to this.
And I'm aware a dozen people will have posted it before me. |
Terini
Widgit Inc
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:07:37 -
[509] - Quote
Naburi NasNaburi wrote:Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D And I wonder how many of the old people will return :)
I came back to the game 2 weeks ago from 2 years off, due to CCP's come back offer.. and yes I thought nothing had changed but on hearing this I am definlaty buying a new plex for my 2 miners, I dual client but I have never used any form of automation nor have I ever thought of it, I feel that this is a good decision by CCP!
Terini
Widgit Inc.
Empire Mining since urmmm damn that long ago!!
|
Thomas Hurt
Future Methods
341
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:07:50 -
[510] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Imagine if you will a setting whereby there is not enforcement or a lack of regulation about the age of consent to have sex.
Believe it or not, it was like that back in the 1980s. It was quite common for say a 16 yo to date a 14 yo, or an 18 with 15 year old. Nobody really cared as long as the two were teenagers and the "maturity level of the individual" was taken into account.
You know, that whole "she won't date me I'm just a Freshman" clich+¬ from all those dumb films in the 80s.
Now imagine if, lacking regs or enforcement, you have men in their 20s and up dating 12 year old girls. It becomes a bit too much, a bit "in your face" and most of all, a little difficult to pretend it's still OK.
So, there was no problem with the multi box thing, all "within the rules" and an area where while it appeared illegal it was not.....
and then, like the 30 year old dating the 12 year old, suddenly you have entire fleets gratuitously hoovering up entire belts, each pilot not even having a real name, all in the safety of highsec.
If there is one mistake that CCP tends to make, it's the underestimation of the Min-Max player. If there is one little tiny atom-sized little teensy iota of a chance that something will be taken all the way in one direction as the mechanics allow it, then it WILL. If there is a "possibility" of something, anything, and that possibility leads to more ISK or more stats, then that possibility by itself becomes the reality. Thera for example, if the stations can be death bubbled by dictors, it WILL and by people who have all the time in the world for it.
So, while the multibox fleet may be OK per the rules and all that, we have seen the min max sperglords take that all the way to the absurd.
And absurd, even if in the rules, eventually starts to look bad. People get to wondering "what kind of people am I dealing with here?" and nobody is really having a good time when hit with crazy vibes.
Quoting this in case you edit it
|
|
|
Kagehisa Shintaro
We Make Weapons
8
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:08:01 -
[511] - Quote
Stephan Schneider wrote:all the lost money for ccp
i can see hundreds of mining alts just die
just change it so the ban only goes for pvp related activities
Why should PvE be exempt from this rule???
As a multibox miner (not ISBoxer, genuine at my screen multi boxing) I completely agree on equal footing with PvPers in relation to automation and fair treatment etc.
Radkiel wrote:Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D I just unsubbed all of my accounts, I'll play until the 1st then find another game. I fail to see how multiboxing affects anyone around me.
Automation of the multiboxing affects everyone, everywhere... It devalues what the person who manually controls multiple accounts does, it devalues what the person who runs 1 account does. It doesn't help people stay on equal footing. I agree that someone who runs 1 account shouldn't be on equal footing with someone who runs 10, but they should be able to compete with 1 of my 10 accounts at least. (I don't run all 10 at once, infact most are unsubbed atm).
If this is a ban on ISBoxer, without naming ISBoxer, or rather lets say "Multibox Software", then I say fair play to CCP for making the decision. Sure it will affect things in the immediate future, but I think in the long run it will be better for the game. |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
89
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:08:31 -
[512] - Quote
Wormholers, supers, invention skills, now iskboxers. So sweet.
We need a Bucket Of Tears christmas gift.
I will buy them up and make a bath out of them.
Oh, I think we also need a bathtub in CQ for that. Even if through NEX store. Still worth it. |
Systimus
Nightweave Operations
Revenant Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:08:50 -
[513] - Quote
I use isboxer to mine with 4 accounts. Never have pvp'd with it. I don't use constantly but might use it to activate auto pilot or to dock. If I'm reading this correctly, this action with be banned . So no point in having 4 accounts so might as well cancel 3 of them.
Elite dangerous is out soon. Maybe cancel all 4 and have a go at that instead. |
Daniel Jackson
Liandri Sanctuary Corps
Liandri Covenant
45
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:09:54 -
[514] - Quote
what exactly is Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing? i still don't understand is using the logitech keyboards GKEY binds Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing ?
I Vote YES! for Downloadable HI-RES Textures!!!!
|
Jvpiter
Jovelike
2762
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:10:28 -
[515] - Quote
I disagree with this change, but I am not surprised CCP has come to this decision.
What is surprising is their decision to do so at the expense of account subs. I applaud their dedication to what they feel is the spirit of the game.
Call me Joe.
|
Tollen Gallen
Glory of Reprisal Enterprise
8673
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:11:11 -
[516] - Quote
Systimus wrote:I use isboxer to mine with 4 accounts. Never have pvp'd with it. I don't use constantly but might use it to activate auto pilot or to dock. If I'm reading this correctly, this action with be banned . So no point in having 4 accounts so might as well cancel 3 of them.
Elite dangerous is out soon. Maybe cancel all 4 and have a go at that instead.
Bye..
Stoof?
I like Bacon.
Zimmy Zeta - I f*cking love martinis. the original ones, with gin, not that vodka martini crap.
Your old Friends can use me for 7 days, free!!!
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:11:21 -
[517] - Quote
Systimus wrote:I use isboxer to mine with 4 accounts. Never have pvp'd with it. I don't use constantly but might use it to activate auto pilot or to dock. If I'm reading this correctly, this action with be banned . So no point in having 4 accounts so might as well cancel 3 of them.
Elite dangerous is out soon. Maybe cancel all 4 and have a go at that instead.
Well, isb boxer is not banned. so you're luckey that you did not do pve like me :)
I wish i enjoyed mining... But i dont fit to it.. Also the brodcasting to multiple screens is pretty mutch useless in mining anyway, who need to Lock all accounts to same stones, right? lol . :) (Hm, and im sorry if this going to make issues for you... i feel With you) :/ |
Utari Onzo
united system's commonwealth
35
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:11:48 -
[518] - Quote
Systimus wrote:I use isboxer to mine with 4 accounts. Never have pvp'd with it. I don't use constantly but might use it to activate auto pilot or to dock. If I'm reading this correctly, this action with be banned . So no point in having 4 accounts so might as well cancel 3 of them.
Elite dangerous is out soon. Maybe cancel all 4 and have a go at that instead.
Why unsub? The only action that is banned is pressing one button to activate the command over all accounts simultaniously. You could carry on using ISBoxer to manage all the clients so long as you're inputing one command for one account at a time. ISBoxer can make managing multiple UIs easier without breaking the rules, you just have to use more manual input. |
Bisu Deckryder
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
10
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:12:02 -
[519] - Quote
Systimus wrote:I use isboxer to mine with 4 accounts. Never have pvp'd with it. I don't use constantly but might use it to activate auto pilot or to dock. If I'm reading this correctly, this action with be banned . So no point in having 4 accounts so might as well cancel 3 of them.
Elite dangerous is out soon. Maybe cancel all 4 and have a go at that instead.
I rather suspect you'll wind up in wow instead, but feel free. If clicking 4 times instead of once is so hard on you, maybe you should stop typing so much and seek out a doctor before you do permanent damage to your hands and wrists. |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Yumping Amok
Circle-Of-Two
269
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:12:38 -
[520] - Quote
Capri Sun KraftFoods wrote:As someone who actually ISBox's bombers I'm a little upset.
The problem isn't ISBoxer. The problem is that bombs as they currently stand are completely broken Sure isboxer exacerbates the problem significantly, but you can still get 30 dudes into a fleet easily and go kill anything with 4 waves that isn't a T3 or a faction battleship. I'd be happy to see my bomber accounts become useless and de-sub them if it meant I didn't have to worry about getting hell bombed every other fleet.
What BL too addicted to nullified Tengus that you can't get them to fly bombers?
RIP EMP
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
|
|
Wille Sanara
Zakarum Industries
Exiliar Syndicate
10
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:12:45 -
[521] - Quote
Wow, I must say I didnt see it coming, but definitelly welcome it. Good job CCP! |
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1581
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:12:50 -
[522] - Quote
The new CCP - drastic action for strengthening game play even at the cost of current accounts. Good stuff.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Lord Moridin
Big Shadows
The Initiative.
8
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:13:05 -
[523] - Quote
Am I the only one who want a definition to the definition?
What's the difference between this macro definition and this input & broadcasting definition?
Some practical examples of what is OK and what is NOT OK would be nice.
Perhaps the explanation is there but threadnought is +30 pages now. |
Jvpiter
Jovelike
2762
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:13:08 -
[524] - Quote
Systimus wrote:I use isboxer to mine with 4 accounts. Never have pvp'd with it. I don't use constantly but might use it to activate auto pilot or to dock. If I'm reading this correctly, this action with be banned . So no point in having 4 accounts so might as well cancel 3 of them.
Elite dangerous is out soon. Maybe cancel all 4 and have a go at that instead.
I doubt you're going to multibox mine in that game, but thanks for informing us.
Call me Joe.
|
Abernie
Task Force Proteus
Protean Concept
153
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:13:41 -
[525] - Quote
Great change, A+
Also I made a flowchart for you who can't be bothered to read the OP:
AM I GOING TO GET BANNED???
Do let me know if I messed something up when making that. |
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
259
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:14:02 -
[526] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Never establish a rule that you cannot enforce with considerable accuracy. Have you ANY experience in the real world. That would negate most laws and legal systems. m
I'm sure that most laws and legal systems emphasize enforcement with considerably accuracy. If someone is suspected of committing an offense against a certain law, they are tried, the facts are reviewed and a judgement is brought forward on whether they have committed such an offense or not.
Besides server-side behavioral analysis that leverages command/input timing comparison between multiboxing clients from the server side, I don't see any reliable method that CCP can differentiate between non-EULA violating usage and EULA compliant usage of ISBoxer. |
virm pasuul
Mine 'N' Refine
Yulai Federation
178
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:14:04 -
[527] - Quote
+1 for this.
Well done CCP :) You are really restoring my faith in you after some pretty large **** ups in the past.
I think this will be very good for the game. Please enforce it properly. |
Utari Onzo
united system's commonwealth
35
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:14:20 -
[528] - Quote
Daniel Jackson wrote:what exactly is Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing? i still don't understand is using the logitech keyboards GKEY binds Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing ?
The easiest explanation is if you push one button, and it sends the command to multiple accounts at the same time it's NOT OK.
Using ISBox to 'tile' your clients on one monitor, but then manually inputting a command to each individual client is OK. |
Angus McRothimay
Norse Complex Inc
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:14:23 -
[529] - Quote
JIeoH Mocc wrote:Zishy Linaris wrote:goodbye ccp. 12 accounts unsubbed as of now. i feel bullshitted for my time i invested but **** happens I've a feeling that, by this rate - this thread is going to account for more unsubbed characters than there were ever subbed. (Obligatory your stuff, can i haz remark)
I am sure that many accounts will be 'unsubbed' now that that they cannot be isboxed to cover the cost of subscription....
However, using an exploit to cover the cost of subscription isn't really subscribing, If no one spent real money on the game there would be no game to play.
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
28
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:14:23 -
[530] - Quote
Systimus wrote:I use isboxer to mine with 4 accounts. Never have pvp'd with it. I don't use constantly but might use it to activate auto pilot or to dock. If I'm reading this correctly, this action with be banned . So no point in having 4 accounts so might as well cancel 3 of them.
Elite dangerous is out soon. Maybe cancel all 4 and have a go at that instead.
lol ... seriously ... 4 toon mining and you needed isboxer for it? good god, kids are lazy nowadays. |
|
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
6836
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:14:32 -
[531] - Quote
Mara Pahrdi wrote:Good decision. This will make EVE a better game. There's been some decent stuff this year.
Whether it will be better or not remains to be seen.
It will certainly be different, though, and I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays out. CCP had been stagnating for some time and now that a new captain is at the helm we are seeing some bold changes.
At the end of the day, it's all about me and I'm just trying to figure out how best to make a pile of ISKies from these new changes. I can see the potential for some to become very rich, very fast and others to quickly lose it all and ragequit. I intend to be on the 'getting very rich' end of that situation.
Mr Epeen
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
13998
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:15:27 -
[532] - Quote
Systimus wrote:I use isboxer to mine with 4 accounts. Never have pvp'd with it. I don't use constantly but might use it to activate auto pilot or to dock. If I'm reading this correctly, this action with be banned . So no point in having 4 accounts so might as well cancel 3 of them.
Elite dangerous is out soon. Maybe cancel all 4 and have a go at that instead.
I will take your stuff you no longer need.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
253
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:15:27 -
[533] - Quote
Malcolm Lionel wrote:gg mining. It was fun.
If you had to isbox to mine, it wasn't really fun. ;)
"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka
|
Servant's Lord
Everlasting Vendetta.
73
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:15:53 -
[534] - Quote
As the CEO of a corp with a high population of multiboxers and an Isboxer myself(10-15 chars), I fully support these changes.
What these changes will have a large effect on/kill:
-Retards who put little effort into their isboxer setups
-People running ridiculous amounts of characters (>25)
These changes won't affect me and my corp much at all since we don't fall into either of those two categories. We don't use broadcasting for anything necessary, and the end result is that things we do only a handful of times in a play session take us 15-20 seconds instead of 3-5.
The tears in this thread have been great from the retards who can't adapt, and the horribly misguided smug from all the retards who believe this will kill isboxer is even better. ;)
I won't be going anywhere, nor will I be unsubbing any of my accounts over this change, nor will my corp(and all our multiboxers) be affected by this change.
+1 CCP for kicking out the retards, and +1 for making plex prices eat ****. I will likely be resubbing a few more chars if plex prices keep dropping. ;) |
Taram Caldar
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
DARKNESS.
59
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:16:23 -
[535] - Quote
Capri Sun KraftFoods wrote:As someone who actually ISBox's bombers I'm a little upset.
The problem isn't ISBoxer. The problem is that bombs as they currently stand are completely broken Sure isboxer exacerbates the problem significantly, but you can still get 30 dudes into a fleet easily and go kill anything with 4 waves that isn't a T3 or a faction battleship. I'd be happy to see my bomber accounts become useless and de-sub them if it meant I didn't have to worry about getting hell bombed every other fleet.
No, there's no problem at all with 30 PEOPLE getting together and using bombers, as intended, to kill things.
The problem is when one ******* uses 30 accounts and isboxer to do it even better than 30 people can.
I'm sorry, you are wrong. ISBOXER is 90% of the problem. Very glad it's gone. Sure, bombers need some tweaking to balance them out a bit.... but isboxer is absolutely a HUGE problem and has been since... forever.
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.-á He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5536
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:16:24 -
[536] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:War Kitten wrote:Hopelesshobo wrote:So, because broadcasting is being banned as of 01 Jan 2015, does that mean on 01 Jan 2015, cloaks will be reverted again to not decloaking each other while cloaked since the main reason this was changed back was to nerf broadcasting bombers together? Keep up with the times... they already changed their minds on that one before even implementing it. Nothing to revert. Hey! Thanks for that, I missed it. So the decloak other cloaked ships thing is not going to be implemented eh? Excellent. I much prefer this solution.
No problem... here's CCP Fozzie's post on the topic: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5159156#post5159156
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Yumping Amok
Circle-Of-Two
269
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:16:43 -
[537] - Quote
+100
First "This is EVE!" Trailer, and now this!
All Hail CCP Falcon!!!
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
David Therman
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:16:45 -
[538] - Quote
ISboxer is dead, long li...
Ah, screw it;
A picture is worth a thousand words
|
Jvpiter
Jovelike
2762
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:17:33 -
[539] - Quote
Angus McRothimay wrote:However, using an exploit to cover the cost of subscription isn't really subscribing, If no one spent real money on the game there would be no game to play.
The cost of subscription is always paid with real money. There may simply be less buyers of PLEX but we don't have enough information to make a definitive conclusion.
Call me Joe.
|
Tappits
north eastern swat
Pandemic Legion
68
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:17:41 -
[540] - Quote
EVE Online client settings
GÇóWindow positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
GÇóThe login process
Yay... because that's all i use Isboxer for so i am not concerned any more. Thanks CCP for sorting this out.
Maybe you should also sort were you can run multiple trial accounts in windows by setting each .EXE file to different Compatibility modes while your at ti. |
|
|
Daniel Jackson
Liandri Sanctuary Corps
Liandri Covenant
45
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:17:42 -
[541] - Quote
Utari Onzo wrote:Daniel Jackson wrote:what exactly is Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing? i still don't understand is using the logitech keyboards GKEY binds Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing ? The easiest explanation is if you push one button, and it sends the command to multiple accounts at the same time it's NOT OK. Using ISBox to 'tile' your clients on one monitor, but then manually inputting a command to each individual client is OK.
o i only bind the keys to like broadcast for reps, broadcast for shields etc to make it easier to know where the keys are insted of pressing multiple of keys to do that function
and sometimes i use the gkeys to add a fraction second or multi second delay in a ungrouped weapon configuration so they fire constantly
is both illegal now?
I Vote YES! for Downloadable HI-RES Textures!!!!
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6026
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:17:44 -
[542] - Quote
Systimus wrote:I use isboxer to mine with 4 accounts. Never have pvp'd with it. I don't use constantly but might use it to activate auto pilot or to dock. If I'm reading this correctly, this action with be banned . So no point in having 4 accounts so might as well cancel 3 of them.
Elite dangerous is out soon. Maybe cancel all 4 and have a go at that instead.
If you never used it to do anything other than auto pilot or dock, why would this bother you at all?
You should probably get your story straight.
Personally I don't care one way or the other, but there are a few good points to all this.
1: Restrictions on bomber use don't have to be as severe.
2: More people will be able to make their living mining.
3: Wealth is better distributed across the general population of miners.
4: PLEX prices will drop quickly, which will be welcome news to many.
To explain the latter, your average ISBoxer miner pays for all of his accounts with PLEX purchased off the market with ISK. His tolerance for higher PLEX prices is MUCH higher than the average EVE player due to his extremely high income stream per account he is funding. In other words, the large number of "high rollers" providing a steady market for over priced PLEX will be sharply and suddenly curtailed.
Which I never had a problem with ISBoxer being in game, even I have to admit this helps to solve a lot of problems.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
615
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:17:56 -
[543] - Quote
Makhpella wrote:Hi CPP if I warp squad do I get banned?
Yes, now give me your stuff.
CCP, good job. I support.
I wonder what it will do for mineral prices however... |
Partricia Solette
TMA UNITED
The Methodical Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:18:07 -
[544] - Quote
meh i think this is a bad call by ccp people are going to unsub accounts and stuff even if they just plex there account those plexes are still payed by some1.
prices of modules and ships are going to go up and everything |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises
Almost Awesome.
314
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:19:06 -
[545] - Quote
Lord Moridin wrote:Am I the only one who want a definition to the definition?
What's the difference between this macro definition and this input & broadcasting definition?
Some practical examples of what is OK and what is NOT OK would be nice.
Perhaps the explanation is there but threadnought is +30 pages now.
IT was stated clearly:
Automation = a user doesnt do anything and the accounts act as if some one is there
Input multiplying = a person playing on multiple accounts and clicking once, but the same command goes to 10 other screens
A macro to mine would start a mining laser, dock at station, move the ore to the hangar, undock, and mine again. As such, the user does little to no input.
If I was using broadcasting a mining laser would start where I clicked or hotkeyed, all other acocunts on the broadcast would receive that. So I click mine one time for 10 miners to start mining. I still have to manually dock, warp and so on but I do it at the very least for one account and all the accounts follow. |
Systimus
Nightweave Operations
Revenant Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:19:29 -
[546] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote:Systimus wrote:I use isboxer to mine with 4 accounts. Never have pvp'd with it. I don't use constantly but might use it to activate auto pilot or to dock. If I'm reading this correctly, this action with be banned . So no point in having 4 accounts so might as well cancel 3 of them.
Elite dangerous is out soon. Maybe cancel all 4 and have a go at that instead. lol ... seriously ... 4 toon mining and you needed isboxer for it? good god, kids are lazy nowadays.
It's just easier to use it than without. I don't macro mine and look dimly on those who do. Also, I am 44 years old. Not a kid |
Dazamin
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
40
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:19:31 -
[547] - Quote
CCP Falcon, mind explaining why the punishments for something that has previously been allowed in game are more severe then they have ever been for actual botting? Up until this point completely automated botting had a three strike policy, why is someone playing the game using input broadcasting considered worse?
Also are you intending to devote more resources to catching people using various forms of automation? Since it is already a large problem before you add more bannable offences. |
edvinb
Atomic Brokers
Eve Engineering
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:19:58 -
[548] - Quote
This are some good changes.
What i fear most is that if someone sees 4-5 guys flying in a team.. they will be reported for EULA violations / boting / isboxing and what not.
I have adapted to these changes now, so im all good.
+1 for you CCP.
- Edvinb |
Taram Caldar
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
DARKNESS.
60
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:19:59 -
[549] - Quote
DragonHelm III wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. For god's sake CCP stop all the bluster and give a straight answer ISBOXER banned or not? It just needs a yes or no All this crap about terms like Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing mean squat to me as I have no idea what they are.
ISBoxer is much more than a multiplexer/broadcaster. There are features of it that people can still use. But using it for things like isboxing bombers/miners/ratters is bannable now.
It isn't vague at all. the mechanic people were using, regardless of the application/device used, to broadcast commands across multiple clients at the same time is banned.
Even if you take a stick, glue it across 10 mice and use the stick so the mice all give the commands at the same time is covered by this because that is command broadcasting. Using a physical KVM to mirror commands to multiple systems would fall under the 'muleiplexing/broadcasting' rule.
CCP went much further than banning ISBOXER they banned any method of doing what people have been using ISBoxer for (vis-a-vis multiboxing bombers, etc). There are other features of ISBoxer that work well with eve that have nothing to do with multiboxing bombers/etc. And those features shouldn't, and aren't, bannable.
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.-á He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:20:15 -
[550] - Quote
Angus McRothimay wrote:JIeoH Mocc wrote:Zishy Linaris wrote:goodbye ccp. 12 accounts unsubbed as of now. i feel bullshitted for my time i invested but **** happens I've a feeling that, by this rate - this thread is going to account for more unsubbed characters than there were ever subbed. (Obligatory your stuff, can i haz remark) I am sure that many accounts will be 'unsubbed' now that that they cannot be isboxed to cover the cost of subscription.... However, using an exploit to cover the cost of subscription isn't really subscribing, If no one spent real money on the game there would be no game to play.
What exploit? i use 3 accounts. and i pay With real Money on them all, so tell me? |
|
|
350125GO
Transcendent Sedition
Protean Concept
135
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:20:17 -
[551] - Quote
I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if hundreds of asshats suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
You're young, you'll adjust.
I'm old, I'll get used to it.
|
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7277
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:20:29 -
[552] - Quote
WTB - PLEX when it hits 400M again.
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'.
|
Taram Caldar
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
DARKNESS.
60
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:20:50 -
[553] - Quote
eiedu wrote:RIP incursions
RIP Ratting
RIP bombing
Time to go back to wow, where it makes no sense to have multiple accounts
How are you even going to "catch" people who are input-multiplexing hardware-wise
If you have to ask you have no idea what you are talking about.
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.-á He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
|
Rear Admiral Charlie
DR. SloMo and the G.I. Clinic
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:21:05 -
[554] - Quote
Servant's Lord wrote:As the CEO of a corp with a high population of multiboxers and an Isboxer myself(10-15 chars), I fully support these changes.
What these changes will have a large effect on/kill:
-Retards who put little effort into their isboxer setups
-People running ridiculous amounts of characters (>25)
These changes won't affect me and my corp much at all since we don't fall into either of those two categories(a few of my guys panicked without thinking, I've since sat down and had a chat with folks and explained how this doesn't hurt us at all). We don't use broadcasting for anything necessary, and the end result is that things we do only a handful of times in a play session take us 15-20 seconds instead of 3-5.
The tears in this thread have been great from the retards who can't adapt, and the horribly misguided smug from all the retards who believe this will kill isboxer is even better. ;)
I won't be going anywhere, nor will I be unsubbing any of my accounts over this change, nor will my corp(and all our multiboxers) be affected by this change.
+1 CCP for kicking out the retards, and +1 for making plex prices eat ****. I will likely be resubbing a few more chars if plex prices keep dropping. ;)
you sir are an inspiration |
Taram Caldar
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
DARKNESS.
60
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:22:23 -
[555] - Quote
Mierin Arthie wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe. How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard? for those that dont know what a kvm switch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch
That's command broadcasting/multiplexing and it still falls under the policy. They said regardless if it's a hardware or software solution.
Using a stick with a lever to manipulate 10 mice to do the same thing at the same time to multibox would even be covered under this.
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.-á He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14001
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:22:50 -
[556] - Quote
Dazamin wrote:CCP Falcon, mind explaining why the punishments for something that has previously been allowed in game are more severe then they have ever been for actual botting? Up until this point completely automated botting had a three strike policy, why is someone playing the game using input broadcasting considered worse?
Also are you intending to devote more resources to catching people using various forms of automation? Since it is already a large problem before you add more bannable offences.
Botting is also on a two strike policy.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6026
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:23:40 -
[557] - Quote
Jvpiter wrote:Angus McRothimay wrote:However, using an exploit to cover the cost of subscription isn't really subscribing, If no one spent real money on the game there would be no game to play.
The cost of subscription is always paid with real money. There may simply be less buyers of PLEX but we don't have enough information to make a definitive conclusion.
Less buyers will to buy PLEX no matter the cost.
The usual market forces should kick in now and start balancing things out at a more normal level.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Taram Caldar
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
DARKNESS.
60
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:24:00 -
[558] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Mierin Arthie wrote:How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard? for those that dont know what a kvm switch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch That doesn't broadcast, it just changes where input goes - it should be fine.
Wrong
it broadcasts a single command to multiple systems
Still applies.
Seriously people.... reading comprehension
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.-á He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
29
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:24:13 -
[559] - Quote
Taram Caldar wrote:Mierin Arthie wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe. How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard? for those that dont know what a kvm switch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch That's command broadcasting/multiplexing and it still falls under the policy. They said regardless if it's a hardware or software solution. Using a stick with a lever to manipulate 10 mice to do the same thing at the same time to multibox would even be covered under this.
it is not multiplexing unless the kvm switch allows signal duplication. 1:1 sending is fine. |
Doctor Bonn Young
Drunken Reprobates
Guardians of Serenity
9
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:24:14 -
[560] - Quote
Do we get medals and presents if we report our ISK-boxing neighbours after 1-1-2015?
|
|
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:24:32 -
[561] - Quote
Taram Caldar wrote:DragonHelm III wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. For god's sake CCP stop all the bluster and give a straight answer ISBOXER banned or not? It just needs a yes or no All this crap about terms like Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing mean squat to me as I have no idea what they are. ISBoxer is much more than a multiplexer/broadcaster. There are features of it that people can still use. But using it for things like isboxing bombers/miners/ratters is bannable now. It isn't vague at all. the mechanic people were using, regardless of the application/device used, to broadcast commands across multiple clients at the same time is banned. Even if you take a stick, glue it across 10 mice and use the stick so the mice all give the commands at the same time is covered by this because that is command broadcasting. Using a physical KVM to mirror commands to multiple systems would fall under the 'muleiplexing/broadcasting' rule. CCP went much further than banning ISBOXER they banned any method of doing what people have been using ISBoxer for (vis-a-vis multiboxing bombers, etc). There are other features of ISBoxer that work well with eve that have nothing to do with multiboxing bombers/etc. And those features shouldn't, and aren't, bannable.
you're so wrong saying that Isboxing Bomers/miners/ratters'etc are bannable. And i dont even see how you can use it in mining other than the abillety to stack Windows nicely. fleet Warp do a lot, and multibrodcast miners're pretty mutch useless. |
horis hurbunker
Careless Airways
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:24:38 -
[562] - Quote
can we stop whining about the the 3 or 4 account problem and talk about the real reason this was put in the people with 30 toons running solo incursions making what was meant to be a large group activity a solo grind fest that make the market hyper inflated. or the fact that people rat with 7 super carriers in different systems at the same time. The amount of isk these people are making is causing the raise in plex price which is bad for almost every one who does not make 2 billion + a day. and yes there is the solo 10 man pvp gangs that do silly things and i am sure that ccp is going to start with the worst offenders before they check and see who is mining with 3 accounts or what ever else your doing so long as your not screwing up the game for other players |
Utari Onzo
united system's commonwealth
38
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:24:55 -
[563] - Quote
Daniel Jackson wrote:Utari Onzo wrote:Daniel Jackson wrote:what exactly is Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing? i still don't understand is using the logitech keyboards GKEY binds Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing ? The easiest explanation is if you push one button, and it sends the command to multiple accounts at the same time it's NOT OK. Using ISBox to 'tile' your clients on one monitor, but then manually inputting a command to each individual client is OK. o i only bind the keys to like broadcast for reps, broadcast for shields etc to make it easier to know where the keys are insted of pressing multiple of keys to do that function and sometimes i use the gkeys to add a fraction second or multi second delay in a ungrouped weapon configuration so they fire constantly is both illegal now?
If you are doing this to say broadcast for reps, on one account no. Hot binding/shortcuts are not banned. Entering a delay to activate a shortcut is not banned.
If you are pressing this shortcut once and ALL your accounts say 'broadcast for reps', that is banned. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
229
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:25:54 -
[564] - Quote
This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6027
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:26:16 -
[565] - Quote
Taram Caldar wrote:eiedu wrote:RIP incursions
RIP Ratting
RIP bombing
Time to go back to wow, where it makes no sense to have multiple accounts
How are you even going to "catch" people who are input-multiplexing hardware-wise
If you have to ask you have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm more concerned that he seems to be confused as to the vast difference between using multiple accounts and using ISBoxer
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
WhiteyUSMC
The Milkmen
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:27:24 -
[566] - Quote
Suddenly I feel better about resubbing (nosarcasm) |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14002
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:27:48 -
[567] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking.
That can only happen when they remove local.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Daniel Jackson
Liandri Sanctuary Corps
Liandri Covenant
45
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:28:47 -
[568] - Quote
Utari Onzo wrote:Daniel Jackson wrote:Utari Onzo wrote:Daniel Jackson wrote:what exactly is Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing? i still don't understand is using the logitech keyboards GKEY binds Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing ? The easiest explanation is if you push one button, and it sends the command to multiple accounts at the same time it's NOT OK. Using ISBox to 'tile' your clients on one monitor, but then manually inputting a command to each individual client is OK. o i only bind the keys to like broadcast for reps, broadcast for shields etc to make it easier to know where the keys are insted of pressing multiple of keys to do that function and sometimes i use the gkeys to add a fraction second or multi second delay in a ungrouped weapon configuration so they fire constantly is both illegal now? If you are doing this to say broadcast for reps, on one account no. Hot binding/shortcuts are not banned. Entering a delay to activate a shortcut is not banned. If you are pressing this shortcut once and ALL your accounts say 'broadcast for reps', that is banned.
no i only do it for 1 account i cant pvp with more then 1 lol u would have to be some kind of god to do any combat with more than 1
I Vote YES! for Downloadable HI-RES Textures!!!!
|
Bisu Deckryder
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:28:56 -
[569] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking.
No its not, this change isn't about making carebearing easier, so there isn't any actual logical follow through. |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
2235
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:29:26 -
[570] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking.
Yup nerf all things that threaten the rich boy club of nullsec.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
|
|
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5536
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:29:49 -
[571] - Quote
Taram Caldar wrote:War Kitten wrote:Mierin Arthie wrote:How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard? for those that dont know what a kvm switch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch That doesn't broadcast, it just changes where input goes - it should be fine. Wrong it broadcasts a single command to multiple systems Still applies. Seriously people.... reading comprehension
No, that's not what a KVM switch does. It is a switch that allows you to select which system to send input to. It's 1:1.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7278
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:29:55 -
[572] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking. That can only happen when they remove local.
Stahp, stahp....
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'.
|
virm pasuul
Mine 'N' Refine
Yulai Federation
178
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:31:16 -
[573] - Quote
KVMs
A KVM is typically used to broadcast keyboard and mouse to one computer out of many at a time.
It's real strength lies in being able to select WHICH computer out of many without lots of plugging and unplugging cables.
e.g. manage many servers in a datacentre from one keyboard mouse and monitor.
If you use a KVM in this way to mange many eve client but only manage one at any time you're fine.
If you use some form of modified KVM to broadcast many eve clients at the same/simultaneously time then this is not allowed under the news rules.
The rule of thumb is does an action, e.g. a click or keypress affect more than one instance of the eve client at the same time?
If yes then disallowed.
This only applies to in game actions that affect the eve universe. Cient side non universe affecting things are mostly fine. |
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
6839
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:31:42 -
[574] - Quote
It seems PLEX have dropped by 50m since this thread went up.
I can't complain about that.
Mr Epeen
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
Master Apollyon
BLACK REGIMENT
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:32:29 -
[575] - Quote
Finally!
No more farm accounts. |
Systimus
Nightweave Operations
Revenant Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:32:50 -
[576] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Systimus wrote:I use isboxer to mine with 4 accounts. Never have pvp'd with it. I don't use constantly but might use it to activate auto pilot or to dock. If I'm reading this correctly, this action with be banned . So no point in having 4 accounts so might as well cancel 3 of them.
Elite dangerous is out soon. Maybe cancel all 4 and have a go at that instead. If you never used it to do anything other than auto pilot or dock, why would this bother you at all? You should probably get your story straight. Personally I don't care one way or the other, but there are a few good points to all this. 1: Restrictions on bomber use don't have to be as severe. 2: More people will be able to make their living mining. 3: Wealth is better distributed across the general population of miners. 4: PLEX prices will drop quickly, which will be welcome news to many. To explain the latter, your average ISBoxer miner pays for all of his accounts with PLEX purchased off the market with ISK. His tolerance for higher PLEX prices is MUCH higher than the average EVE player due to his extremely high income stream per account he is funding. In other words, the large number of "high rollers" providing a steady market for over priced PLEX will be sharply and suddenly curtailed. Which I never had a problem with ISBoxer being in game, even I have to admit this helps to solve a lot of problems.
Ranger, I find you really offensive. My story straight ?
I think ccp need to clarify what they intend to ban. Any action that affects the universe ...... If using auto pilot or docking is specifically excempt then please ccp clarify. Also, I have never plexd any account and pay for all 4 every month with real money. I don't do pvp on any of my accounts and I find mining relaxing. I feel mining with 1 account a little boring but mining with 4 much more enjoyable. Do I gave an advantage over someone playing with a single account maybe. But if they wanted to pay for 4 accounts they could have that advantage too.
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1597
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:32:57 -
[577] - Quote
So...the guy the mittani told to kill himself, may now actually kill himself?
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
146
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:32:57 -
[578] - Quote
Systimus wrote:I use isboxer to mine with 4 accounts. Never have pvp'd with it. I don't use constantly but might use it to activate auto pilot or to dock. If I'm reading this correctly, this action with be banned . So no point in having 4 accounts so might as well cancel 3 of them.
Elite dangerous is out soon. Maybe cancel all 4 and have a go at that instead.
Bye :) |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
229
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:33:08 -
[579] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking. Yup nerf all things that threaten the rich boy club of nullsec.
(As if we don't actively have the largest base of afk cloaking alts in the game, because we can afford the accounts) |
virm pasuul
Mine 'N' Refine
Yulai Federation
178
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:33:10 -
[580] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:It seems PLEX have dropped by 50m since this thread went up. I can't complain about that. Mr Epeen
Tritanium is going to go higher than PLEX at the current rate of change :) |
|
|
RoAnnon
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
15963
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:33:34 -
[581] - Quote
Querns wrote:This will probably never happen. This game is pretty much impossible to play on any meaningful level without multiboxing.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "meaningful level". Devoid of any useful definition of that phrase, this statement is utter crap.
So, you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.
|
Prisoner11213
iMmortal Wings
Most Valuable Player
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:34:25 -
[582] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:It seems PLEX have dropped by 50m since this thread went up. I can't complain about that. Mr Epeen
Let them fall LET THEM FALL AND BE BURN AWAY.
Got my money rdy to buy some when they are rising again cant wait !! |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
229
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:35:03 -
[583] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
So...the guy the mittani told to kill himself, may now actually kill himself?
F
is this real life? |
RoAnnon
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
15977
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:35:13 -
[584] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking.
Sure, that's logical, since an AFK cloaked pilot has absolutely no way to interact with the game at all... perfect sense there...
So, you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.
|
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
17936
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:35:26 -
[585] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking.
But how will CCP fix people's runaway imaginations?
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
|
virm pasuul
Mine 'N' Refine
Yulai Federation
181
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:35:35 -
[586] - Quote
If all the bot accounts stopped playing all at the same time, would anyone notice?
If only the bot players are sad, and they aren't even playing Eve, then who is left to be sad for them?
Maybe someone could write a bot to be sad for the other bots? |
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7280
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:35:50 -
[587] - Quote
isBoxer fleet character sales are coming out now.
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'.
|
Wibla
Tactical Narcotics Team
161
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:36:00 -
[588] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
So...the guy the mittani told to kill himself, may now actually kill himself?
F
Not empty quoting. |
embrel
BamBam Inc.
Outlanders United
204
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:36:04 -
[589] - Quote
Partricia Solette wrote:meh i think this is a bad call by ccp people are going to unsub accounts and stuff even if they just plex there account those plexes are still payed by some1.
prices of modules and ships are going to go up and everything
You see any reason this someone would not buy a Plex now?
Re: other prices guess so too, unless the boxers created a large demand there too. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
Forged of Fire
640
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:36:34 -
[590] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking.
The next logical step is for CCP to implement a better way to employ multiple accounts within Eve. Not saying that would be a good thing or bad thing, just saying I could see it being a new feature down the road.
In the meanwhile, I won't be unsubscribing my six accounts. You just won't see all three of them wave like this in local:
Char1: o/
Char2: o/
Char3: o/
Alt-tabbing, along with normal fleet functions such as squad warp, works very well for mining or ratting.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
|
|
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation
DemSal Unlimited
1999
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:36:44 -
[591] - Quote
Damn, lot of folks pitching in on this and more even as I write.
ISBoxer is not banned, what it sometimes does IS. This has the benefit of if you make a new program called ASSBoxer that does the same as ISBoxer you have not found a way around the bans. If you use chopsticks and rubberbands to duplicate you have not found a way around. It is not the tool it is the application of it that is at issue.
I think this is a good move. It may cost a few short term, losses but I think a lot of players will appreciate the chance to be on even footing or forced to be with other players to do a group activity (one of the M's in mMo)
and I know I forgot to ask earlier . . . but yeah, I am helping out the FLOOD of new players coming into the game and so if you want to hand over the assets of a multibox mining fleet I will see that they get a good home and USED by individual players.
which is what I like
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Laughable Xhosa Girl
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:37:41 -
[592] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
So...the guy the mittani told to kill himself, may now actually kill himself?
F
Beware the long play |
Kagehisa Shintaro
We Make Weapons
8
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:37:46 -
[593] - Quote
Taram Caldar wrote:War Kitten wrote:Mierin Arthie wrote:How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard? for those that dont know what a kvm switch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch That doesn't broadcast, it just changes where input goes - it should be fine. Wrong it broadcasts a single command to multiple systems Still applies. Seriously people.... reading comprehension
KVM sends signals to one computer at a time. You then tell it to switch to another computer and send the command, infact it would make multiboxing slower. KVM does NOT automate actions.
Dazamin wrote:
CCP Falcon, mind explaining why the punishments for something that has previously been allowed in game are more severe then they have ever been for actual botting? Up until this point completely automated botting had a three strike policy, why is someone playing the game using input broadcasting considered worse?
Also are you intending to devote more resources to catching people using various forms of automation? Since it is already a large problem before you add more bannable offences.
Botters have been on two-strike system for some time now. |
Ginger Barbarella
2040
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:38:30 -
[594] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking.
0/10
"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
|
Utari Onzo
united system's commonwealth
38
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:39:26 -
[595] - Quote
Daniel Jackson wrote:
no i only do it for 1 account i cant pvp with more then 1 lol u would have to be some kind of god to do any combat with more than 1
I tend to fly in pvp with 1 logi alt and 1 dps/ecm ship. I have the two clients in windowed mode, shrunk so they both fit in my monitor. It works in that I can generally use both characters pretty well, but I am a human and it has bit me in the ass more then once playing the game like this. I would link you my carrier lossmail while dualboxing triage/devoter and logging a proteus alt in, but I can't. Here's a blog post about it instead http://smug-bastard.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/neither-borrower-nor-lender-be.html
Dual/Multiboxing without broadcast fuctions is a PITA but it's still a massive force multiplier when you ahve limited 'real' pilots |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
17936
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:39:29 -
[596] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:and I know I forgot to ask earlier . . . but yeah, I am helping out the FLOOD of new players coming into the game and so if you want to hand over the assets of a multibox mining fleet I will see that they get a good home and USED by individual players.
Your CSM tag does not exempt you from the fact that you know damn well that I have perma-dibs on people's stuff.
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
|
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP
The Marmite Collective
1415
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:40:13 -
[597] - Quote
RIP Code and Miniluv gankers
DISCLAIMER : All of the above replies are not meant as any form of harassment. It's all SciFi.
YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK
|
Utari Onzo
united system's commonwealth
38
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:40:48 -
[598] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Damn, lot of folks pitching in on this and more even as I write.
ISBoxer is not banned, what it sometimes does IS. This has the benefit of if you make a new program called ASSBoxer that does the same as ISBoxer you have not found a way around the bans. If you use chopsticks and rubberbands to duplicate you have not found a way around. It is not the tool it is the application of it that is at issue.
I think this is a good move. It may cost a few short term, losses but I think a lot of players will appreciate the chance to be on even footing or forced to be with other players to do a group activity (one of the M's in mMo)
and I know I forgot to ask earlier . . . but yeah, I am helping out the FLOOD of new players coming into the game and so if you want to hand over the assets of a multibox mining fleet I will see that they get a good home and USED by individual players.
which is what I like
m
Can't like this post enough. |
Charley Talleyrand
Project Kairos
Dei-Telum
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:41:16 -
[599] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Interesting. Given that this is a new policy and one that might be hard to communicate to players at large, are you going to go soft with people the first few months and give them written warnings before you adopt your other policy?
lol. It's a month away. Anyone stupid enough to be doing this now deserves a ban- much less leniency in 2015. They should skip the 30-day suspension and just perma ban. |
Daniel Jackson
Liandri Sanctuary Corps
Liandri Covenant
45
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:41:21 -
[600] - Quote
Utari Onzo wrote:Daniel Jackson wrote:
no i only do it for 1 account i cant pvp with more then 1 lol u would have to be some kind of god to do any combat with more than 1
I tend to fly in pvp with 1 logi alt and 1 dps/ecm ship. I have the two clients in windowed mode, shrunk so they both fit in my monitor. It works in that I can generally use both characters pretty well, but I am a human and it has bit me in the ass more then once playing the game like this. I would link you my carrier lossmail while dualboxing triage/devoter and logging a proteus alt in, but I can't. Here's a blog post about it instead http://smug-bastard.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/neither-borrower-nor-lender-be.html
Dual/Multiboxing without broadcast fuctions is a PITA but it's still a massive force multiplier when you ahve limited 'real' pilots
i can barly stand my own using just 1 account :P
I Vote YES! for Downloadable HI-RES Textures!!!!
|
|
|
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
476
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:41:24 -
[601] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking. Yup nerf all things that threaten the rich boy club of nullsec.
High sec incursions nerf it is then. |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
573
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:41:57 -
[602] - Quote
Tora Bushido wrote:RIP Code and Miniluv gankers
Ohhh, hisec elite pvp smacktalk!
This thread is going places. |
Xython
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
1133
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:41:58 -
[603] - Quote
Taram Caldar wrote:War Kitten wrote:Mierin Arthie wrote:How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard? for those that dont know what a kvm switch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch That doesn't broadcast, it just changes where input goes - it should be fine. Wrong it broadcasts a single command to multiple systems Still applies. Seriously people.... reading comprehension
Not even close to accurate. You can simulate a KVM by unplugging your keyboard and plugging it into a second computer.
KVMs should be just fine, if you want to set up a few dozen PCs to play EVE Online with. (Don't do this.) |
Aerious
Homegrown Enterprises
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:42:37 -
[604] - Quote
Goon tears are the best tears! |
Lord Ra
Section XII
23
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:43:45 -
[605] - Quote
Ive snipped out the audio file 'The Asteroid Is Depleted' with audacity and placed it on sound cloud if any ISBOXER users would like it as a message tone for your phones?.
Good Change 10/10 :)
Ra |
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
1289
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:43:49 -
[606] - Quote
And about time too! GG CCP.
[b]Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee"
Undocking - More Routes Out of Station[/b]
Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up!
|
Xython
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
1133
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:44:26 -
[607] - Quote
Aerious wrote:Goon tears are the best tears!
You may be misunderstanding a different liquid for tears. This is the best news all month. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:44:27 -
[608] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Damn, lot of folks pitching in on this and more even as I write.
ISBoxer is not banned, what it sometimes does IS. This has the benefit of if you make a new program called ASSBoxer that does the same as ISBoxer you have not found a way around the bans. If you use chopsticks and rubberbands to duplicate you have not found a way around. It is not the tool it is the application of it that is at issue.
I think this is a good move. It may cost a few short term, losses but I think a lot of players will appreciate the chance to be on even footing or forced to be with other players to do a group activity (one of the M's in mMo)
and I know I forgot to ask earlier . . . but yeah, I am helping out the FLOOD of new players coming into the game and so if you want to hand over the assets of a multibox mining fleet I will see that they get a good home and USED by individual players.
which is what I like
m
lol, Brodcast to all accounts is not even needed mining. Fleet Warp, + swapping between accounts With an Nice screen setup, (whitch isboxer can be used to do) i would never use brodcast to all while mining, (like, who need to all mine same rock)? would not seem that smart. (i dont even like mining) lol |
KeeperRus
Exanimo Inc
Gentlemen's.Club
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:44:40 -
[609] - Quote
HAHAHA! Love how people think that the sales are gonna go like crazy on the forums. No, it goes like this: If your going to quit because of it... Selling your account does not matter now does it?
|
corebloodbrothers
Volition Cult
The Volition Cult
674
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:44:45 -
[610] - Quote
About time, several csm have been vocal about this. This is not about a tool, but about its use and what it does too eve.
Its very clear that if u use a tool to run a bomber wing by mutiplying single inout too multiple accounts its illegal.
Poeple doubting that like to cause drama, ratehr then actually reading the excact words.
Any drop in accounts will be countered by the fact that others stay in this game, cause they dont get blown up by 1 cheating dude.
Also compairing it with a normal bomber wing is silly. They lands not at excat same time, giving bubles and tackle a change, and the darwin law is mutiplied by 700% since people are people
Also the dude iskboxing 20 mining accounts wasnt going to use those too activly use those to make eve a more exciting place, rather then his own gain.
How that affects plex ,we ll see once it balances out. I am proud to ccp make again a choice out of principle rather then money. Blink, and the null sec changes, and this one show a new decade where ccp is in control of their destiny and game
One proud csm member! |
|
|
Mina Sebiestar
Mactabilis Simplex Cursus
768
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:44:51 -
[611] - Quote
How dare you making this game a healthy and better for everyone...what about ME! |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4273
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:45:06 -
[612] - Quote
Lord Ra wrote:Ive snipped out the audio file 'The Asteroid Is Depleted' with audacity and placed it on sound cloud if any ISBOXER users would like it as a message tone for your phones?.
Good Change 10/10 :)
Ra
https://soundcloud.com/ccpgames/eve-online-aura-the-asteroid?in=ccpgames/sets/aura
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
229
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:45:07 -
[613] - Quote
RoAnnon wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking. Sure, that's logical, since an AFK cloaked pilot has absolutely no way to interact with the game at all... perfect sense there...
CCP is directly nerfing the force projection that one player can have affect on others in Eve.
What do you think afk cloaking is?
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
330
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:46:07 -
[614] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Taram Caldar wrote:War Kitten wrote:Mierin Arthie wrote:How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard? for those that dont know what a kvm switch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch That doesn't broadcast, it just changes where input goes - it should be fine. Wrong it broadcasts a single command to multiple systems Still applies. Seriously people.... reading comprehension No, that's not what a KVM switch does. It is a switch that allows you to select which system to send input to. It's 1:1.
It should also be noted that there ARE keyboard and mouse multiplexers which allow you to broadcast commands to multiple systems at once (I used to use them when I had to do system setups for my employer), and those would be bannable.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
933
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:47:32 -
[615] - Quote
DragonHelm III wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. For god's sake CCP stop all the bluster and give a straight answer ISBOXER banned or not? It just needs a yes or no All this crap about terms like Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing mean squat to me as I have no idea what they are.
CCP can't really ban a single program because there are hundreds of duplicates out there. Also there are programs simar to isboxer without the input automation or multi broadcasting that people use.
Policies still mud but it's a step in the right direction.
This is hardly a rage thread. The amount of bombers about to be sold is going to be staggering.
Yaay!!!!
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14008
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:48:05 -
[616] - Quote
Aerious wrote:Goon tears are the best tears!
Yep, we are positively flooding the forums with rage over how badly one man high sec mining and incursion fleets have been nerfed.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Xython
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
1135
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:48:53 -
[617] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Also the dude iskboxing 20 mining accounts wasnt going to use those too activly use those to make eve a more exciting place, rather then his own gain.
"The dude" is up to over 80, actually, according ot the iskboxer dev.
|
Toria Nynys
Surly Dinos
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:50:21 -
[618] - Quote
With everyone screaming about unsubbing as a result of that I just have to pipe up with:
+4 accounts re-subbed while my ISK lasts and 1 with $. After thinking about it longer this is a fantastic and long overdue policy change.
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
933
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:50:41 -
[619] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:About time, several csm have been vocal about this. This is not about a tool, but about its use and what it does too eve.
Its very clear that if u use a tool to run a bomber wing by mutiplying single inout too multiple accounts its illegal.
Poeple doubting that like to cause drama, ratehr then actually reading the excact words.
Any drop in accounts will be countered by the fact that others stay in this game, cause they dont get blown up by 1 cheating dude.
Also compairing it with a normal bomber wing is silly. They lands not at excat same time, giving bubles and tackle a change, and the darwin law is mutiplied by 700% since people are people
Also the dude iskboxing 20 mining accounts wasnt going to use those too activly use those to make eve a more exciting place, rather then his own gain.
How that affects plex ,we ll see once it balances out. I am proud to ccp make again a choice out of principle rather then money. Blink, and the null sec changes, and this one show a new decade where ccp is in control of their destiny and game
One proud csm member!
I do have a thought about this. Did this happen to show up due to the recent sov loss with brave, as their 300 man fleet got wiped out by 3 bombing runs?
I wasn't there, but I would think that maybe that was the final nail in the coffin (3 guys take out 300), assuming the 30 man bombing wing was just 3 guys). Regardless, good decision so far.
Yaay!!!!
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
330
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:50:52 -
[620] - Quote
Xython wrote:Aerious wrote:Goon tears are the best tears! You may be misunderstanding a different liquid for tears. This is the best news all month.
What other liqui...oh.
Ooohhh.
Oh that's nasty.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
|
|
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
148
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:51:13 -
[621] - Quote
To quote my previous post in the thread about jump changes..
It's always interesting to see how eager people are to X up and admit they're part of the problem by declaring they're quitting EVE when a problem gets fixed.
Player: I love doing X!
CCP and Playerbase: Players doing X is a problem it should get fixed.
X get's fixed
Player: EVE IS RUINED! I QUIT!
CCP and Playerbase rejoices at the fewer number of problems in the game.
Player continues being oblivious to the fact that his temper tantrum not only didn't yield the results he so desperately hoped for, but in fact, brought happiness to others instead. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3099
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:51:29 -
[622] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Imagine if you will a setting whereby there is not enforcement or a lack of regulation about the age of consent to have sex.
Believe it or not, it was like that back in the 1980s. It was quite common for say a 16 yo to date a 14 yo, or an 18 with 15 year old. Nobody really cared as long as the two were teenagers and the "maturity level of the individual" was taken into account.
You know, that whole "she won't date me I'm just a Freshman" clich+¬ from all those dumb films in the 80s.
Now imagine if, lacking regs or enforcement, you have men in their 20s and up dating 12 year old girls. It becomes a bit too much, a bit "in your face" and most of all, a little difficult to pretend it's still OK.
So, there was no problem with the multi box thing, all "within the rules" and an area where while it appeared illegal it was not.....
and then, like the 30 year old dating the 12 year old, suddenly you have entire fleets gratuitously hoovering up entire belts, each pilot not even having a real name, all in the safety of highsec.
If there is one mistake that CCP tends to make, it's the underestimation of the Min-Max player. If there is one little tiny atom-sized little teensy iota of a chance that something will be taken all the way in one direction as the mechanics allow it, then it WILL. If there is a "possibility" of something, anything, and that possibility leads to more ISK or more stats, then that possibility by itself becomes the reality. Thera for example, if the stations can be death bubbled by dictors, it WILL and by people who have all the time in the world for it.
So, while the multibox fleet may be OK per the rules and all that, we have seen the min max sperglords take that all the way to the absurd.
And absurd, even if in the rules, eventually starts to look bad. People get to wondering "what kind of people am I dealing with here?" and nobody is really having a good time when hit with crazy vibes.
:wtc: this is liquified crazy injected into the forums.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
Chelonaphobia
646
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:52:19 -
[623] - Quote
So now for the real question.....
Will this generate more of fewer tears than when drone assist gets removed from the game??
(part 4 of the projection nerf) |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
573
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:52:38 -
[624] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Any drop in accounts will be countered by the fact that others stay in this game, cause they dont get blown up by 1 cheating dude.
I'm not sure on the correct terminology, help me out on this:
Harden The Flock up?
"Boohoo someone is being unfair in my eve!"
Seriously man? |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:53:12 -
[625] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:About time, several csm have been vocal about this. This is not about a tool, but about its use and what it does too eve.
Its very clear that if u use a tool to run a bomber wing by mutiplying single inout too multiple accounts its illegal.
Poeple doubting that like to cause drama, ratehr then actually reading the excact words.
Any drop in accounts will be countered by the fact that others stay in this game, cause they dont get blown up by 1 cheating dude.
Also compairing it with a normal bomber wing is silly. They lands not at excat same time, giving bubles and tackle a change, and the darwin law is mutiplied by 700% since people are people
Also the dude iskboxing 20 mining accounts wasnt going to use those too activly use those to make eve a more exciting place, rather then his own gain.
How that affects plex ,we ll see once it balances out. I am proud to ccp make again a choice out of principle rather then money. Blink, and the null sec changes, and this one show a new decade where ccp is in control of their destiny and game
One proud csm member!
The change have not been implemeted yet, so wrong saying its cheating. lol. Also every single charater is ''one player'' and brodcasting same over all accounts while mining seem non benifictial in my eyes. but using isb boxer to have Nice screen setup while mining, well.. i see that one. |
viverxia
Serenity Prime
The Volition Cult
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:54:01 -
[626] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:RoAnnon wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking. Sure, that's logical, since an AFK cloaked pilot has absolutely no way to interact with the game at all... perfect sense there... CCP is directly nerfing the force projection that one player can have affect on others in Eve. What do you think afk cloaking is?
Their time shall come.. and then the tears will flow |
Grim Starwind
Hoover Inc.
Pandemic Legion
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:54:34 -
[627] - Quote
Holy crap, how some people can't understand this and yet still manage to play EVE is amazing.
If you use a program to somehow input the same action in to more than one account at the exact same time, you are being illegal. It is not allowed.
If you have a keyboard macro that inputs F1-F5 one after the other to activate say a bunch of hardness. That is okay.
Pretty basic poop here. I dunno if it's more to counter isboxer bombers or more than likely farmers mining using 10 accounts all at once. Which you can still do but with more effort. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
933
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:54:54 -
[628] - Quote
Toria Nynys wrote:With everyone screaming about unsubbing as a result of that I just have to pipe up with:
+4 accounts re-subbed while my ISK lasts and 1 with $. After thinking about it longer this is a fantastic and long overdue policy change.
Hell I'm debating on making a 3rd account now.
What CCP lost is 100 people who used ingame plex to destroy ccp's bandwidth (CCP never saw a dime). Maybe I'm wrong and the guy who had 80 accounts actually paid $1,200 per month to keep them all running. I doubt it.
Bravo CCP. Bravo.
Yaay!!!!
|
Gommel Nox
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:55:09 -
[629] - Quote
Aerious wrote:Goon tears are the best tears!
Aren't they just? However, there was a matter that I wanted to put to the developers, however I cannot be bothered to read through all thirtysomething pages of this thread to see if you've already addressed it. The matter is this: for the past 11 years I have been a quadriplegic, completely lacking the ability to move my hands above the wrist, including my fingers. I've always said to people in and out of the disabled community that even online is a fantastic game to play if you have limited mobility. The user interface, coupled with its reliance on the mouse as an input, can make it a fantastic game to play, depending on what adaptive equipment and software you may have.
In my own personal case, I have to use voice recognition in order to type. For that I use Dragon NaturallySpeaking, and it's worked fine. However, my lack of mobility has at times translated to **** poor planning, especially in the PVP arena. To address this, I've used custom macros within Dragon NaturallySpeaking, as well as the software say2play, which translates certain voiceCommands into keystrokes. Certain actions like deploying/retrieving drones, Firing on a target that's locked, or even stopping my ship. According to the OP, Software like this is banworthy. So I would like to know, ones and for all, what CCP's position is on adaptive hardware and software for disabled people like myself. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
187
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:55:21 -
[630] - Quote
JIeoH Mocc wrote:Zishy Linaris wrote:goodbye ccp. 12 accounts unsubbed as of now. i feel bullshitted for my time i invested but **** happens I've a feeling that, by this rate - this thread is going to account for more unsubbed characters than there were ever subbed. (Obligatory your stuff, can i haz remark)
Is anyone keeping count? :-)
|
|
|
Hendrick Tallardar
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
293
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:55:51 -
[631] - Quote
I like this change, good job CCP.
EVE 101 Tutorial Series | Monthly Nullsec Recap | EVE Online Weekly
|
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust
The Bastion
396
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:57:37 -
[632] - Quote
Curse you, CCP! Now what am I to use to scapegoat all my problems!? |
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
37
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:58:31 -
[633] - Quote
Xython wrote:corebloodbrothers wrote:Also the dude iskboxing 20 mining accounts wasnt going to use those too activly use those to make eve a more exciting place, rather then his own gain. "The dude" is up to over 80, actually, according ot the iskboxer dev.
funny thing is... he doesn't actualy need "broadcasting"/"automation functions".. and i hope he keeps mining them ice :D |
Cyaron wars
My Little Pony Industries Inc.
Out of Sight.
88
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:58:38 -
[634] - Quote
Wait, no more single player 10 man talos gangs in sanctums around Deklein region? |
Raneru
Euphoria Released
Triumvirate.
70
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:00:00 -
[635] - Quote
Epic change.
Seriously, if you want to control an entire fleet of ships simultaneously and single handedly, go play Sins of a solar empire.. |
trader joes Ichinumi
Waltaratzor Corporation
43
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:00:12 -
[636] - Quote
Gommel Nox wrote:Aerious wrote:Goon tears are the best tears! Aren't they just? However, there was a matter that I wanted to put to the developers, however I cannot be bothered to read through all thirtysomething pages of this thread to see if you've already addressed it. The matter is this: for the past 11 years I have been a quadriplegic, completely lacking the ability to move my hands above the wrist, including my fingers. I've always said to people in and out of the disabled community that eve online is a fantastic game to play if you have limited mobility. The user interface, coupled with its reliance on the mouse as an input, can make it a fantastic game to play, depending on what adaptive equipment and software you may have. In my own personal case, I have to use voice recognition in order to type. For that I use Dragon NaturallySpeaking, and it's worked fine. However, my lack of mobility has at times translated to **** poor planning, especially in the PVP arena. To address this, I've used custom macros within Dragon NaturallySpeaking, as well as the software say2play, which translates certain voiceCommands into keystrokes. Certain actions like deploying/retrieving drones, Firing on a target that's locked, or even stopping my ship. According to the OP, Software like this is banworthy. So I would like to know, ones and for all, what CCP's position is on adaptive hardware and software for disabled people like myself.
Reread the op. It specifically targets people using macros to control multiple clients at once. |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
17939
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:00:21 -
[637] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:Curse you, CCP! Now what am I to use to scapegoat all my problems!?
AFK Cloaking, Highsec Ganking, Goons, CODE., and General Discussion Trolls are all pretty solid bets. Take your pick.
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
|
Algathas
Wraithguard.
Dirt Nap Squad.
44
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:00:26 -
[638] - Quote
Thank you CCP for having the guts to finally do what needed to be done to remove this scourge from EVE. |
Kagehisa Shintaro
We Make Weapons
9
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:00:45 -
[639] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Toria Nynys wrote:With everyone screaming about unsubbing as a result of that I just have to pipe up with:
+4 accounts re-subbed while my ISK lasts and 1 with $. After thinking about it longer this is a fantastic and long overdue policy change.
Hell I'm debating on making a 3rd account now. What CCP lost is 100 people who used ingame plex to destroy ccp's bandwidth (CCP never saw a dime). Maybe I'm wrong and the guy who had 80 accounts actually paid $1,200 per month to keep them all running. I doubt it. Bravo CCP. Bravo.
Whether he paid Gé¼/$ or PLEX'ed off market matters not. Someone paid for the PLEX. CCP got their dime ($15 worth of dimes, times 80)
|
Angus McRothimay
Norse Complex Inc
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:01:02 -
[640] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Jvpiter wrote:Angus McRothimay wrote:However, using an exploit to cover the cost of subscription isn't really subscribing, If no one spent real money on the game there would be no game to play.
The cost of subscription is always paid with real money. There may simply be less buyers of PLEX but we don't have enough information to make a definitive conclusion. Less buyers who buy PLEX no matter the cost. The usual market forces should kick in now and start balancing things out at a more normal level.
I was wondering - Do you think a drop in the price of Plex would be caused by more people buying Plex with real money thus increasing supply or less people buying them with ISK reducing demand? |
|
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:01:46 -
[641] - Quote
FunGu Arsten wrote:Xython wrote:corebloodbrothers wrote:Also the dude iskboxing 20 mining accounts wasnt going to use those too activly use those to make eve a more exciting place, rather then his own gain. "The dude" is up to over 80, actually, according ot the iskboxer dev. funny thing is... he doesn't actualy need "broadcasting"/"automation functions".. and i hope he keeps mining them ice :D
Same here, :) no need for brodcasting mining tho. The only thing thats Nice (in my eyes) is the abillety so set the eve Clients nicely stacked ( And in talking about when mining) |
Utari Onzo
united system's commonwealth
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:01:49 -
[642] - Quote
Gommel Nox wrote:Aerious wrote:Goon tears are the best tears! Aren't they just? However, there was a matter that I wanted to put to the developers, however I cannot be bothered to read through all thirtysomething pages of this thread to see if you've already addressed it. The matter is this: for the past 11 years I have been a quadriplegic, completely lacking the ability to move my hands above the wrist, including my fingers. I've always said to people in and out of the disabled community that eve online is a fantastic game to play if you have limited mobility. The user interface, coupled with its reliance on the mouse as an input, can make it a fantastic game to play, depending on what adaptive equipment and software you may have. In my own personal case, I have to use voice recognition in order to type. For that I use Dragon NaturallySpeaking, and it's worked fine. However, my lack of mobility has at times translated to **** poor planning, especially in the PVP arena. To address this, I've used custom macros within Dragon NaturallySpeaking, as well as the software say2play, which translates certain voiceCommands into keystrokes. Certain actions like deploying/retrieving drones, Firing on a target that's locked, or even stopping my ship. According to the OP, Software like this is banworthy. So I would like to know, ones and for all, what CCP's position is on adaptive hardware and software for disabled people like myself.
I've already posted this multiple times, but KEYBINDINGS are not banned, that should include custom machros so long as they're not used for multi broadcast
If you use voice recognition software/macro to send ONE command to ONE client at a time, you are OK. It's sending ONE command to MULTIPLE clients AT THE SAME TIME that is banned. |
Dr Cooper
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
Triumvirate.
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:02:46 -
[643] - Quote
Thanks for this brave decision.
I know it was not easy to take, but most of players don't use input multiboxing.
In my opinion, it's cheating. Multiboxing is creating inflation on the economy and don't respect the majority of players.
Nobody can fly 10 pvp ship without a third software, so it's normal to forbid it.
GOOD JOB CCP !!!!
|
Trogdor Losshelin
Everlasting Vendetta.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:03:03 -
[644] - Quote
SO, this does nothing to ISBoxer, just FYI. It does mean we have to change some stuff (us lazy boxers).
So, you put 10 dps overview windows next to each other and click each one in order. - Targeting fixed
You put two watchlists next to eachother and click each one in order.- Logi fixed
You put targeting windows next to eachother and click each one in order. - Additional Target managment issues fixed.
Or you use drones, which now only requires drone assist to be manual. - Mutiboxing Fixed.
Take a look at this pic.
http://teabbs.com/images/arcpvp6x.jpg
Just click down the line on what you want to target or shoot or the module you want to activate = win.
This is impossible for 20+ accounts but honestly most of us Multi-boxers don't like those dudes anyways.
|
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
1276
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:03:24 -
[645] - Quote
So... all you ISBoxer people quitting... can I have all your stuff? I mean, seriously, that stuff from that many accounts could really fund me to play EVE for the rest of my life. |
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
The Conference Elite
CODE.
1137
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:05:07 -
[646] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:Komi Toran wrote:Curse you, CCP! Now what am I to use to scapegoat all my problems!? AFK Cloaking, Highsec Ganking, Goons, CODE., and General Discussion Trolls are all pretty solid bets. Take your pick.
GOD DAMNIT MAN! That was perfectly good coffee that I just spit out!
As someone who started using isboxer recently, I'm glad to see it go.
New player resources:
http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Main_Page - General information
http://www.evealtruist.com/p/know-your-enemy.html - Learn to PvP
http://belligerentundesirables.com/ - Safaris, Awoxes, Ganking and Griefing-á
|
Vera Denjuros
Murderbears Inc.
19
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:05:22 -
[647] - Quote
Systimus wrote:I use isboxer to mine with 4 accounts. Never have pvp'd with it. I don't use constantly but might use it to activate auto pilot or to dock. If I'm reading this correctly, this action with be banned . So no point in having 4 accounts so might as well cancel 3 of them.
Elite dangerous is out soon. Maybe cancel all 4 and have a go at that instead.
If you cant manage to multibox 4 chars without Isboxer then you should just unsub right now, jebus |
Gommel Nox
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:05:39 -
[648] - Quote
Utari Onzo wrote:Gommel Nox wrote:Aerious wrote:Goon tears are the best tears! Aren't they just? However, there was a matter that I wanted to put to the developers, however I cannot be bothered to read through all thirtysomething pages of this thread to see if you've already addressed it. The matter is this: for the past 11 years I have been a quadriplegic, completely lacking the ability to move my hands above the wrist, including my fingers. I've always said to people in and out of the disabled community that eve online is a fantastic game to play if you have limited mobility. The user interface, coupled with its reliance on the mouse as an input, can make it a fantastic game to play, depending on what adaptive equipment and software you may have. In my own personal case, I have to use voice recognition in order to type. For that I use Dragon NaturallySpeaking, and it's worked fine. However, my lack of mobility has at times translated to **** poor planning, especially in the PVP arena. To address this, I've used custom macros within Dragon NaturallySpeaking, as well as the software say2play, which translates certain voiceCommands into keystrokes. Certain actions like deploying/retrieving drones, Firing on a target that's locked, or even stopping my ship. According to the OP, Software like this is banworthy. So I would like to know, ones and for all, what CCP's position is on adaptive hardware and software for disabled people like myself. I've already posted this multiple times, but KEYBINDINGS are not banned, that should include custom machros so long as they're not used for multi broadcast If you use voice recognition software/macro to send ONE command to ONE client at a time, you are OK. It's sending ONE command to MULTIPLE clients AT THE SAME TIME that is banned.
Thanks for clarifying, but you'll forgive me if I'd rather get the word of the developers over yours. I'm sure you are very important in ways that your mother appreciates, but you don't make this game, do you?
|
virm pasuul
Mine 'N' Refine
Yulai Federation
183
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:06:03 -
[649] - Quote
Gommel Nox wrote:Aerious wrote:Goon tears are the best tears! Aren't they just? However, there was a matter that I wanted to put to the developers, however I cannot be bothered to read through all thirtysomething pages of this thread to see if you've already addressed it. The matter is this: for the past 11 years I have been a quadriplegic, completely lacking the ability to move my hands above the wrist, including my fingers. I've always said to people in and out of the disabled community that eve online is a fantastic game to play if you have limited mobility. The user interface, coupled with its reliance on the mouse as an input, can make it a fantastic game to play, depending on what adaptive equipment and software you may have. In my own personal case, I have to use voice recognition in order to type. For that I use Dragon NaturallySpeaking, and it's worked fine. However, my lack of mobility has at times translated to **** poor playing, especially in the PVP arena. To address this, I've used custom macros within Dragon NaturallySpeaking, as well as the software say2play, which translates certain voiceCommands into keystrokes. Certain actions like deploying/retrieving drones, Firing on a target that's locked, or even stopping my ship. According to the OP, Software like this is banworthy. So I would like to know, ones and for all, what CCP's position is on adaptive hardware and software for disabled people like myself.
Contact CCP directly about his.
They have always shown a willingness to listen and be reasonable. Your circumstances may merit special considerations. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:06:04 -
[650] - Quote
Grim Starwind wrote:Holy crap, how some people can't understand this and yet still manage to play EVE is amazing.
If you use a program to somehow input the same action in to more than one account at the exact same time, you are being illegal. It is not allowed.
If you have a keyboard macro that inputs F1-F5 one after the other to activate say a bunch of hardness. That is okay.
Pretty basic poop here. I dunno if it's more to counter isboxer bombers or more than likely farmers mining using 10 accounts all at once. Which you can still do but with more effort.
Not unallowed yet :) |
|
|
KeeperRus
Exanimo Inc
Gentlemen's.Club
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:06:11 -
[651] - Quote
FunGu Arsten wrote:Xython wrote:corebloodbrothers wrote:Also the dude iskboxing 20 mining accounts wasnt going to use those too activly use those to make eve a more exciting place, rather then his own gain. "The dude" is up to over 80, actually, according ot the iskboxer dev. funny thing is... he doesn't actualy need "broadcasting"/"automation functions".. and i hope he keeps mining them ice :D
That is what I have been trying to say... This so called nerf to ISboxer does nothing. Why? Because a very very small percentage that used ISboxer multi broadcast while the majority used it with single.
So this hoopla that woot GJ CCP does nothing. They will still play, still kill you and in more numbers than 10 =)
Props to the guy who ran 30 accounts in pvp cause I have seen him do a 30 man fleet better than most of the 30 man fleets in eve.
Again lets recap:
1. Changes nothing.
2. You are still gonna die.
3. One guy can and will still do incursions with 10 acc.
4. Whoever used multi for mining or pvp anyways? I mean really?
5. Plex prices? Seriously? That's not changing anytime soon either. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland
The 99 Percent
887
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:06:19 -
[652] - Quote
Daniel Jackson wrote:o i only bind the keys to like broadcast for reps, broadcast for shields etc to make it easier to know where the keys are insted of pressing multiple of keys to do that function
and sometimes i use the gkeys to add a fraction second or multi second delay in a ungrouped weapon configuration so they fire constantly
is both illegal now?
As far as remapping shortcuts, you can already do that in Eve. So I'm sure thats fine.
But, you have a keybind that not only presses the fire buttons for you, but also presses them at a specific interval that matches the firing rate of another bound weapon system? I'd call that input automation, m8.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Loan--Wolf
Utter-Chaos
17
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:06:25 -
[653] - Quote
about dam time isboxer is stoped
and to all the people yelling im unsubing 500 accounts to try and force ccp from the change is prof enouff that isboxer is harming eve in the first place |
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
332
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:07:07 -
[654] - Quote
Gommel Nox wrote:Aerious wrote:Goon tears are the best tears! Aren't they just? However, there was a matter that I wanted to put to the developers, however I cannot be bothered to read through all thirtysomething pages of this thread to see if you've already addressed it. The matter is this: for the past 11 years I have been a quadriplegic, completely lacking the ability to move my hands above the wrist, including my fingers. I've always said to people in and out of the disabled community that eve online is a fantastic game to play if you have limited mobility. The user interface, coupled with its reliance on the mouse as an input, can make it a fantastic game to play, depending on what adaptive equipment and software you may have. In my own personal case, I have to use voice recognition in order to type. For that I use Dragon NaturallySpeaking, and it's worked fine. However, my lack of mobility has at times translated to **** poor playing, especially in the PVP arena. To address this, I've used custom macros within Dragon NaturallySpeaking, as well as the software say2play, which translates certain voiceCommands into keystrokes. Certain actions like deploying/retrieving drones, Firing on a target that's locked, or even stopping my ship. According to the OP, Software like this is banworthy. So I would like to know, ones and for all, what CCP's position is on adaptive hardware and software for disabled people like myself.
Your best bet on this would be to file a specific petition including as much detail as possible on your setup. Your situation is so unique that I would seek individual clarification.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
Bisu Deckryder
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:07:18 -
[655] - Quote
Gommel Nox wrote:Utari Onzo wrote:Gommel Nox wrote:Aerious wrote:Goon tears are the best tears! Aren't they just? However, there was a matter that I wanted to put to the developers, however I cannot be bothered to read through all thirtysomething pages of this thread to see if you've already addressed it. The matter is this: for the past 11 years I have been a quadriplegic, completely lacking the ability to move my hands above the wrist, including my fingers. I've always said to people in and out of the disabled community that eve online is a fantastic game to play if you have limited mobility. The user interface, coupled with its reliance on the mouse as an input, can make it a fantastic game to play, depending on what adaptive equipment and software you may have. In my own personal case, I have to use voice recognition in order to type. For that I use Dragon NaturallySpeaking, and it's worked fine. However, my lack of mobility has at times translated to **** poor planning, especially in the PVP arena. To address this, I've used custom macros within Dragon NaturallySpeaking, as well as the software say2play, which translates certain voiceCommands into keystrokes. Certain actions like deploying/retrieving drones, Firing on a target that's locked, or even stopping my ship. According to the OP, Software like this is banworthy. So I would like to know, ones and for all, what CCP's position is on adaptive hardware and software for disabled people like myself. I've already posted this multiple times, but KEYBINDINGS are not banned, that should include custom machros so long as they're not used for multi broadcast If you use voice recognition software/macro to send ONE command to ONE client at a time, you are OK. It's sending ONE command to MULTIPLE clients AT THE SAME TIME that is banned. Thanks for clarifying, but you'll forgive me if I'd rather get the word of the developers over yours. I'm sure you are very important in ways that your mother appreciates, but you don't make this game, do you?
CCP has also answered that question. Maybe try reading? |
Demitrios
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Fatal Ascension
16
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:07:23 -
[656] - Quote
Like this argument hasn't come up before...
So kudos to CCP for going full re-tard, at least we have Elite Dangerous. |
Cyrus Doul
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:07:57 -
[657] - Quote
I isbox 5 accounts and i do still pay for the game with CC, and have to buy plex to sell all the time to make isk, 6 years into this game and I'm still terrible
Also for the love of god people. when someone isboxes and gets enough to run 20 accounts. that IS 20 SUBS WORTH OF MONEY! its actually more as month to month is 15 dollars for a total of 300 a month. where plex is 20 dollars for a total of 400 a month. CCP makes more off isboxers then they do you. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:08:12 -
[658] - Quote
KeeperRus wrote:FunGu Arsten wrote:Xython wrote:corebloodbrothers wrote:Also the dude iskboxing 20 mining accounts wasnt going to use those too activly use those to make eve a more exciting place, rather then his own gain. "The dude" is up to over 80, actually, according ot the iskboxer dev. funny thing is... he doesn't actualy need "broadcasting"/"automation functions".. and i hope he keeps mining them ice :D That is what I have been trying to say... This so called nerf to ISboxer does nothing. Why? Because a very very small percentage that used ISboxer multi broadcast while the majority used it with single. So this hoopla that woot GJ CCP does nothing. They will still play, still kill you and in more numbers than 10 =) Props to the guy who ran 30 accounts in pvp cause I have seen him do a 30 man fleet better than most of the 30 man fleets in eve. Again lets recap: 1. Changes nothing. 2. You are still gonna die. 3. One guy can and will still do incursions with 10 acc. 4. Whoever used multi for mining or pvp anyways? I mean really? 5. Plex prices? Seriously? That's not changing anytime soon either.
:), lets hope so. it would've been funny to die to him (lol) |
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
332
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:08:37 -
[659] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:Komi Toran wrote:Curse you, CCP! Now what am I to use to scapegoat all my problems!? AFK Cloaking, Highsec Ganking, Goons, CODE., and General Discussion Trolls are all pretty solid bets. Take your pick.
I would blame you, U@E, but it's obvious you cannot be the cause of my problems, because if you were, you would be unsuccesful at causing the problems in the first place.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
Toria Nynys
Surly Dinos
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:09:01 -
[660] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Toria Nynys wrote:With everyone screaming about unsubbing as a result of that I just have to pipe up with:
+4 accounts re-subbed while my ISK lasts and 1 with $. After thinking about it longer this is a fantastic and long overdue policy change.
Hell I'm debating on making a 3rd account now. What CCP lost is 100 people who used ingame plex to destroy ccp's bandwidth (CCP never saw a dime). Maybe I'm wrong and the guy who had 80 accounts actually paid $1,200 per month to keep them all running. I doubt it. Bravo CCP. Bravo.
Well, someone had to have bought the PLEX at some point, so a lost account is still a lost account. In fact, CCP get more $ per plexed account than one subbed a year at a time -- my $131.40 would bring in nearly $240 if paid for in PLEX.
Still, I think we should spread the word re: supporting CCP for this change. Around 2010 I unsubbed all 3 of my accounts for *years* as a result of "greed is good." Now that CCP has changed the game for the better I think I owe them some income. 4B a month is gonna hurt a bunch (heck, it took me 6 months to make my first billion!) but I'm going to spread the word. If people like this change then they should consider pitching in for a PLEX to reactivate an old useless account or even start a new alt. Support the game changes you like with $!
|
|
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
782
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:09:22 -
[661] - Quote
30+ pages and no significant CODE. presence cheering the massive blow to "bot aspirants"? Forget the tear collectors, we need pooper-scoopers around here....
(To clarify: I have no particular issue with CODE., CODE. members, or hisec suicide ganking. I just find it highly ironic that they of all people would be silent about this given that they claim to work so hard to stop such bot-like activity for the benefit of New Eden.)
CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking.
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content.
|
Thalen Draganos
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
51
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:09:33 -
[662] - Quote
Chalithra Lathar wrote:ISboxer here. To be completely honest, multiboxing was the primary reason I even considered trying EVE online in the first place. I would not be posting on these forums today if not for the fact that ISboxing was allowed in the game. Seeing a move like this is a real bummer, but kudos for spelling it out before hand instead of doing it Blizzard style and ninjaing it in. unfortunately, I like to speak with my wallet with this issue, and can no longer support CCP at this time. It will be interesting to see the effect of not only the in-game markets, but the subscriber numbers as a whole. fly safe o7
I am laughing so hard because of posts like this.
Multiboxing, just like ISBoxer, are still allowed. You just can't use the key and mouse broadcasting features of programs. All CCP did was add some effort to those who run multiple accounts, removed the ridiculous crap of using 30-80 accounts at a time, helped PLEX prices drop like a rock which is something most of us wanted, and improved the game for a lot more people than they would lose. HTFU you morons. |
Sylphy
TSOE Po1ice
TSOE Consortium
45
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:10:07 -
[663] - Quote
This is how a MMO begins to die. Next we'll see is a ban on scamming activities, communicating outside of EVE Voice *Teamspeak/Mumble/etc* and consequently, the birth of World of Warcraft 2.
Go CCP, I can forsee PLEX prices going up in the next 3 months. Not just plexes, but other mineral/ice made stuff when the influx of materials dwindles down some, but then again, maybe we'll see Tritanium's price go back to 10isk/unit.
The character does not represent the views/opinions of its Corporation or Alliance.
|
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
5272
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:10:22 -
[664] - Quote
I am setting up a home for orphaned Skiffs. Please contract me all your Skiffs you no longer use because ISBoxer is no longer available to you. I will make sure they will be well maintained and regularly fed mining crystals. Save the Skiffs! Thank you!
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6029
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:11:31 -
[665] - Quote
Systimus wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Systimus wrote:I use isboxer to mine with 4 accounts. Never have pvp'd with it. I don't use constantly but might use it to activate auto pilot or to dock. If I'm reading this correctly, this action with be banned . So no point in having 4 accounts so might as well cancel 3 of them.
Elite dangerous is out soon. Maybe cancel all 4 and have a go at that instead. If you never used it to do anything other than auto pilot or dock, why would this bother you at all? You should probably get your story straight. Personally I don't care one way or the other, but there are a few good points to all this. 1: Restrictions on bomber use don't have to be as severe. 2: More people will be able to make their living mining. 3: Wealth is better distributed across the general population of miners. 4: PLEX prices will drop quickly, which will be welcome news to many. To explain the latter, your average ISBoxer miner pays for all of his accounts with PLEX purchased off the market with ISK. His tolerance for higher PLEX prices is MUCH higher than the average EVE player due to his extremely high income stream per account he is funding. In other words, the large number of "high rollers" providing a steady market for over priced PLEX will be sharply and suddenly curtailed. Which I never had a problem with ISBoxer being in game, even I have to admit this helps to solve a lot of problems. Ranger, I find you really offensive. My story straight ? I think ccp need to clarify what they intend to ban. Any action that affects the universe ...... If using auto pilot or docking is specifically excempt then please ccp clarify. Also, I have never plexd any account and pay for all 4 every month with real money. I don't do pvp on any of my accounts and I find mining relaxing. I feel mining with 1 account a little boring but mining with 4 much more enjoyable. Do I gave an advantage over someone playing with a single account maybe. But if they wanted to pay for 4 accounts they could have that advantage too.
You aren't making much sense my friend.
Multiple accounts are still fine.
Using ISBoxer to control them all with simultaneously is not fine.
Are you seriously asking us to believe that if the program you use to "auto pilot or dock" your 4 accounts with is taken away things will become to complicated for you and you'll need to cancel accounts? REALLY?
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
782
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:12:23 -
[666] - Quote
Sylphy wrote:This is how a MMO begins to die. Next we'll see is a ban on scamming activities, communicating outside of EVE Voice *Teamspeak/Mumble/etc* and consequently, the birth of World of Warcraft 2.
Go CCP, I can forsee PLEX prices going up by about 150% in the next 3 months.
Sorry, no. This is how an MMO thrives. People being able to "pay to win" (which is exactly what ISBOXed bomber and mining fleets were doing) is a bad idea.
Incidentally, PLEX prices are already dropping, over 50mil since the announcement.
CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking.
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content.
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
332
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:13:11 -
[667] - Quote
Sylphy wrote:This is how a MMO begins to die. Next we'll see is a ban on scamming activities, communicating outside of EVE Voice *Teamspeak/Mumble/etc* and consequently, the birth of World of Warcraft 2.
Go CCP, I can forsee PLEX prices going up by about 150% in the next 3 months.
The logical fallacies in this post are simply breath taking. Go, just go, and never darken our doorstep again.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
Cosmic Consortium
5566
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:13:18 -
[668] - Quote
eiedu wrote:RIP incursions
RIP Ratting
RIP bombing
Nope. These activities will become much more fun since the ISBoxers aren't going to be squeezing you out of the niche.
eiedu wrote:Time to go back to wow, where it makes no sense to have multiple accounts
I know people who use multiple accounts in WoW without input broadcasting. ISBoxer still helps with things like binding certain keys to one client and other keys to a different client. There's no broadcasting going on there (i.e.: only one client is acting on input).
eiedu wrote:How are you even going to "catch" people who are input-multiplexing hardware-wise
Multiple clients sending the same instruction at the same time. It's pretty easy to detect server-side.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Rear Admiral Charlie
DR. SloMo and the G.I. Clinic
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:14:05 -
[669] - Quote
Trogdor Losshelin wrote:SO, this does nothing to ISBoxer, just FYI. It does mean we have to change some stuff (us lazy boxers). So, you put 10 dps overview windows next to each other and click each one in order. - Targeting fixed You put two watchlists next to eachother and click each one in order.- Logi fixed You put targeting windows next to eachother and click each one in order. - Additional Target managment issues fixed. Or you use drones, which now only requires drone assist to be manual. - Mutiboxing Fixed. Take a look at this pic. http://teabbs.com/images/arcpvp6x.jpg
Just click down the line on what you want to target or shoot or the module you want to activate = win. This is impossible for 20+ accounts but honestly most of us Multi-boxers don't like those dudes anyways.
+1 |
Ming Vue
The Scope
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:14:17 -
[670] - Quote
anyone really look at the amount of isk per hour a mining fleet makes using isboxer and t1 lasers ... it's really kinda sad the person makes acrap ton ... but each acount makes scraps |
|
|
Strata Maslav
V0LTA
Triumvirate.
109
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:14:31 -
[671] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Sylphy wrote:This is how a MMO begins to die. Next we'll see is a ban on scamming activities, communicating outside of EVE Voice *Teamspeak/Mumble/etc* and consequently, the birth of World of Warcraft 2.
Go CCP, I can forsee PLEX prices going up by about 150% in the next 3 months. Sorry, no. This is how an MMO thrives. People being able to "pay to win" (which is exactly what ISBOXed bomber and mining fleets were doing) is a bad idea. Incidentally, PLEX prices are already dropping, over 50mil since the announcement.
If I buy plex sell it and buy a titan and kill someone's carrier with a dooms day isn't that pay to win? |
Gommel Nox
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:14:34 -
[672] - Quote
Bisu Deckryder wrote:Gommel Nox wrote:Utari Onzo wrote:Gommel Nox wrote:Aerious wrote:Goon tears are the best tears! Aren't they just? However, there was a matter that I wanted to put to the developers, however I cannot be bothered to read through all thirtysomething pages of this thread to see if you've already addressed it. The matter is this: for the past 11 years I have been a quadriplegic, completely lacking the ability to move my hands above the wrist, including my fingers. I've always said to people in and out of the disabled community that eve online is a fantastic game to play if you have limited mobility. The user interface, coupled with its reliance on the mouse as an input, can make it a fantastic game to play, depending on what adaptive equipment and software you may have. In my own personal case, I have to use voice recognition in order to type. For that I use Dragon NaturallySpeaking, and it's worked fine. However, my lack of mobility has at times translated to **** poor planning, especially in the PVP arena. To address this, I've used custom macros within Dragon NaturallySpeaking, as well as the software say2play, which translates certain voiceCommands into keystrokes. Certain actions like deploying/retrieving drones, Firing on a target that's locked, or even stopping my ship. According to the OP, Software like this is banworthy. So I would like to know, ones and for all, what CCP's position is on adaptive hardware and software for disabled people like myself. I've already posted this multiple times, but KEYBINDINGS are not banned, that should include custom machros so long as they're not used for multi broadcast If you use voice recognition software/macro to send ONE command to ONE client at a time, you are OK. It's sending ONE command to MULTIPLE clients AT THE SAME TIME that is banned. Thanks for clarifying, but you'll forgive me if I'd rather get the word of the developers over yours. I'm sure you are very important in ways that your mother appreciates, but you don't make this game, do you? CCP has also answered that question. Maybe try reading?
First, I said that I hadn't read the thread. Second, I said I hadn't read the thread because it was over 30 pages long, and reading and comprehending and navigating to 30 pages would take me all day because, if you've been reading, I am disabled.
That said, I really don't think it would beThe best plan for CCP to treat me as a special case for two reasons: first, I'm not the only disabled player in this stupid game. Second, if they made an exception for me with a spinal cord injury, why couldn't they make a similar exception for someone who has MS, But more fine motor skills. Slippery slope, etc. etc.
|
Sylphy
TSOE Po1ice
TSOE Consortium
45
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:14:51 -
[673] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Incidentally, PLEX prices are already dropping, over 50mil since the announcement.
Let's check PLEX prices again in 3 months and see who was right, shall we? Marking your name and my calendar for a regular check-up on Feb 25th, 2015. I'll contact you in-game.
The character does not represent the views/opinions of its Corporation or Alliance.
|
Utari Onzo
united system's commonwealth
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:14:58 -
[674] - Quote
Sylphy wrote:This is how a MMO begins to die. Next we'll see is a ban on scamming activities, communicating outside of EVE Voice *Teamspeak/Mumble/etc* and consequently, the birth of World of Warcraft 2.
Go CCP, I can forsee PLEX prices going up in the next 3 months. Not just plexes, but other mineral/ice made stuff when the influx of materials dwindles down some, but then again, maybe we'll see Tritanium's price go back to 10isk/unit.
....Wut
I like you bro, I do, but that's some serious tinfoil you have there. They banned one particular use of ISBoxer and similar software that was pretty broken (multiple key broadcasts), but haven't banned multiboxing/using ISBoxer and similar software to manage your ui/windows. How's that gonna kill a game? |
Anslo
Scope Works
22606
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:15:51 -
[675] - Quote
Sylphy wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Incidentally, PLEX prices are already dropping, over 50mil since the announcement. Let's check PLEX prices again in 3 months and see who was right, shall we? Marking your name and my calendar for a regular check-up on Feb 25th, 2015. I'll contact you in-game.
GTFO already.
[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
|
Yen Thara
Dropbears Anonymous
Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:16:02 -
[676] - Quote
Sylphy wrote:This is how a MMO begins to die. Next we'll see is a ban on scamming activities, communicating outside of EVE Voice *Teamspeak/Mumble/etc* and consequently, the birth of World of Warcraft 2.
Go CCP, I can forsee PLEX prices going up in the next 3 months. Not just plexes, but other mineral/ice made stuff when the influx of materials dwindles down some, but then again, maybe we'll see Tritanium's price go back to 10isk/unit.
Yes because banning an exploit is the same as banning scamming. Sorry you are going to have to learn how to play like the rest of us. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
Cosmic Consortium
5566
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:16:31 -
[677] - Quote
Trogdor Losshelin wrote:SO, this does nothing to ISBoxer, just FYI. It does mean we have to change some stuff (us lazy boxers). So, you put 10 dps overview windows next to each other and click each one in order. - Targeting fixed You put two watchlists next to eachother and click each one in order.- Logi fixed You put targeting windows next to eachother and click each one in order. - Additional Target managment issues fixed. Or you use drones, which now only requires drone assist to be manual. - Mutiboxing Fixed. Take a look at this pic. http://teabbs.com/images/arcpvp6x.jpg
Just click down the line on what you want to target or shoot or the module you want to activate = win. This is impossible for 20+ accounts but honestly most of us Multi-boxers don't like those dudes anyways.
Yup, that's pretty much the way it works for non-ISBoxers too. Just with a lot more Alt-Tabbing :)
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Apo Lamperouge
29
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:16:49 -
[678] - Quote
Jvpiter wrote:Angus McRothimay wrote:However, using an exploit to cover the cost of subscription isn't really subscribing, If no one spent real money on the game there would be no game to play.
The cost of subscription is always paid with real money. There may simply be less buyers of PLEX but we don't have enough information to make a definitive conclusion.
How do you figure? If you are mining 2b a day with these 25+ miners, and a plex is/was say 850m, lets do the math
$15 x 25 = $375 per month.
However, if you are mining say 2b a day, for only 20 days a month out of 30, then your 2b x 20d = 40b
850,000,000 x 25 accounts = 21.25b
That still leaves you with a net profit of 18.75b/month isk.
And you tell me that you are PAYING to play? Are you sh!tting me?
Come on. What moron who profits 18b a month actually BUYS their game time. I may have been born during the day, but it wasn't yesterday.
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
virm pasuul
Mine 'N' Refine
Yulai Federation
185
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:17:49 -
[679] - Quote
GOMMEL NOX
"That said, I really don't think it would beThe best plan for CCP to treat me as a special case for two reasons: first, I'm not the only disabled player in this stupid game. Second, if they made an exception for me with a spinal cord injury, why couldn't they make a similar exception for someone who has MS, But more fine motor skills. Slippery slope, etc. etc."
Determined to buid the best case to undermines the change eh?
If what you say is true, you will contact CCP and give them a chance to help you.
If you are just trolling the changes, well that's your choice. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
491
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:18:10 -
[680] - Quote
CCP starting the next year off with the greatest of all new years resolutions! outstanding!
If CCP were personified into a single person id wine dine and pleasure you to the very limit that a corporeal being could possibly experience!
.... however you're not, so i shall wrap myself up in the bittersweet blanket of eve online for years to come!
u sexy beasts you! |
|
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:18:39 -
[681] - Quote
Apo Lamperouge wrote:Jvpiter wrote:Angus McRothimay wrote:However, using an exploit to cover the cost of subscription isn't really subscribing, If no one spent real money on the game there would be no game to play.
The cost of subscription is always paid with real money. There may simply be less buyers of PLEX but we don't have enough information to make a definitive conclusion. How do you figure? If you are mining 2b a day with these 25+ miners, and a plex is/was say 850m, lets do the math $15 x 25 = $375 per month. However, if you are mining say 2b a day, for only 20 days a month out of 30, then your 2b x 20d = 40b 850,000,000 x 25 accounts = 21.25b That still leaves you with a net profit of 18.75b/month isk. And you tell me that you are PAYING to play? Are you sh!tting me? Come on. What moron who profits 18b a month actually BUYS their game time. I may have been born during the day, but it wasn't yesterday.
If no one was buying game time? then no one would sell. right? Think m8, Think. :) |
Arec Bardwin
1631
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:19:07 -
[682] - Quote
CCP, what is your stance on ISBoxing ship spinning of accounts simultaneously? |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
Cosmic Consortium
5568
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:19:22 -
[683] - Quote
I'm looking forward to mineral prices rising by a few percent, and PLEX dropping significantly. That's the impact this change will have on me. I might even re-sub some of my accounts once the price of PLEX falls back to within my capacity to pay.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Cyrus Doul
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:19:33 -
[684] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Sylphy wrote:This is how a MMO begins to die. Next we'll see is a ban on scamming activities, communicating outside of EVE Voice *Teamspeak/Mumble/etc* and consequently, the birth of World of Warcraft 2.
Go CCP, I can forsee PLEX prices going up by about 150% in the next 3 months. Sorry, no. This is how an MMO thrives. People being able to "pay to win" (which is exactly what ISBOXed bomber and mining fleets were doing) is a bad idea. Incidentally, PLEX prices are already dropping, over 50mil since the announcement.
Mumm. more like pay to efficently use the UI. If i could have a little loadout window that had like 3 buttons that said
Cap
Shoot
Turtle
without having to dig all five accounts deep into the fittings pages so i could swap my dread fits around quickly id have no use for isboxer. There are better ways to rat: 15 assigned fighters to three accounts from a nyx, with the fifth account being mr vaccuum. You want the drone guys all targeting differently. Mining if i cycle them all at the same time my orca fills up. I did hate the people with 20 though cause that just seems excessive. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
788
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:25:44 -
[685] - Quote
Strata Maslav wrote:If I buy plex sell it and buy a titan and kill someone's carrier with a dooms day isn't that pay to win?
It's a different kind of "pay to win". Selling PLEX to buy a Titan simply hastens something that a single player could already do. By ISBoxing 20 miners, 20 bombers, or 20 anything at once, you were, in effect, paying to do something that was impossible for any one character to do.
Sylphy wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Incidentally, PLEX prices are already dropping, over 50mil since the announcement. Let's check PLEX prices again in 3 months and see who was right, shall we? Marking your name and my calendar for a regular check-up on Feb 25th, 2015. I'll contact you in-game.
Weren't you leaving?
CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking.
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content.
|
Almethea
Trans Stellar Express
187
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:26:29 -
[686] - Quote
Jon Hellguard wrote:Prepare for epic inflation in the character transfer market starting january 1st, 2015. For what it's worth - thank you CCP for taking action. Next up will be the Alliance Logo's, right?
no it will be POS CODE
Keeping active account just to shitpost
there's so many thing to fix in eve.... and they fix forum ! GJ! but ok i like it !
CCP Fozzie : AFK cloaking, however, is an entirely social form of power
|
Apo Lamperouge
29
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:26:30 -
[687] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Apo Lamperouge wrote:Jvpiter wrote:Angus McRothimay wrote:However, using an exploit to cover the cost of subscription isn't really subscribing, If no one spent real money on the game there would be no game to play.
The cost of subscription is always paid with real money. There may simply be less buyers of PLEX but we don't have enough information to make a definitive conclusion. How do you figure? If you are mining 2b a day with these 25+ miners, and a plex is/was say 850m, lets do the math $15 x 25 = $375 per month. However, if you are mining say 2b a day, for only 20 days a month out of 30, then your 2b x 20d = 40b 850,000,000 x 25 accounts = 21.25b That still leaves you with a net profit of 18.75b/month isk. And you tell me that you are PAYING to play? Are you sh!tting me? Come on. What moron who profits 18b a month actually BUYS their game time. I may have been born during the day, but it wasn't yesterday. If no one was buying game time? then no one would sell. right? Think m8, Think. :)
You didn't get what I said. I pay for the game time of my assorted accounts. But does someone who has 25 or 50 or 100? Forget that. Especially if you are profiting obscene amounts of isk from it.
If I was to use ISBox it would be so I could make obscene amounts of isk, so I wouldnt have to buy game time. But I only mine when I have to. I pvp, and I rat. I buy big shiny stuff with my isk so I can kill other peoples big shiny sh!t.
If you are spending $400 or $1000 a month on this game on 50 or 100 accounts and are ISBoxing, you are doing it wrong.
Money comes out of my wallet and goes to CCP.
The guys buying plex with isk from mining don't.
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
788
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:27:13 -
[688] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:lol, you dont need to and proably wont/should use the synergy (doing the same on all acounts) while mining, Having the screens nicely stacked With isb boxer is all whats needed, and remember we still have fleet Warp :) So i see nothing changing for miners.
Admittedly, this will be less of a blow to miners than it will to, say, ISBoxing bombers or Ishtar fleets, but it will still be a blow.
CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking.
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content.
|
Lida B Or
B. Or inc.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:28:05 -
[689] - Quote
Just a quick +1 on the good idea side!
Oh and yes, this is the first thread that made me actually log in and post on the forum. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland
The 99 Percent
887
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:28:08 -
[690] - Quote
Kagehisa Shintaro wrote:Whether he paid Gé¼/$ or PLEX'ed off market matters not. Someone paid for the PLEX. CCP got their dime ($15 worth of dimes, times 80)
And since CCP already got their cash, does it matter to them when that ISBoxer converts 80 PLEX into game time? Hell, no! All it means is that there are more PLEX on the market thus driving down the isk cost.
CCP cares when someone creates PLEX by buying them for rl cash. That is all.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
|
|
Toria Nynys
Surly Dinos
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:28:47 -
[691] - Quote
Apo Lamperouge wrote:Jvpiter wrote:Angus McRothimay wrote:However, using an exploit to cover the cost of subscription isn't really subscribing, If no one spent real money on the game there would be no game to play.
The cost of subscription is always paid with real money. There may simply be less buyers of PLEX but we don't have enough information to make a definitive conclusion. How do you figure? If you are mining 2b a day with these 25+ miners, and a plex is/was say 850m, lets do the math $15 x 25 = $375 per month. However, if you are mining say 2b a day, for only 20 days a month out of 30, then your 2b x 20d = 40b 850,000,000 x 25 accounts = 21.25b That still leaves you with a net profit of 18.75b/month isk. And you tell me that you are PAYING to play? Are you sh!tting me? Come on. What moron who profits 18b a month actually BUYS their game time. I may have been born during the day, but it wasn't yesterday.
Your math is off. I overheard someone claiming 2-3B a day mining in null with 11 accounts. 25 should bring in somewhere around double that (there is some loss to inefficiency, it's not a straight linear increase). So it's roughly the same amount of work to PLEX accounts whether it's 1 or 25. But AFTER they're paid for the income scales nearly linearly with each additional account. Think closer to 40B a month with "just" 11 accounts to painlessly pew with, double it for 25.
|
Adunh Slavy
1593
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:28:55 -
[692] - Quote
CCP has been making too many good decisions of late.
Has anyone checked the water Reykjavik? Alien invasion, body snatchers, eve playing zombie out break ... sumthin
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.-á-á- William Pitt
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6031
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:29:45 -
[693] - Quote
KeeperRus wrote:FunGu Arsten wrote:Xython wrote:corebloodbrothers wrote:Also the dude iskboxing 20 mining accounts wasnt going to use those too activly use those to make eve a more exciting place, rather then his own gain. "The dude" is up to over 80, actually, according ot the iskboxer dev. funny thing is... he doesn't actualy need "broadcasting"/"automation functions".. and i hope he keeps mining them ice :D That is what I have been trying to say... This so called nerf to ISboxer does nothing. Why? Because a very very small percentage that used ISboxer multi broadcast while the majority used it with single. So this hoopla that woot GJ CCP does nothing. They will still play, still kill you and in more numbers than 10 =) Props to the guy who ran 30 accounts in pvp cause I have seen him do a 30 man fleet better than most of the 30 man fleets in eve. Again lets recap: 1. Changes nothing. 2. You are still gonna die. 3. One guy can and will still do incursions with 10 acc. 4. Whoever used multi for mining or pvp anyways? I mean really? 5. Plex prices? Seriously? That's not changing anytime soon either.
Yeah, who ever heard of anyone PVPing or mining with multi on? Pffft. Can't be done I tell you!!! NOBODY does that!!!
Seriously my friend?
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Apo Lamperouge
29
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:29:47 -
[694] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Apo Lamperouge wrote:Jvpiter wrote:Angus McRothimay wrote:However, using an exploit to cover the cost of subscription isn't really subscribing, If no one spent real money on the game there would be no game to play.
The cost of subscription is always paid with real money. There may simply be less buyers of PLEX but we don't have enough information to make a definitive conclusion. How do you figure? If you are mining 2b a day with these 25+ miners, and a plex is/was say 850m, lets do the math $15 x 25 = $375 per month. However, if you are mining say 2b a day, for only 20 days a month out of 30, then your 2b x 20d = 40b 850,000,000 x 25 accounts = 21.25b That still leaves you with a net profit of 18.75b/month isk. And you tell me that you are PAYING to play? Are you sh!tting me? Come on. What moron who profits 18b a month actually BUYS their game time. I may have been born during the day, but it wasn't yesterday. I average about 10 bil/mo profit with three accounts and pay for them. That being said, you totally missed his point, he didn't say he pays for them he said they are paid with real money.
Yeah 3 accounts. That's manageable for someon either with or without a job.
But 50 accounts? Nobody in their right mind actually puts that on their grandmas credit card each month.
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:31:32 -
[695] - Quote
rip my 18 one cent ganking accounts
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
KeeperRus
Exanimo Inc
Gentlemen's.Club
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:34:50 -
[696] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:KeeperRus wrote:FunGu Arsten wrote:Xython wrote:corebloodbrothers wrote:Also the dude iskboxing 20 mining accounts wasnt going to use those too activly use those to make eve a more exciting place, rather then his own gain. "The dude" is up to over 80, actually, according ot the iskboxer dev. funny thing is... he doesn't actualy need "broadcasting"/"automation functions".. and i hope he keeps mining them ice :D That is what I have been trying to say... This so called nerf to ISboxer does nothing. Why? Because a very very small percentage that used ISboxer multi broadcast while the majority used it with single. So this hoopla that woot GJ CCP does nothing. They will still play, still kill you and in more numbers than 10 =) Props to the guy who ran 30 accounts in pvp cause I have seen him do a 30 man fleet better than most of the 30 man fleets in eve. Again lets recap: 1. Changes nothing. 2. You are still gonna die. 3. One guy can and will still do incursions with 10 acc. 4. Whoever used multi for mining or pvp anyways? I mean really? 5. Plex prices? Seriously? That's not changing anytime soon either. Yeah, who ever heard of anyone PVPing or mining with multi on? Pffft. Can't be done I tell you!!! NOBODY does that!!! Yes and No. What CCP should have done was ban it entirely. You forget that most use DX nothing and not multi. DX nothing takes more prep work but once you have it set right it runs circles around multi. So, maybe some do but on the high side most don't. Plain and simple which is why I said it to begin with. Hop on over there and take a look un the eve side. Will tell you exactly how much DX nothing is used over the multi. Seriously my friend?
|
Please Turn
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
26
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:34:59 -
[697] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Astroyka wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Astroyka wrote:I think this is great news for EvE as a whole. I really don't think the unsubs will hit CCP that hard since most of the multiboxers were probably "paying" for their accounts with PLEX anyway. Stop being dumb. It irritates me the amount of people here who still seem to have no clue what PLEX does or how it works. Enlighten me, great one. Here's a hint: PLEX does not take subscription money away from CCP.
Well, it does and it doesn't. There is more than one angle from which one should look at this topic. At a first glance, the common approach - "somebody has to pay for that PLEX with real money(at a higher price than the subscription price)" indicates that it doesn't, hence CCP shouldn't care. In this case, Astroyka is wrong, and this move will hurt CCP(short term) more than he realizes.
However, as most things in life, everything is a matter of balance. As I see it, PLEX'ing the accounts(I'm speaking about using a PLEX for subscription) is getting out of hands right now. Is just so easy for too many people(they can all do it simultaneously) to AFK "print" ISK by ratting(Ishtar, Dominix - looking at you right now), to AFK gather resources and so on. Broadcasting commands were(are) a big factor in allowing this type of "game play"(not the only factor, that's for sure).
What most people don't put into this equation is the loss in "potential" long term subscribers due to newbies quitting once they start noticing all the 20+ nerds accounts(which are so common these days) floating around against whom they feel like having zero chances of competing(and who could blame them).
Last thought, Eve should be about playing Eve for the sake of Eve not for the sake of PLEX'ing your account(s) and maybe making some money out of it(RMT ). All I can say about this change is that I'm glad they finally push it through and that I'm a little sad it took them so long to do it(let's hope I'm not speaking too soon and they won't go back on their word(again)).
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:35:16 -
[698] - Quote
Some of you sound like jealous children who cheer in the face of the kid with the better toy who just had it taken away.
I do some isboxing ... and i'm perfectly fine with unchecking the broadcast button and work towards a more effective dashboard view. Half the time broadcasts just screwed things up for me one way or another because i use a mixed fleet.
Those of you who think isboxer fleets are invincible and think that these changes are going to save EVE have your own separate set of delusions about this game.
https://zkillboard.com/character/218906093/ - dead multiboxing protei ... props to this guy for bringing the fight... fun content that never would have existed without this guy and his personal fleet.
isboxer is way more than a broadcast all tool. those of you crying about having broadcasts taken away get clever.... a 20 man isboxer fleet will never be as good as a 20 man fleet of anything but BNI in any scenario but bombing. You've lost bombers and tornado alpha ... deep down you know that's a positive change and the rest can be microed in other ways. |
irion felpamy
The Drag queen in space fan club
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:36:00 -
[699] - Quote
Cyrus Doul wrote:I isbox 5 accounts and i do still pay for the game with CC, and have to buy plex to sell all the time to make isk, 6 years into this game and I'm still terrible
Also for the love of god people. when someone isboxes and gets enough to run 20 accounts. that IS 20 SUBS WORTH OF MONEY! its actually more as month to month is 15 dollars for a total of 300 a month. where plex is 20 dollars for a total of 400 a month. CCP makes more off isboxers then they do you.
This is the saddest thing I have ever heard I will assume its a troll just to cheer myself up. |
Angry Ganker
The Scope
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:36:49 -
[700] - Quote
So is this a win for CODE as GoonTards Highsec gank enforcers whose only purpose is not carebear re education but in fact to make more ISK for Goontards in nullsec.
OR
Is this a CCP cracking down on the GoonTards and CODE with their isBoxed gank fleets in highsec? I have personally watched ganks with a GoonTard using 21 T2 cats ganking a freighter in HighSec (alt). Highsec and CODE is about the ISK pure and simple. Nothing to do with carebears, thats just a smoke screen to their greed.
I applaud you CCP! Good Decision. |
|
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6031
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:38:05 -
[701] - Quote
virm pasuul wrote:GOMMEL NOX
"That said, I really don't think it would beThe best plan for CCP to treat me as a special case for two reasons: first, I'm not the only disabled player in this stupid game. Second, if they made an exception for me with a spinal cord injury, why couldn't they make a similar exception for someone who has MS, But more fine motor skills. Slippery slope, etc. etc."
Determined to buid the best case to undermines the change eh?
If what you say is true, you will contact CCP and give them a chance to help you.
If you are just trolling the changes, well that's your choice.
More than likely.
However, since CCP's policy clearly focuses on controlling more than one client or completely automating game play, trying to loop his "special circumstances" into the mix is pretty far fetched.
If it's a troll, it's a bad one.
If it's genuine, he clearly has nothing to worry about... so nobody really is too worried about his posts.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Utari Onzo
united system's commonwealth
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:38:32 -
[702] - Quote
Please Turn wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Astroyka wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Astroyka wrote:I think this is great news for EvE as a whole. I really don't think the unsubs will hit CCP that hard since most of the multiboxers were probably "paying" for their accounts with PLEX anyway. Stop being dumb. It irritates me the amount of people here who still seem to have no clue what PLEX does or how it works. Enlighten me, great one. Here's a hint: PLEX does not take subscription money away from CCP. Well, it does and it doesn't. There is more than one angle from which one should look at this topic. At a first glance, the common approach - "somebody has to pay for that PLEX with real money(at a higher price than the subscription price)" indicates that it doesn't, hence CCP shouldn't care. In this case, Astroyka is wrong, and this move will hurt CCP(short term) more than he realizes. However, as most things in life, everything is a matter of balance. As I see it, PLEX'ing the accounts(I'm speaking about using a PLEX for subscription) is getting out of hands right now. Is just so easy for too many people(they can all do it simultaneously) to AFK "print" ISK by ratting(Ishtar, Dominix - looking at you right now), to AFK gather resources and so on. Broadcasting commands were(are) a big factor in allowing this type of "game play"(not the only factor, that's for sure). What most people don't put into this equation is the loss in "potential" long term subscribers due to newbies quitting once they start noticing all the 20+ nerds accounts(which are so common these days) floating around against whom they feel like having zero chances of competing(and who could blame them). Last thought, Eve should be about playing Eve for the sake of Eve not for the sake of PLEX'ing your account(s) and maybe making some money out of it(RMT ). All I can say about this change is that I'm glad they finally push it through and that I'm a little sad it took them so long to do it(let's hope I'm not speaking too soon and they won't go back on their word(again)).
You missed the even biggest part of the PLEX equation. The plex reselled (the one who gives CCP the monies)
I am one of these. I use plex to get enough isk to buy a shiney. I don't resell plex to have that isk sitting in my account. The higher the plex ISK price goes, the less plex I need to buy from CCP to buy my shiney. The lower the plex price, the more I buy to get that same amount of isk. Too low, and I don't bother buying plex and farm instead.
In general, PLEX supply has been fairly steady for years. It's the demand end that's been having problems. I very much doubt CCP will lose real -ú-ú-ú ($$$/whatever) from loss of plex subcribers on this basis. If plex demand falls, isk value falls, meaning I need to buy more to get my stuff. |
Blastcaps Madullier
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
DARKNESS.
156
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:39:06 -
[703] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Querns wrote:Cue several dozen pages of people trying to invent increasingly complex vignettes that attempt to subvert the letter of the decision to legitimize actions that violate its spirit. "But what if I set it up to delay my "broadcasts" by a random few milliseconds, so it looks like I'm pushing buttans on 32 computers in a row really fast... is that ok?"
They would still be syched, and show the exact same delay every time, even if you set up multiple delays say 500000 different ones, there's still a pattern = ban.
Generally in the past people haven't had a issue with is boxer when it was confined to mining however as times have gone on people have started using it for more things, incursion fleets, and the main one which will have forced CCP to reconsider and re evaluate things, PvP.
Good bye is boxer you won't be missed by the majority |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6031
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:39:11 -
[704] - Quote
Sylphy wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Incidentally, PLEX prices are already dropping, over 50mil since the announcement. Let's check PLEX prices again in 3 months and see who was right, shall we? Marking your name and my calendar for a regular check-up on Feb 25th, 2015. I'll contact you in-game.
You might want to put the rest of EVE on that calendar as well, you can start with me.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Apo Lamperouge
29
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:39:18 -
[705] - Quote
Toria Nynys wrote:Apo Lamperouge wrote:Jvpiter wrote:Angus McRothimay wrote:However, using an exploit to cover the cost of subscription isn't really subscribing, If no one spent real money on the game there would be no game to play.
The cost of subscription is always paid with real money. There may simply be less buyers of PLEX but we don't have enough information to make a definitive conclusion. How do you figure? If you are mining 2b a day with these 25+ miners, and a plex is/was say 850m, lets do the math $15 x 25 = $375 per month. However, if you are mining say 2b a day, for only 20 days a month out of 30, then your 2b x 20d = 40b 850,000,000 x 25 accounts = 21.25b That still leaves you with a net profit of 18.75b/month isk. And you tell me that you are PAYING to play? Are you sh!tting me? Come on. What moron who profits 18b a month actually BUYS their game time. I may have been born during the day, but it wasn't yesterday. Your math is off. I overheard someone claiming 2-3B a day mining in null with 11 accounts. 25 should bring in somewhere around double that (there is some loss to inefficiency, it's not a straight linear increase). So it's roughly the same amount of work to PLEX accounts whether it's 1 or 25. But AFTER they're paid for the income scales nearly linearly with each additional account. Think closer to 40B a month with "just" 11 accounts to painlessly pew with, double it for 25.
I stand corrected.
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
KeeperRus
Exanimo Inc
Gentlemen's.Club
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:40:03 -
[706] - Quote
So since everyone is crapping their pants or cheering... Does that mean also coming Jan 1ST that PL is only allowed to fly sub capitals?
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
977
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:40:22 -
[707] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:I'm looking forward to mineral prices rising by a few percent, and PLEX dropping significantly. That's the impact this change will have on me. I might even re-sub some of my accounts once the price of PLEX falls back to within my capacity to pay.
nerfing incursions in high sec would help deflate PLEX prices
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
3733
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:40:37 -
[708] - Quote
I highly endorse this change, despite knowing several people that have found innovative uses for it.
Removing the competitive advantages gained in-game through ISBoxer improves the integrity of the game.
I would like to thank a certain person (you know who you are) that helped make this happen by ISBoxing entire gank fleets.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1132
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:40:53 -
[709] - Quote
Watching the PLEX rollercoaster has been very amusing.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
Cosmic Consortium
5570
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:40:58 -
[710] - Quote
Jon Hellguard wrote:Prepare for epic inflation in the character transfer market starting january 1st, 2015.
No. There will be epic deflation due to over-supply. ISBoxers will be issuing fire-sales. In the meantime many mining alts will be reactivated. I expect very few players will be buying up the extra mining alts or nullsec ratting alts because many of them already have the alts on mothballed accounts.
Of course we also have the stream of new players entering the game who are yet to understand just how mind-numbingly boring mining and ratting can be.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
|
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
977
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:42:39 -
[711] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:My god, your avatar is genuinely disturbing.
im with you there
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please
|
Systimus
Nightweave Operations
Revenant Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:45:01 -
[712] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Systimus wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Systimus wrote:I use isboxer to mine with 4 accounts. Never have pvp'd with it. I don't use constantly but might use it to activate auto pilot or to dock. If I'm reading this correctly, this action with be banned . So no point in having 4 accounts so might as well cancel 3 of them.
Elite dangerous is out soon. Maybe cancel all 4 and have a go at that instead. If you never used it to do anything other than auto pilot or dock, why would this bother you at all? You should probably get your story straight. Personally I don't care one way or the other, but there are a few good points to all this. 1: Restrictions on bomber use don't have to be as severe. 2: More people will be able to make their living mining. 3: Wealth is better distributed across the general population of miners. 4: PLEX prices will drop quickly, which will be welcome news to many. To explain the latter, your average ISBoxer miner pays for all of his accounts with PLEX purchased off the market with ISK. His tolerance for higher PLEX prices is MUCH higher than the average EVE player due to his extremely high income stream per account he is funding. In other words, the large number of "high rollers" providing a steady market for over priced PLEX will be sharply and suddenly curtailed. Which I never had a problem with ISBoxer being in game, even I have to admit this helps to solve a lot of problems. Ranger, I find you really offensive. My story straight ? I think ccp need to clarify what they intend to ban. Any action that affects the universe ...... If using auto pilot or docking is specifically excempt then please ccp clarify. Also, I have never plexd any account and pay for all 4 every month with real money. I don't do pvp on any of my accounts and I find mining relaxing. I feel mining with 1 account a little boring but mining with 4 much more enjoyable. Do I gave an advantage over someone playing with a single account maybe. But if they wanted to pay for 4 accounts they could have that advantage too. You aren't making much sense my friend. Multiple accounts are still fine. Using ISBoxer to control them all with simultaneously is not fine. Are you seriously asking us to believe that if the program you use to "auto pilot or dock" your 4 accounts with is taken away things will become to complicated for you and you'll need to cancel accounts? REALLY?
The opening post stated the following;
'Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇó Activation and control of ships and modules
GÇó Navigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇó Movement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇó Interaction with other characters'
This rules out more or less any use of ISBOXER to activate an autopilot button, or to dock my 4 accounts simultaneously. As I have stated previously, I don't pvp and have 4 accounts all of which I pay real money for each month. I don't consider myself to have an unfair advantage as I am paying for all 4 accounts. If anyone else wants to pay for more than 4 accounts they would have an advantage over me. good luck to them. Maybe get rid of plex's and stop macro miners self funding their players if that what the problem is.
I don't agree with macro mining and look dimly on those that do. I don't and have never plex'd any of my accounts - I pay real money each month for all 4 accounts. One account I have had for nearly 10 years. A second account, 9.5 years. I enjoy mining as I find it relaxing but mining with one account is boring but I find it much more enjoyable with 4. I don't make huge use of multi-broadcasting but I might use it to dock or maybe activate the autopilot which I consider to be trivial but would carry the same penalty as someone caught multi-broadcasting to 80 accounts. I find ISBOXER convenient to use but I may find myself at the wrong end of CCP action should I accidently use a function I shouldn't. And yes, if I find myself subject to a 30 day ban that I felt unjust, I will be looking elsewhere for an online game to play.
|
Truatho Bannon
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:45:35 -
[713] - Quote
Disappointing news. Good time to break for the holidays. |
Apo Lamperouge
30
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:46:18 -
[714] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Jon Hellguard wrote:Prepare for epic inflation in the character transfer market starting january 1st, 2015. No. There will be epic deflation due to over-supply. ISBoxers will be issuing fire-sales. In the meantime many mining alts will be reactivated. I expect very few players will be buying up the extra mining alts or nullsec ratting alts because many of them already have the alts on mothballed accounts. Of course we also have the stream of new players entering the game who are yet to understand just how mind-numbingly boring mining and ratting can be.
That works for me. Ratting isn't all that bad, especially when you get Officers :)
Now I can buy a perfect miner for cheap, so I can build all those Bhaalgorn BPC's I keep getting
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
|
CCP Falcon
9649
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:47:10 -
[715] - Quote
Arec Bardwin wrote:CCP, what is your stance on ISBoxing ship spinning of accounts simultaneously?
CCP Falcon || Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon
Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
|
|
Rear Admiral Charlie
DR. SloMo and the G.I. Clinic
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:47:34 -
[716] - Quote
All this thread has turned into https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHECSCcE2PU |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1712
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:47:38 -
[717] - Quote
Plex prices dropping from lack of ISBoxing = more people buying plex to MCT and other things.
Plex consumption will likely not change very much. Plex prices in game may drop however. But the in game price doesn't have a direct effect on CCP's wallet, only an indirect effect, and we don't know how the supply of plex has changed as prices increased. Or how much was simply due to manipulation. |
Apo Lamperouge
30
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:48:30 -
[718] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Arec Bardwin wrote:CCP, what is your stance on ISBoxing ship spinning of accounts simultaneously? [img]http://i.imgur.com/fAe9Wqz.jpg[/img]
Does it gain you an unfair advantage over the other ship spinners?
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:48:51 -
[719] - Quote
Systimus wrote:You aren't making much sense my friend. Multiple accounts are still fine. Using ISBoxer to control them all with simultaneously is not fine. Are you seriously asking us to believe that if the program you use to "auto pilot or dock" your 4 accounts with is taken away things will become to complicated for you and you'll need to cancel accounts? REALLY?
The opening post stated the following;
'Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇó Activation and control of ships and modules
GÇó Navigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇó Movement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇó Interaction with other characters'
This rules out more or less any use of ISBOXER to activate an autopilot button, or to dock my 4 accounts simultaneously. As I have stated previously, I don't pvp and have 4 accounts all of which I pay real money for each month. I don't consider myself to have an unfair advantage as I am paying for all 4 accounts. If anyone else wants to pay for more than 4 accounts they would have an advantage over me. good luck to them. Maybe get rid of plex's and stop macro miners self funding their players if that what the problem is.
I don't agree with macro mining and look dimly on those that do. I don't and have never plex'd any of my accounts - I pay real money each month for all 4 accounts. One account I have had for nearly 10 years. A second account, 9.5 years. I enjoy mining as I find it relaxing but mining with one account is boring but I find it much more enjoyable with 4. I don't make huge use of multi-broadcasting but I might use it to dock or maybe activate the autopilot which I consider to be trivial but would carry the same penalty as someone caught multi-broadcasting to 80 accounts. I find ISBOXER convenient to use but I may find myself at the wrong end of CCP action should I accidently use a function I shouldn't. And yes, if I find myself subject to a 30 day ban that I felt unjust, I will be looking elsewhere for an online game to play.
[/quote]
You are overreacting.
In a nutshell for isboxers this does two things that i can think of:
1. It bans the use of the broadcast all feature.
2. It bans the use of clickbars that send commands to multiple characters. |
Anslo
Scope Works
22607
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:48:56 -
[720] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Arec Bardwin wrote:CCP, what is your stance on ISBoxing ship spinning of accounts simultaneously? [img]http://i.imgur.com/fAe9Wqz.jpg[/img]
DOESN'T MAKE UP FOR SOV DROPPING
ONE JOB FALCON
ONE DAMN JOB YOU HAD
[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
|
|
|
GIZMOdk
Sabotage Incorporated
Executive Outcomes
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:49:49 -
[721] - Quote
About time! Thanks a lot CCP! A increasing trend towards using cetain tools to multibox has made me unsure of whenever I wanted to keep playing this game or not. No more 1 man armies of death \o/ |
Gavin Nordoff
Drunken Union of Monkeys
Northern Associates.
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:49:50 -
[722] - Quote
Stop making me like these cahnges ccp. |
embrel
BamBam Inc.
Outlanders United
206
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:50:45 -
[723] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:Curse you, CCP! Now what am I to use to scapegoat all my problems!?
Grrr goons? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6033
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:51:14 -
[724] - Quote
Quote:Yes and No. What CCP should have done was ban it entirely. You forget that most use DX nothing and not multi. DX nothing takes more prep work but once you have it set right it runs circles around multi.
So, maybe some do but on the high side most don't. Plain and simple which is why I said it to begin with. Hop on over there and take a look un the eve side. Will tell you exactly how much DX nothing is used over the multi.
The point is that is exactly why they are banning the behavior they want to eliminate, not the software. Nobody really cares if you have to individually click on each account to make an action, that still takes time and mental coordination. People do mind when it's "one click to rule them all".
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
Cosmic Consortium
5571
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:52:00 -
[725] - Quote
Cyrus Doul wrote:Mumm. more like pay to efficently use the UI. If i could have a little loadout window that had like 3 buttons that said
Cap
Shoot
Turtle
without having to dig all five accounts deep into the fittings pages
- Open fitting window
- Click "Browse"
- Shift+Drag saved fittings window to existing pile of chat windows
Perhaps add a "little things" post asking for saved fittings to be faster to apply (e.g.: drag to hangar or double-click or right-click->apply).
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Bakuhz
Ebon Cartel
Ebon Pestilence
166
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:52:04 -
[726] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:RoAnnon wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking. Sure, that's logical, since an AFK cloaked pilot has absolutely no way to interact with the game at all... perfect sense there... CCP is directly nerfing the force projection that one player can have affect on others in Eve. What do you think afk cloaking is?
one player one account stop crying about AFK cloaking and learn to deal with it!!
If you have not found a way by now to counter such things maybe farmville is your thing?
any case blizzard might listen to tears of this magnitude!
https://zkillboard.com/character/584042527/
|
Porucznik Borewicz
Love Squad
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
19
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:53:05 -
[727] - Quote
Hahahahaha! Rekt! Good luck selling all those fine named characters. |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1297
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:54:21 -
[728] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:RoAnnon wrote:Artemis Dalvik wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:So, does this mean no more Mac support? wtf does this have to do with mac support? I use MAC and have no idea what this could possibly do to my gameplay I have one word for you - Applescript
Nerfing your ability to use a system's scripting platform to broadcast input to multiple clients is not anywhere near close to nerfing the users of that platform across the board.
I'm a Mac user, and to be perfectly honest it would never have occurred to me to control EVE clients through AppleScript--though, granted, that's because I usually control one, and at most two, accounts at once on a single monitor, and those two accounts are usually doing distinctly different things.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
|
Mike Vandenberg
Time Lord Academy
Vanguard of the Phoenix
25
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:54:50 -
[729] - Quote
This disappoints me. I don't use ISBoxer but don't have a problem with people who use it to multibox. I know CCP Falcon is stating that multiboxing isn't banned....but inhertited with multi-boxing is keyboard multiplexing either through software or hardware and this has always been ok. I think this is a little overkill. I think it hurts everyone. I can appreciate banning macros but banning people who are sitting in front of the computer, running multiple accounts, using the keyboard or mouse to control the accounts, what a disappointment.
Next you're going to want to ban multiple accounts, or ip bans, or other equaly stupid moves. As a person who pays for my multiple accounts with cash, I give two thumbs down on this decision. |
Apo Lamperouge
30
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:55:46 -
[730] - Quote
Boxer ban
Tears, delicious, nutritious and a great source of daily fibre.
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1135
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:55:47 -
[731] - Quote
Mike Vandenberg wrote:This disappoints me. I don't use ISBoxer but don't have a problem with people who use it to multibox. I know CCP Falcon is stating that multiboxing isn't banned....but inhertited with multi-boxing is keyboard multiplexing either through software or hardware and this has always been ok. I think this is a little overkill. I think it hurts everyone. I can appreciate banning macros but banning people who are sitting in front of the computer, running multiple accounts, using the keyboard or mouse to control the accounts, what a disappointment.
Next you're going to want to ban multiple accounts, or ip bans, or other equaly stupid moves. As a person who pays for my multiple accounts with cash, I give two thumbs down on this decision.
It doesn't hurt me. I have never used input multiplexing to multibox in Eve.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
RudinV
Hard Knocks Inc.
457
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:56:46 -
[732] - Quote
prior ISboxers nerf CCP should remove botters from nullsecs |
Apo Lamperouge
33
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:56:53 -
[733] - Quote
Mike Vandenberg wrote:This disappoints me. I don't use ISBoxer but don't have a problem with people who use it to multibox. I know CCP Falcon is stating that multiboxing isn't banned....but inhertited with multi-boxing is keyboard multiplexing either through software or hardware and this has always been ok. I think this is a little overkill. I think it hurts everyone. I can appreciate banning macros but banning people who are sitting in front of the computer, running multiple accounts, using the keyboard or mouse to control the accounts, what a disappointment.
Next you're going to want to ban multiple accounts, or ip bans, or other equaly stupid moves. As a person who pays for my multiple accounts with cash, I give two thumbs down on this decision.
Doesn't hurt me.
One. Single. Bit.
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6033
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:57:00 -
[734] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:Systimus wrote:You aren't making much sense my friend. Multiple accounts are still fine. Using ISBoxer to control them all with simultaneously is not fine. Are you seriously asking us to believe that if the program you use to "auto pilot or dock" your 4 accounts with is taken away things will become to complicated for you and you'll need to cancel accounts? REALLY? The opening post stated the following; 'Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation. This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to: GÇó Activation and control of ships and modules GÇó Navigation and movement within the EVE universe GÇó Movement of assets and items within the EVE universe GÇó Interaction with other characters' This rules out more or less any use of ISBOXER to activate an autopilot button, or to dock my 4 accounts simultaneously. As I have stated previously, I don't pvp and have 4 accounts all of which I pay real money for each month. I don't consider myself to have an unfair advantage as I am paying for all 4 accounts. If anyone else wants to pay for more than 4 accounts they would have an advantage over me. good luck to them. Maybe get rid of plex's and stop macro miners self funding their players if that what the problem is. I don't agree with macro mining and look dimly on those that do. I don't and have never plex'd any of my accounts - I pay real money each month for all 4 accounts. One account I have had for nearly 10 years. A second account, 9.5 years. I enjoy mining as I find it relaxing but mining with one account is boring but I find it much more enjoyable with 4. I don't make huge use of multi-broadcasting but I might use it to dock or maybe activate the autopilot which I consider to be trivial but would carry the same penalty as someone caught multi-broadcasting to 80 accounts. I find ISBOXER convenient to use but I may find myself at the wrong end of CCP action should I accidently use a function I shouldn't. And yes, if I find myself subject to a 30 day ban that I felt unjust, I will be looking elsewhere for an online game to play.
Quote:You are overreacting.
In a nutshell for isboxers this does two things that i can think of:
1. It bans the use of the broadcast all feature.
2. It bans the use of clickbars that send commands to multiple characters.
Precisely, it's pretty simple.
I have a hard time believing that he can't get it through his head not to use broadcast all for ANYTHING.... or to take seriously his claim he would quit if he can't broadcast auto pilot or dock.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
ISD Ezwal
isd community communications liaisons
2781
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:57:10 -
[735] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post.
The Rules:
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
Note: I am not yet done with this entire thread, so more rule breaking posts might get found and subsequently get edited or removed. If that is the case, I will update this post accordingly. This way this thread can stay open while I moderate it.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Utari Onzo
united system's commonwealth
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:57:28 -
[736] - Quote
Mike Vandenberg wrote:This disappoints me. I don't use ISBoxer but don't have a problem with people who use it to multibox. I know CCP Falcon is stating that multiboxing isn't banned....but inhertited with multi-boxing is keyboard multiplexing either through software or hardware and this has always been ok. I think this is a little overkill. I think it hurts everyone. I can appreciate banning macros but banning people who are sitting in front of the computer, running multiple accounts, using the keyboard or mouse to control the accounts, what a disappointment.
Next you're going to want to ban multiple accounts, or ip bans, or other equaly stupid moves. As a person who pays for my multiple accounts with cash, I give two thumbs down on this decision.
I multibox all the time and don't use broadcasting software. This change doesn't hurt me in the slightest |
Angry Ganker
The Scope
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:57:43 -
[737] - Quote
Apo Lamperouge wrote:Boxer banTears, delicious, nutritious and a great source of daily fibre.
And more ISK for GoonTards and their CODE puppies :-)
|
Valterra Craven
385
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:58:34 -
[738] - Quote
Mike Vandenberg wrote:This disappoints me. I don't use ISBoxer but don't have a problem with people who use it to multibox. I know CCP Falcon is stating that multiboxing isn't banned....but inhertited with multi-boxing is keyboard multiplexing either through software or hardware and this has always been ok. I think this is a little overkill. I think it hurts everyone. I can appreciate banning macros but banning people who are sitting in front of the computer, running multiple accounts, using the keyboard or mouse to control the accounts, what a disappointment.
Next you're going to want to ban multiple accounts, or ip bans, or other equaly stupid moves. As a person who pays for my multiple accounts with cash, I give two thumbs down on this decision.
I don't think it bans macros since macros can be used to do things on one account and I believe the rules are structured in a way that it only matters when a macro sends commands to more than one client. |
David-8
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:58:43 -
[739] - Quote
Good riddance ISBOX scum |
Apo Lamperouge
33
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:58:47 -
[740] - Quote
Porucznik Borewicz wrote:Hahahahaha! Rekt! Good luck selling all those fine named characters.
1 isk each, buying, seller pays all CCP costs etc etc etc
I'll put em to good cloaky use somewhere
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
|
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
337
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 20:59:41 -
[741] - Quote
Angry Ganker wrote:Apo Lamperouge wrote:Boxer banTears, delicious, nutritious and a great source of daily fibre. And more ISK for GoonTards and their CODE puppies :-)
The tinfoil is strong with this one.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
Apo Lamperouge
33
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:00:37 -
[742] - Quote
Angry Ganker wrote:Apo Lamperouge wrote:Boxer banTears, delicious, nutritious and a great source of daily fibre. And more ISK for GoonTards and their CODE puppies :-)
Maybe, but grrrrgooons.
Did anyone do that yet?
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
Aequitae
Swamphole Inc.
WormHole Occupation and Resource Exploitation
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:01:50 -
[743] - Quote
As a small time multiboxer using 2-3 pilots at most, I am not happy with the changes.
I feel it takes away something from the game that I like to do on a small scale, because it's the only way I feel I can achieve some things in say lowsec without a bloody link-alt.
For me, this is a reason to reconsider paying my 9 accounts with actual cash. (No I don't multibox to plex) |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
524
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:03:27 -
[744] - Quote
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if thousands of illegal multibox miners suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I am confident something awesome has happened.
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Apo Lamperouge
33
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:03:35 -
[745] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:I have removed a rule breaking post. The Rules:5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.Note: I am not yet done with this entire thread, so more rule breaking posts might get found and subsequently get edited or removed. If that is the case, I will update this post accordingly. This way this thread can stay open while I moderate it.
awww come on... want to see whos trolling....wait... it wasn't me was it?
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
162
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:04:03 -
[746] - Quote
I like it, I like it a lot.
EVE: All about Flying Frisky and Making Iskie
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
4381
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:04:20 -
[747] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:If you are uncertain about your Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing use-case, please get in contact with us, as we would prefer to work with members of the community to come to an amicable resolution.
What category should we petition under?
As I previously posted, I'm uncertain what "Input Broadcasting" and "Input Multiplexing" mean; are they the same thing?
I can't find any useful answer via Google either. |
Apo Lamperouge
34
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:04:22 -
[748] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if thousands of illegal multibox miners suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I am confident something awesome has happened.
I've got a bad feeling about this.
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
Paranoid Loyd
2800
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:04:50 -
[749] - Quote
Aequitae wrote:As a small time multiboxer using 2-3 pilots at most, I am not happy with the changes.
I feel it takes away something from the game that I like to do on a small scale, because it's the only way I feel I can achieve some things in say lowsec without a bloody link-alt.
For me, this is a reason to reconsider paying my 9 accounts with actual cash. (No I don't multibox to plex)
Lrn2Read
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1712
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:05:35 -
[750] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
I don't think it bans macros since macros can be used to do things on one account and I believe the rules are structured in a way that it only matters when a macro sends commands to more than one client.
Macro's are already banned as botting and have been since EVE started I believe. Catching simple short macro's is obviously a fairly hard job for CCP to do, but it doesn't change it being banned already. |
|
|
Please Turn
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
26
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:05:37 -
[751] - Quote
Utari Onzo wrote:Please Turn wrote:
Well, it does and it doesn't. There is more than one angle from which one should look at this topic. At a first glance, the common approach - "somebody has to pay for that PLEX with real money(at a higher price than the subscription price)" indicates that it doesn't, hence CCP shouldn't care. In this case, Astroyka is wrong, and this move will hurt CCP(short term) more than he realizes.
However, as most things in life, everything is a matter of balance. As I see it, PLEX'ing the accounts(I'm speaking about using a PLEX for subscription) is getting out of hands right now. Is just so easy for too many people(they can all do it simultaneously) to AFK "print" ISK by ratting(Ishtar, Dominix - looking at you right now), to AFK gather resources and so on. Broadcasting commands were(are) a big factor in allowing this type of "game play"(not the only factor, that's for sure).
What most people don't put into this equation is the loss in "potential" long term subscribers due to newbies quitting once they start noticing all the 20+ nerds accounts(which are so common these days) floating around against whom they feel like having zero chances of competing(and who could blame them).
Last thought, Eve should be about playing Eve for the sake of Eve not for the sake of PLEX'ing your account(s) and maybe making some money out of it(RMT ). All I can say about this change is that I'm glad they finally push it through and that I'm a little sad it took them so long to do it(let's hope I'm not speaking too soon and they won't go back on their word(again)).
You missed the even biggest part of the PLEX equation. The plex reselled (the one who gives CCP the monies) I am one of these. I use plex to get enough isk to buy a shiney. I don't resell plex to have that isk sitting in my account. The higher the plex ISK price goes, the less plex I need to buy from CCP to buy my shiney. The lower the plex price, the more I buy to get that same amount of isk. Too low, and I don't bother buying plex and farm instead. In general, PLEX supply has been fairly steady for years. It's the demand end that's been having problems. I very much doubt CCP will lose real -ú-ú-ú ($$$/whatever) from loss of plex subcribers on this basis. If plex demand falls, isk value falls, meaning I need to buy more to get my stuff.
Well, I didn't miss it at all. I just feel(felt) it wasn't relevant in this case(percent wise of total revenue).
I doubt the fluctuation in the average number of purchased PLEX (you buying more PLEX when the price is lower, buying less when the price is higher is kind of balanced by more people having an incentive to buy PLEX when the price is high or not having one when the price is low) is comparable with the fluctuation in the average number of directly paid subscriptions(which has a cascade effect - would people prefer to play a dead game(no growth in the number of undocked players willing to interact with the others undocked players) or one that feels alive and vibrant).
And just to be on the safe side, since I somehow feel that you might have misread my post. Short term, there will be a hit, long term, in my view at least, this is wonderful news. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
404 Alliance Not Found
191
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:07:14 -
[752] - Quote
Interesting. Mining might actually become profitable for the little guy again.
|
Annah Sun-Scape
Temet Nosce Ex Astra
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:07:59 -
[753] - Quote
\o/ TIME TO DUST MY MINERS \o/ |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
263
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:08:04 -
[754] - Quote
I shall ignore the irony of some of the massive null blocs gloating over the ban of ISBoxer since I know a lot of multibox miners who supply them. X-Post from a twit-longer sent to CCP Seagull:
I will admit I am slightly annoyed at the lack of communication between CCP and the Multiboxing community, and the fact that CCP Falcon directly lied to said community, but I will abide by your ruling. I will unsub my toons as there are currently a grey area the size of a Titan that CCP has not explored regarding ISBoxer. If you address these issues in the Dev Blog or later down the line, I will reconsider resubbing.
I do have to ask, however, what your definition of "impact in eve" is. A miner multiboxing 40+ accounts can have a major impact in the industry of an alliance, be it big or small, by undercutting regular single-toon miners. A VG runner with 10 clients (such as myself) can sink a market by hoarding LP and then dumping it when he has around 10m LP on each toon (about 11b raw isk if he sells in on the CONCORD LP channel, or skywards of 3k ISK/LP if he is a manufacturer).
Then there are my friends in WH space that multibox WH sites. What do they do if they get dropped by a gank fleet? Do they not fight back? Are they allowed to fight back? What happens to them?
For the ganking aspect of EVE, as I've said countless times before, if you're in a freighter with cargo expanders hauling 15b worth of stuff on autopilot AFK, you will get popped. Doesn't matter too much if it's an ISBoxer with 10 Talos, a fleet with an ISBoxer boxing 3-4, or just regular people who hang out together.
If CCP wanted to ban ISBoxer's broadcasting to multiple clients, a simpler way to put it would have been "Using ISBoxer for anything other than window rearrangement and VideoFX placement is banned".
If CCP wants to sit down with an ISBoxer to figure out what parts of ISBoxer are now considered automation and whats not in order to fix their wording, I am happy to help.
Until next time, fly safe!
P.S. No, you can't have my stuff and I am not 100% quitting EVE. I'd like to thank CCP for the opportunity to multibox EVE.
|
|
CCP Falcon
9653
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:08:08 -
[755] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:If you are uncertain about your Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing use-case, please get in contact with us, as we would prefer to work with members of the community to come to an amicable resolution. What category should we petition under? As I previously posted, I'm uncertain what "Input Broadcasting" and "Input Multiplexing" mean; are they the same thing? I can't find any useful answer via Google either.
EULA would be a good catergory
CCP Falcon || Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon
Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
|
|
Cyrus Doul
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:11:37 -
[756] - Quote
irion felpamy wrote:Cyrus Doul wrote:I isbox 5 accounts and i do still pay for the game with CC, and have to buy plex to sell all the time to make isk, 6 years into this game and I'm still terrible
Also for the love of god people. when someone isboxes and gets enough to run 20 accounts. that IS 20 SUBS WORTH OF MONEY! its actually more as month to month is 15 dollars for a total of 300 a month. where plex is 20 dollars for a total of 400 a month. CCP makes more off isboxers then they do you. This is the saddest thing I have ever heard I will assume its a troll just to cheer myself up.
No, not a troll. In college i used to play this game a lot, only had 2 then three accounts, but paid for by spending my weekends not studying for the classes i was taking (B+ student, cept for math that was like Q-) and getting plex when they were like 300 million.
Now i work like 60 hours a week and make enough that converting an hour of real work to isk > amount of isk i can make in an hour unless i get an officer or something. Leaves me time for doing things like stalking our JF's with the dread fleet and all that, 12 hour long weekend tower bash fleets. You know, the fun stuff.
Don't ban isboxer, ban PLEX :) Im just going to set up isboxer to hot key f3 to next character. f1 and f2 start the gun, f3 rotates though. I can press 3 buttons five times in a second or two and its not replicating clicks!
|
virm pasuul
Mine 'N' Refine
Yulai Federation
185
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:11:41 -
[757] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:I shall ignore the irony of some of the massive null blocs gloating over the ban of ISBoxer since I know a lot of multibox miners who supply them. X-Post from a twit-longer sent to CCP Seagull:
I will admit I am slightly annoyed at the lack of communication between CCP and the Multiboxing community, and the fact that CCP Falcon directly lied to said community, but I will abide by your ruling. I will unsub my toons as there are currently a grey area the size of a Titan that CCP has not explored regarding ISBoxer. If you address these issues in the Dev Blog or later down the line, I will reconsider resubbing.
I do have to ask, however, what your definition of "impact in eve" is. A miner multiboxing 40+ accounts can have a major impact in the industry of an alliance, be it big or small, by undercutting regular single-toon miners. A VG runner with 10 clients (such as myself) can sink a market by hoarding LP and then dumping it when he has around 10m LP on each toon (about 11b raw isk if he sells in on the CONCORD LP channel, or skywards of 3k ISK/LP if he is a manufacturer).
Then there are my friends in WH space that multibox WH sites. What do they do if they get dropped by a gank fleet? Do they not fight back? Are they allowed to fight back? What happens to them?
For the ganking aspect of EVE, as I've said countless times before, if you're in a freighter with cargo expanders hauling 15b worth of stuff on autopilot AFK, you will get popped. Doesn't matter too much if it's an ISBoxer with 10 Talos, a fleet with an ISBoxer boxing 3-4, or just regular people who hang out together.
If CCP wanted to ban ISBoxer's broadcasting to multiple clients, a simpler way to put it would have been "Using ISBoxer for anything other than window rearrangement and VideoFX placement is banned".
If CCP wants to sit down with an ISBoxer to figure out what parts of ISBoxer are now considered automation and whats not in order to fix their wording, I am happy to help.
Until next time, fly safe!
P.S. No, you can't have my stuff and I am not 100% quitting EVE. I'd like to thank CCP for the opportunity to multibox EVE.
From your post it's difficult to work out which side of the fence you sit on.
You start off seeming to critcize the change.
You then go on to make a load of points illustrating why the change is a good thing for Eve.
Could you clarify please?
|
xLiaosx
Breaking.Bad
Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:13:30 -
[758] - Quote
R.I.P. EVE |
Utari Onzo
united system's commonwealth
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:13:45 -
[759] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
If CCP wanted to ban ISBoxer's broadcasting to multiple clients, a simpler way to put it would have been "Using ISBoxer for anything other than window rearrangement and VideoFX placement is banned".
If CCP wants to sit down with an ISBoxer to figure out what parts of ISBoxer are now considered automation and whats not in order to fix their wording, I am happy to help.
Until next time, fly safe!
P.S. No, you can't have my stuff and I am not 100% quitting EVE. I'd like to thank CCP for the opportunity to multibox EVE.
Read the first post, then re-read it again. Do it slowly. It actually really does say "Using ISBoxer for anything other than window rearrangement and VideoFX placement is banned" if you bother to follow the points.
Multiboxing is OK. Using ISBoxer to rearrange windows/log in to eve etc is explicitly stated as OK. Using ISBoxer to broadcast across multiple clients is NOT OK. It says it in the OP. Seriously. |
JitaRandom 1114422443
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:13:49 -
[760] - Quote
About time! Will promote a healthier game!
|
|
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6033
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:15:29 -
[761] - Quote
Please Turn wrote:Utari Onzo wrote:Please Turn wrote:
Well, it does and it doesn't. There is more than one angle from which one should look at this topic. At a first glance, the common approach - "somebody has to pay for that PLEX with real money(at a higher price than the subscription price)" indicates that it doesn't, hence CCP shouldn't care. In this case, Astroyka is wrong, and this move will hurt CCP(short term) more than he realizes.
However, as most things in life, everything is a matter of balance. As I see it, PLEX'ing the accounts(I'm speaking about using a PLEX for subscription) is getting out of hands right now. Is just so easy for too many people(they can all do it simultaneously) to AFK "print" ISK by ratting(Ishtar, Dominix - looking at you right now), to AFK gather resources and so on. Broadcasting commands were(are) a big factor in allowing this type of "game play"(not the only factor, that's for sure).
What most people don't put into this equation is the loss in "potential" long term subscribers due to newbies quitting once they start noticing all the 20+ nerds accounts(which are so common these days) floating around against whom they feel like having zero chances of competing(and who could blame them).
Last thought, Eve should be about playing Eve for the sake of Eve not for the sake of PLEX'ing your account(s) and maybe making some money out of it(RMT ). All I can say about this change is that I'm glad they finally push it through and that I'm a little sad it took them so long to do it(let's hope I'm not speaking too soon and they won't go back on their word(again)).
You missed the even biggest part of the PLEX equation. The plex reselled (the one who gives CCP the monies) I am one of these. I use plex to get enough isk to buy a shiney. I don't resell plex to have that isk sitting in my account. The higher the plex ISK price goes, the less plex I need to buy from CCP to buy my shiney. The lower the plex price, the more I buy to get that same amount of isk. Too low, and I don't bother buying plex and farm instead. In general, PLEX supply has been fairly steady for years. It's the demand end that's been having problems. I very much doubt CCP will lose real -ú-ú-ú ($$$/whatever) from loss of plex subcribers on this basis. If plex demand falls, isk value falls, meaning I need to buy more to get my stuff. Well, I didn't miss it at all. I just feel(felt) it wasn't relevant in this case(percent wise of total revenue). I doubt the fluctuation in the average number of purchased PLEX (you buying more PLEX when the price is lower, buying less when the price is higher is kind of balanced by more people having an incentive to buy PLEX when the price is high or not having one when the price is low) is comparable with the fluctuation in the average number of directly paid subscriptions(which has a cascade effect - would people prefer to play a dead game(no growth in the number of undocked players willing to interact with the others undocked players) or one that feels alive and vibrant). And just to be on the safe side, since I somehow feel that you might have misread my post. Short term, there will be a hit, long term, in my view at least, this is wonderful news.
PLEX prices will drop as demand from the people who currently don't care how high the price is will lessen in the short term.
Once PLEX prices drop, people that DO care how high the price became will begin reactivating accounts. This number will obviously be far larger than the number of multi box accounts lost.
The more PLEX that change hands (usually a symptom of healthy moderate prices) the more actual cash CCP makes.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Stygian Soul
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:16:44 -
[762] - Quote
Breaking down what a miner actually does that does and does not require broadcasting
1: undock (broadcast)
2: Squad warp to belt/bookmark (not a broadcast)
3: Launch drones (broadcast)
4: assist drones to overwatch (broadcast)
5: regroup command (not a broadcast)
6: cycle through each ship to put a laser on a different rock (not a broadcast)
7: jetcan ore or drag to an existing can (broadcast)
8: Squad warp out to POS when done (not a broadcast)
9: Dock when needed (broadcast)
So for mining the only difference will be:
I'll have to dock and undock each ship manually
Launch and assist drones on each ship manually
jetcan the ore from each ship manually
This isn't really that much more difficult to do, and if it means I make more on my harvest and pay less for my plexes because of all the people that quit, then so be it, can't say I'm pleased though. I just don't see how any of this should be a bannable offense.
Now for PvP
Gate camp:
1: squad warp to gate (not a broadcast)
2: launch drones (broadcast)
3: Assist drones (broadcast)
4: Manually go through and fix all the drones that didn't propery launch or assist (not a broadcast)
5: Activate various perma-running modules (broadcast)
6: Manually go through and fix all the modules that didn't properly activate (not a broadcast)
I can still do this manually, it just adds set up time. Bannable offense? meh.
Rapid deployment, giving chase through gates, and maneuvering were already difficult and prone to problems even with broadcasting, now it is more or less out of the question.
non-drone based pvp is also more or less out of the question, except perhaps capitals where you can have more breathing room between clicks (except for jumping in and out could get tricky, perhaps jump them in one at a time and get it set up)
So bombers nerfed out of existence, these were the focus of most of the calls for the nerfbat, so success there.
Suicide catalysts nerfed out of existence, lesser extent than the bombers, but no love lost there.
Multibox miners: Inconvenienced with a very heavy handed ban threat for attempting to save a little time and a lot of clicks.
Take that you exploiting evil multiboxer, if this doesn't work we will try...THE COMFY CHAIR!!!!
-Soul
I and many of my corp-mates multi-box mine, rat, and/or pvp.
When a roam comes through and sees mackinaws and skiffs, their faces turn to delight as they warp in.
There is nothing more satisfying than wiping that smug off their faces with a drone swarm of death.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
235
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:17:44 -
[763] - Quote
Bakuhz wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:RoAnnon wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking. Sure, that's logical, since an AFK cloaked pilot has absolutely no way to interact with the game at all... perfect sense there... CCP is directly nerfing the force projection that one player can have affect on others in Eve. What do you think afk cloaking is? one player one account stop crying about AFK cloaking and learn to deal with it!! If you have not found a way by now to counter such things maybe farmville is your thing? any case blizzard might listen to tears of this magnitude!
Confirming that all of our afk cloaking accounts are actually individual people that stare at the computer all day waiting for the opportune moment to hotdrop people.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6033
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:20:57 -
[764] - Quote
Cyrus Doul wrote:irion felpamy wrote:Cyrus Doul wrote:I isbox 5 accounts and i do still pay for the game with CC, and have to buy plex to sell all the time to make isk, 6 years into this game and I'm still terrible
Also for the love of god people. when someone isboxes and gets enough to run 20 accounts. that IS 20 SUBS WORTH OF MONEY! its actually more as month to month is 15 dollars for a total of 300 a month. where plex is 20 dollars for a total of 400 a month. CCP makes more off isboxers then they do you. This is the saddest thing I have ever heard I will assume its a troll just to cheer myself up. No, not a troll. In college i used to play this game a lot, only had 2 then three accounts, but paid for by spending my weekends not studying for the classes i was taking (B+ student, cept for math that was like Q-) and getting plex when they were like 300 million. Now i work like 60 hours a week and make enough that converting an hour of real work to isk > amount of isk i can make in an hour unless i get an officer or something. Leaves me time for doing things like stalking our JF's with the dread fleet and all that, 12 hour long weekend tower bash fleets. You know, the fun stuff. Don't ban isboxer, ban PLEX :) Im just going to set up isboxer to hot key f3 to next character. f1 and f2 start the gun, f3 rotates though. I can press 3 buttons five times in a second or two and its not replicating clicks!
ISBoxer isn't banned.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Fiberton
StarFleet Enterprises
Almost Awesome.
61
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:21:10 -
[765] - Quote
Nituspar wrote:As someone who has extensively used ISBoxer for the last year I'd like to thank CCP for having the courage to make this change, and the way it's being implemented.
The grace time will allow people who invested heavily into the program some reprieve to make their investments back, and the general playerbase will not have to deal with singular people wiping out their fleets or multi-billion ships anymore, which was always terrible gameplay.
I believe this is a very positive change to New Eden, and the short-term loss of subscriber revenue will be more than made up for in the long run by players enjoying the game more as a result of it
Thumbs up and keep up the good work CCP
As a person who has never used ISboxer but realize that CCP needs fluff subscribers to pad the wallet.
I am thinking Eve loses 5 to 8% of its logins and I would assume that is a draw of atleast 300k per month in revenue. I am just some nerd who trades stocks for a living and well.. A company that makes a change that loses them revenue on purpose...boggles my mind. About the change.. CCP your stones are bigger than mine. I could never do it just for the sheer cost.
GÇ£Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.GÇ¥ -- -áAlbert -áEinstein-á
"War is a mere continuation of politics by other means,"
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
235
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:21:14 -
[766] - Quote
Stygian Soul wrote:lots of text about mining...
Multibox miners: Inconvenienced with a very heavy handed ban threat for attempting to save a little time and a lot of clicks.
I agree with this. To be honest, this doesn't really affect miners much except for the handful of people that use more than about 20 accounts to mine.
Mining will still be possible with isboxer up to about 20 miners without broadcasting. It just makes it a little more annoying. Which is pretty much CCP's answer to any issues, such as with Jump Fatigue. I see a recurring trend here with CCP's "game" design decisions. |
Dominous Nolen
The Unthinkables
38
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:21:51 -
[767] - Quote
Wow. I'm glad to see an update on this, I wonder how many subbed account CCP is going to lose because of this choice though.
Either way this will make certain activities more profitable in game for industrial folks.
Also taken from Reddit. Plex prices already on the down tick?
http://i.imgur.com/sSlIhZp.jpg
This is EVE, Not Hello Kitty: Island Adventure
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
9
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:21:53 -
[768] - Quote
Aequitae wrote:As a small time multiboxer using 2-3 pilots at most, I am not happy with the changes.
I feel it takes away something from the game that I like to do on a small scale, because it's the only way I feel I can achieve some things in say lowsec without a bloody link-alt.
For me, this is a reason to reconsider paying my 9 accounts with actual cash. (No I don't multibox to plex)
I feel ya, I multibox for fun tho :) I pay With real Money for plex tho.. and the Challenge also have something to say :D :/ :) |
Aequitae
Swamphole Inc.
WormHole Occupation and Resource Exploitation
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:22:37 -
[769] - Quote
ISBoxer isn't banned.[/quote]
Essentially it is. There's no point paying 50 dollar per year for only the permission to rearrange my screens. |
Cyrus Doul
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:25:23 -
[770] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Cyrus Doul wrote:Mumm. more like pay to efficently use the UI. If i could have a little loadout window that had like 3 buttons that said
Cap
Shoot
Turtle
without having to dig all five accounts deep into the fittings pages
- Open fitting window
- Click "Browse"
- Shift+Drag saved fittings window to existing pile of chat windows
Perhaps add a " little things" post asking for saved fittings to be faster to apply (e.g.: drag to hangar or double-click or right-click->apply).
The problem with that is that although each of the five dreads can fly the dreads the same, they all do other things too. if you have 1 more fitting then the others things go to hell after the "Click "Browse"" step because one guy has
Assault frig
battleship
dreadnought
and the other hasn't got assault frig or something. as it stands now you have to be placed perfectly pixel wise or isboxer will end up basically removing your fit and not having anything to put in cause you told your dread to put on your non existent bs fit.
The post is a good idea though. I'll go do that. |
|
|
Korwin Abre-Kai
lichfield exploration and salvage
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:25:31 -
[771] - Quote
LOL @ all the tears and gloating.
while the change is needed I seriously doubt either CCP nor the 'I hate multi boxing crowd" are going to get what they want out of it. the problem is that a certain part of the player base could not give a rats a** about the difference between a botter an ISboxer or a simple multi boxer. (or for that matter any one who happens to mine to make ISK) so while this change will restrict a large scale multi boxers ability to strip a belt some what it will in no way prevent it. envious players will still get their panties in bunch over the fact that others who have put in more time and effort than they have are getting more out of the game than they are. as a result due to a widening of the prohibition GMs will be getting MORE petitions not less increasing their workload even further.
that said as to the over all health of the game. this change will improve things quite a bit. commodity prices will rise some what and that cost will cascade through the grater economy. PLEX prices will at least stabilize if not drop and the total amount of inflation will fall. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6033
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:25:36 -
[772] - Quote
Stygian Soul wrote:Breaking down what a miner actually does that does and does not require broadcasting
1: undock (broadcast)
2: Squad warp to belt/bookmark (not a broadcast)
3: Launch drones (broadcast)
4: assist drones to overwatch (broadcast)
5: regroup command (not a broadcast)
6: cycle through each ship to put a laser on a different rock (not a broadcast)
7: jetcan ore or drag to an existing can (broadcast)
8: Squad warp out to POS when done (not a broadcast)
9: Dock when needed (broadcast)
So for mining the only difference will be:
I'll have to dock and undock each ship manually
Launch and assist drones on each ship manually
jetcan the ore from each ship manually
This isn't really that much more difficult to do, and if it means I make more on my harvest and pay less for my plexes because of all the people that quit, then so be it, can't say I'm pleased though. I just don't see how any of this should be a bannable offense.
Now for PvP
Gate camp:
1: squad warp to gate (not a broadcast)
2: launch drones (broadcast)
3: Assist drones (broadcast)
4: Manually go through and fix all the drones that didn't propery launch or assist (not a broadcast)
5: Activate various perma-running modules (broadcast)
6: Manually go through and fix all the modules that didn't properly activate (not a broadcast)
I can still do this manually, it just adds set up time. Bannable offense? meh.
Rapid deployment, giving chase through gates, and maneuvering were already difficult and prone to problems even with broadcasting, now it is more or less out of the question.
non-drone based pvp is also more or less out of the question, except perhaps capitals where you can have more breathing room between clicks (except for jumping in and out could get tricky, perhaps jump them in one at a time and get it set up)
So bombers nerfed out of existence, these were the focus of most of the calls for the nerfbat, so success there.
Suicide catalysts nerfed out of existence, lesser extent than the bombers, but no love lost there.
Multibox miners: Inconvenienced with a very heavy handed ban threat for attempting to save a little time and a lot of clicks.
Take that you exploiting evil multiboxer, if this doesn't work we will try...THE COMFY CHAIR!!!!
-Soul
I and many of my corp-mates multi-box mine, rat, and/or pvp.
When a roam comes through and sees mackinaws and skiffs, their faces turn to delight as they warp in.
There is nothing more satisfying than wiping that smug off their faces with a drone swarm of death.
Hmmm, bombers are actually in a very strong position right now... with or without ISBoxer broadcasting. This restriction has allowed them to reconsider bombers de-cloaking each other... which was a key point in their viability.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Fiberton
StarFleet Enterprises
Almost Awesome.
61
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:25:48 -
[773] - Quote
Dominous Nolen wrote:Wow. I'm glad to see an update on this, I wonder how many subbed account CCP is going to lose because of this choice though. Either way this will make certain activities more profitable in game for industrial folks. Also taken from Reddit. Plex prices already on the down tick? http://i.imgur.com/sSlIhZp.jpg
I think Roughy 20 thousand or so.
GÇ£Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.GÇ¥ -- -áAlbert -áEinstein-á
"War is a mere continuation of politics by other means,"
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1297
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:26:12 -
[774] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:I do have to ask, however, what your definition of "impact in eve" is. A miner multiboxing 40+ accounts can have a major impact in the industry of an alliance, be it big or small, by undercutting regular single-toon miners. A VG runner with 10 clients (such as myself) can sink a market by hoarding LP and then dumping it when he has around 10m LP on each toon (about 11b raw isk if he sells in on the CONCORD LP channel, or skywards of 3k ISK/LP if he is a manufacturer).
Well, here is the list of examples of actions with "no impact in EVE:"
CCP Falcon wrote:Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇóEVE Online client settings
GÇóWindow positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
GÇóThe login process
So basically, things that have absolutely no discernable effect in game: whether I have high or low quality characters; show or hide drone models; run in windowed mode or full screen; have purple or black or blue as my background color; have a keypress to fire up the Launcher and type in an account name and (if foolish) password; where the client window is relative to my OS desktop.
Barring complete idiocy ("whoops, I used a bugged macro and set my interface to white text on white in the middle of a fleet fight"), nobody in EVE but me can discern if or how I set or reset any of those things, which is therefore the definition of "no impact in EVE."
Anything that sends one command to multiple clients at once is forbidden as of 2015.
I don't see much that isn't clear, unless you're setting out to muddy the waters. As long as your input devices control exactly one client at a time, whether or not you're using ISBoxer, you have nothing to worry about.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
|
Johnathan Roark
Quantum Industries
Prime Orbital Systems
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:26:18 -
[775] - Quote
Xython wrote:Taram Caldar wrote:War Kitten wrote:Mierin Arthie wrote:How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard? for those that dont know what a kvm switch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch That doesn't broadcast, it just changes where input goes - it should be fine. Wrong it broadcasts a single command to multiple systems Still applies. Seriously people.... reading comprehension Not even close to accurate. You can simulate a KVM by unplugging your keyboard and plugging it into a second computer. KVMs should be just fine, if you want to set up a few dozen PCs to play EVE Online with. (Don't do this.)
Some KVM have a broadcast mode. Commonly used for imaging 30 computers at once.
EVEVERIFY - A recruiting API Verification and Audit Tool
Also try out Yapeal for your php api needs
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6035
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:26:34 -
[776] - Quote
Essentially it is. There's no point paying 50 dollar per year for only the permission to rearrange my screens.[/quote]
According to most in this thread, that is really the only sensible way to use it for most EVE related activities.
Apparently broadcasting commands is very inefficient. Who knew?
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Systimus
Nightweave Operations
Revenant Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:27:14 -
[777] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:Systimus wrote:You aren't making much sense my friend. Multiple accounts are still fine. Using ISBoxer to control them all with simultaneously is not fine. Are you seriously asking us to believe that if the program you use to "auto pilot or dock" your 4 accounts with is taken away things will become to complicated for you and you'll need to cancel accounts? REALLY? The opening post stated the following; 'Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation. This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to: GÇó Activation and control of ships and modules GÇó Navigation and movement within the EVE universe GÇó Movement of assets and items within the EVE universe GÇó Interaction with other characters' This rules out more or less any use of ISBOXER to activate an autopilot button, or to dock my 4 accounts simultaneously. As I have stated previously, I don't pvp and have 4 accounts all of which I pay real money for each month. I don't consider myself to have an unfair advantage as I am paying for all 4 accounts. If anyone else wants to pay for more than 4 accounts they would have an advantage over me. good luck to them. Maybe get rid of plex's and stop macro miners self funding their players if that what the problem is. I don't agree with macro mining and look dimly on those that do. I don't and have never plex'd any of my accounts - I pay real money each month for all 4 accounts. One account I have had for nearly 10 years. A second account, 9.5 years. I enjoy mining as I find it relaxing but mining with one account is boring but I find it much more enjoyable with 4. I don't make huge use of multi-broadcasting but I might use it to dock or maybe activate the autopilot which I consider to be trivial but would carry the same penalty as someone caught multi-broadcasting to 80 accounts. I find ISBOXER convenient to use but I may find myself at the wrong end of CCP action should I accidently use a function I shouldn't. And yes, if I find myself subject to a 30 day ban that I felt unjust, I will be looking elsewhere for an online game to play. Quote:You are overreacting.
In a nutshell for isboxers this does two things that i can think of:
1. It bans the use of the broadcast all feature.
2. It bans the use of clickbars that send commands to multiple characters. Precisely, it's pretty simple. I have a hard time believing that he can't get it through his head not to use broadcast all for ANYTHING.... or to take seriously his claim he would quit if he can't broadcast auto pilot or dock.
That is what I wasn't getting. Not to use broadcast for anything. Why could ccp not explain it as simply as that. I understand now. I can live without using broadcast at all. Thank you kraken11 for explaining that key point I'd missed.
|
Please Turn
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
26
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:27:30 -
[778] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Please Turn wrote:
Well, I didn't miss it at all. I just feel(felt) it wasn't relevant in this case(percent wise of total revenue).
I doubt the fluctuation in the average number of purchased PLEX (you buying more PLEX when the price is lower, buying less when the price is higher is kind of balanced by more people having an incentive to buy PLEX when the price is high or not having one when the price is low) is comparable with the fluctuation in the average number of directly paid subscriptions(which has a cascade effect - would people prefer to play a dead game(no growth in the number of undocked players willing to interact with the others undocked players) or one that feels alive and vibrant).
And just to be on the safe side, since I somehow feel that you might have misread my post. Short term, there will be a hit, long term, in my view at least, this is wonderful news.
PLEX prices will drop as demand from the people who currently don't care how high the price is will lessen in the short term. Once PLEX prices drop, people that DO care how high the price became will begin reactivating accounts. This number will obviously be far larger than the number of multi box accounts lost. The more PLEX that change hands (usually a symptom of healthy moderate prices) the more actual cash CCP makes.
Ok dude, whatever. I'll stop now trying to argue over silly things on the internet(I'm not even sure we're arguing since you seem to agree with what I wrote, just that you're putting some effort into making it look that you don't).
|
Apo Lamperouge
34
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:27:42 -
[779] - Quote
Stygian Soul wrote:Angry Ganker wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if thousands of illegal multibox miners suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I am confident something awesome has happened. actually - I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if thousands of illegal multibox loyalalon gankers suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced and the universe shuddered as it appears CODE just lost. Doesn't it actually mean that CODE won? Mission Accomplished and all that?
Maybe, and now they can all ragequit eve and do something else.
GG
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1297
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:28:03 -
[780] - Quote
Johnathan Roark wrote:Some KVM have a broadcast mode. Commonly used for imaging 30 computers at once.
Then don't use that mode, and you'll be fine.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
|
|
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:29:16 -
[781] - Quote
Aequitae wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:
ISBoxer isn't banned.
Essentially it is. There's no point paying 50 dollar per year for only the permission to rearrange my screens.
Essentially it isn't. It's up to the consumer if the functionality that is allowd is worth the price. That in no way implies that IS Boxer is allowed or not.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6035
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:31:12 -
[782] - Quote
Quote:That is what I wasn't getting. Not to use broadcast for anything. Why could ccp not explain it as simply as that. I understand now. I can live without using broadcast at all. Thank you kraken11 for explaining that key point I'd missed.
With all this trolling going on, and with so many people pretending that "their legitimate use is now banned" to seek attention, it's getting hard to sort out those who misunderstood something basic to the topic from those that understand but are trying to mislead others.
Apologies.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
1894
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:32:03 -
[783] - Quote
OK ccp to who I address the bottle of wine as thanks for this marvelous decision?
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:32:17 -
[784] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:That is what I wasn't getting. Not to use broadcast for anything. Why could ccp not explain it as simply as that. I understand now. I can live without using broadcast at all. Thank you kraken11 for explaining that key point I'd missed. With all this trolling going on, and with so many people pretending that "their legitimate use is now banned" to seek attention, it's getting hard to sort out those who misunderstood something basic to the topic from those that understand but are trying to mislead others. Apologies.
I smell a Ranger 1 Presents on this topic.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
241
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:32:36 -
[785] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned.
CCP & CSM's ...
Posts like this do absolutely zero good. You both need to detail what IS allowed, and what ISN'T allowed.
This typical "VagueBook" garbage doesn't fly with any of the players, and a simple explanation detailing what is allowed and what isn't, in a bullet style list, wouldn't have gotten you 40 pages of "please explain what you mean" posts.
Seriously, stop beating your heads with boards like in Monty Python and talk to us like adults. We're grown ups, we can handle it.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
38
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:33:50 -
[786] - Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31sR4_37T2E
ban isboxer cuz shitfaces lose ships... |
Stygian Soul
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:33:58 -
[787] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Stygian Soul wrote:Breaking down what a miner actually does that does and does not require broadcasting
1: undock (broadcast)
2: Squad warp to belt/bookmark (not a broadcast)
3: Launch drones (broadcast)
4: assist drones to overwatch (broadcast)
5: regroup command (not a broadcast)
6: cycle through each ship to put a laser on a different rock (not a broadcast)
7: jetcan ore or drag to an existing can (broadcast)
8: Squad warp out to POS when done (not a broadcast)
9: Dock when needed (broadcast)
So for mining the only difference will be:
I'll have to dock and undock each ship manually
Launch and assist drones on each ship manually
jetcan the ore from each ship manually
This isn't really that much more difficult to do, and if it means I make more on my harvest and pay less for my plexes because of all the people that quit, then so be it, can't say I'm pleased though. I just don't see how any of this should be a bannable offense.
Now for PvP
Gate camp:
1: squad warp to gate (not a broadcast)
2: launch drones (broadcast)
3: Assist drones (broadcast)
4: Manually go through and fix all the drones that didn't propery launch or assist (not a broadcast)
5: Activate various perma-running modules (broadcast)
6: Manually go through and fix all the modules that didn't properly activate (not a broadcast)
I can still do this manually, it just adds set up time. Bannable offense? meh.
Rapid deployment, giving chase through gates, and maneuvering were already difficult and prone to problems even with broadcasting, now it is more or less out of the question.
non-drone based pvp is also more or less out of the question, except perhaps capitals where you can have more breathing room between clicks (except for jumping in and out could get tricky, perhaps jump them in one at a time and get it set up)
So bombers nerfed out of existence, these were the focus of most of the calls for the nerfbat, so success there.
Suicide catalysts nerfed out of existence, lesser extent than the bombers, but no love lost there.
Multibox miners: Inconvenienced with a very heavy handed ban threat for attempting to save a little time and a lot of clicks.
Take that you exploiting evil multiboxer, if this doesn't work we will try...THE COMFY CHAIR!!!!
-Soul
I and many of my corp-mates multi-box mine, rat, and/or pvp.
When a roam comes through and sees mackinaws and skiffs, their faces turn to delight as they warp in.
There is nothing more satisfying than wiping that smug off their faces with a drone swarm of death.
Hmmm, bombers are actually in a very strong position right now... with or without ISBoxer broadcasting. This restriction has allowed them to reconsider bombers de-cloaking each other... which was a key point in their viability.
I meant multi-box bombers specifically, manually aligning, manually decloaking, manually bombing, and manually warping each one. can still be effective, especially in tidi. but does not have the same level of alpha/surprise |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6035
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:34:07 -
[788] - Quote
Please Turn wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Please Turn wrote:
Well, I didn't miss it at all. I just feel(felt) it wasn't relevant in this case(percent wise of total revenue).
I doubt the fluctuation in the average number of purchased PLEX (you buying more PLEX when the price is lower, buying less when the price is higher is kind of balanced by more people having an incentive to buy PLEX when the price is high or not having one when the price is low) is comparable with the fluctuation in the average number of directly paid subscriptions(which has a cascade effect - would people prefer to play a dead game(no growth in the number of undocked players willing to interact with the others undocked players) or one that feels alive and vibrant).
And just to be on the safe side, since I somehow feel that you might have misread my post. Short term, there will be a hit, long term, in my view at least, this is wonderful news.
PLEX prices will drop as demand from the people who currently don't care how high the price is will lessen in the short term. Once PLEX prices drop, people that DO care how high the price became will begin reactivating accounts. This number will obviously be far larger than the number of multi box accounts lost. The more PLEX that change hands (usually a symptom of healthy moderate prices) the more actual cash CCP makes. Ok dude, whatever. I'll stop now trying to argue over silly things on the internet(I'm not even sure we're arguing since you seem to agree with what I wrote, just that you're putting some effort into making it look that you don't).
Whoa pardner, I was clarifying for the other poster... not arguing with you.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6035
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:36:37 -
[789] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned. CCP & CSM's ... Posts like this do absolutely zero good. You both need to detail what IS allowed, and what ISN'T allowed. This typical "VagueBook" garbage doesn't fly with any of the players, and a simple explanation detailing what is allowed and what isn't, in a bullet style list, wouldn't have gotten you 40 pages of "please explain what you mean" posts. Seriously, stop beating your heads with boards like in Monty Python and talk to us like adults. We're grown ups, we can handle it.
How hard is it to understand "don't use the broadcast feature"?
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2999
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:37:04 -
[790] - Quote
Fiberton wrote:Nituspar wrote:As someone who has extensively used ISBoxer for the last year I'd like to thank CCP for having the courage to make this change, and the way it's being implemented.
The grace time will allow people who invested heavily into the program some reprieve to make their investments back, and the general playerbase will not have to deal with singular people wiping out their fleets or multi-billion ships anymore, which was always terrible gameplay.
I believe this is a very positive change to New Eden, and the short-term loss of subscriber revenue will be more than made up for in the long run by players enjoying the game more as a result of it
Thumbs up and keep up the good work CCP As a person who has never used ISboxer but realize that CCP needs fluff subscribers to pad the wallet. I am thinking Eve loses 5 to 8% of its logins and I would assume that is a draw of atleast 300k per month in revenue. I am just some nerd who trades stocks for a living and well.. A company that makes a change that loses them revenue on purpose...boggles my mind. About the change.. CCP your stones are bigger than mine. I could never do it just for the sheer cost.
The odd thing is it may have little effect on their revenue, in fact, it may increase it.
Many ISboxer users use PLEX for their accounts. Now CCP does not make money when a PLEX is used. They make money when a PLEX is boiught for real money. So, how will this change effect PLEX sales?
Right now the PLEX is dropping. That means, per dollar, you get less ISK via PLEX. ISK is getting more expensive. Although this will reduce the demand for ISK, it may not reduce CCP's revenue. To see how:
If the PLEX was hugely expansive, very few would be sold as buyers could get all the ISK they wanted for little money. They would instead save their money for other recreational activities. If the PLEX got you very little ISK, again sales would be small as few would see it as a viable way to get ISK. In between, there is a price for PLEX that gets CCP the greatest revenue.
This is common economic theory. Too high a price, no one buys as its too expensive, too cheap, you get many sales, but little revenue on each. In between is an optimum.
Where is the optimum for PLEX? Well, we do not have the needed data. But, Jita volume for PLEX peaked around a price of 500 million. So its possible that lowering the price toward 500 million, by whatever means, will increase CCP's revenue.
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/
|
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1144
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:37:54 -
[791] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned. CCP & CSM's ... Posts like this do absolutely zero good. You both need to detail what IS allowed, and what ISN'T allowed. This typical "VagueBook" garbage doesn't fly with any of the players, and a simple explanation detailing what is allowed and what isn't, in a bullet style list, wouldn't have gotten you 40 pages of "please explain what you mean" posts. Seriously, stop beating your heads with boards like in Monty Python and talk to us like adults. We're grown ups, we can handle it.
There's no ambiguity here. Does it transmit one keystroke or mouse click to multiple clients, outside of the context of logging in? If so, then it's banned. If not, go hog wild.
Any attempts to find edge cases to this simple truth are unabashed sophistry.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Rin Valador
Dark Horizon Logistics and Intelligence
Shadow's Edge Alliance
136
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:38:02 -
[792] - Quote
Michelle Monteleone wrote:Guess my 12 accounts are done as of January 1, 2015. I had fun while it lasted. First Warcraft removed /follow from pvp because of all the cry babies now CCP has removed multiboxing all together. The Eve universe is going to change quite a bit when all the resources people were pumping out with multiple accounts goes away. Merry Christmas CCP. Thanks for the lump of coal. See you cry babies in the next mmo I multibox in.
You can still mine with those 12 acc you crybaby. you just have to actually alt tab and tell each miner to start mining. Stuff plz if you are still leaving
"There will be neither compassion nor mercy;
Nor peace, nor solace
For those who bear witness to these Signs
And still do not believe."
- The Scriptures, Book of Reclaiming 25:10
|
Arec Bardwin
1633
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:38:11 -
[793] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:OK ccp to who I address the bottle of wine as thanks for this marvelous decision? I think you need more than a bottle to hold all the whine.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2445
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:38:49 -
[794] - Quote
Michelle Monteleone wrote:Guess my 12 accounts are done as of January 1, 2015. I had fun while it lasted. First Warcraft removed /follow from pvp because of all the cry babies now CCP has removed multiboxing all together. The Eve universe is going to change quite a bit when all the resources people were pumping out with multiple accounts goes away. Merry Christmas CCP. Thanks for the lump of coal. See you cry babies in the next mmo I multibox in.
Wrong, you can multi-box all you want, you just can't "use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play."
The plain language of that makes it pretty obvious that ISBoxer was in violation. So feel lucky CCP let it slide as long as they did.
For example, consider this scnario:
Bob wants to have his 10 accounts mine more efficiently, so he writes a program that optimizes the mining fleet he has in a belt. It does pretty much everything, and Bob sits there watching the fleet mine with a smile on his face sipping scotch. Clearly Bob has created a macro.
Joe, wants to do the same thing with his accounts but knows macros are EULA violations so he uses ISBoxer and provides input for one character which is translated, by the program, across the remaining 9 accounts. Joe is happy with his optimized mining fleet and celebrates by getting out some tequila.
From an observational stand point Joe and Bob look identical. Joe is still using a third party program to gain in game items (ore) at a rate faster than "normal" gameplay--i.e. clicking over to each account and activating each mining module. Both Bob and Joe are violating the EULA.
So the only real crybaby here is you and congratulations on also distorting the policies of CCP.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6035
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:39:42 -
[795] - Quote
Stygian Soul wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Stygian Soul wrote:Breaking down what a miner actually does that does and does not require broadcasting
1: undock (broadcast)
2: Squad warp to belt/bookmark (not a broadcast)
3: Launch drones (broadcast)
4: assist drones to overwatch (broadcast)
5: regroup command (not a broadcast)
6: cycle through each ship to put a laser on a different rock (not a broadcast)
7: jetcan ore or drag to an existing can (broadcast)
8: Squad warp out to POS when done (not a broadcast)
9: Dock when needed (broadcast)
So for mining the only difference will be:
I'll have to dock and undock each ship manually
Launch and assist drones on each ship manually
jetcan the ore from each ship manually
This isn't really that much more difficult to do, and if it means I make more on my harvest and pay less for my plexes because of all the people that quit, then so be it, can't say I'm pleased though. I just don't see how any of this should be a bannable offense.
Now for PvP
Gate camp:
1: squad warp to gate (not a broadcast)
2: launch drones (broadcast)
3: Assist drones (broadcast)
4: Manually go through and fix all the drones that didn't propery launch or assist (not a broadcast)
5: Activate various perma-running modules (broadcast)
6: Manually go through and fix all the modules that didn't properly activate (not a broadcast)
I can still do this manually, it just adds set up time. Bannable offense? meh.
Rapid deployment, giving chase through gates, and maneuvering were already difficult and prone to problems even with broadcasting, now it is more or less out of the question.
non-drone based pvp is also more or less out of the question, except perhaps capitals where you can have more breathing room between clicks (except for jumping in and out could get tricky, perhaps jump them in one at a time and get it set up)
So bombers nerfed out of existence, these were the focus of most of the calls for the nerfbat, so success there.
Suicide catalysts nerfed out of existence, lesser extent than the bombers, but no love lost there.
Multibox miners: Inconvenienced with a very heavy handed ban threat for attempting to save a little time and a lot of clicks.
Take that you exploiting evil multiboxer, if this doesn't work we will try...THE COMFY CHAIR!!!!
-Soul
I and many of my corp-mates multi-box mine, rat, and/or pvp.
When a roam comes through and sees mackinaws and skiffs, their faces turn to delight as they warp in.
There is nothing more satisfying than wiping that smug off their faces with a drone swarm of death.
Hmmm, bombers are actually in a very strong position right now... with or without ISBoxer broadcasting. This restriction has allowed them to reconsider bombers de-cloaking each other... which was a key point in their viability. I meant multi-box bombers specifically, manually aligning, manually decloaking, manually bombing, and manually warping each one. can still be effective, especially in tidi. but does not have the same level of alpha/surprise
Which would affect what, a couple of dozen players that use that playstyle (ISBoxer bomber fleets)?
That's a pretty small puddle to cover with the cloak of "bombers nerfed out of existence".
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Konrad Kane
118
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:40:23 -
[796] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:
How hard is it to understand "don't use the broadcast feature"?
I think 99% of the people here understand it, you have a few that are wilfully pretending not to in a vain attempt to internet lawyer themselves a loophole. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6035
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:41:47 -
[797] - Quote
Konrad Kane wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:
How hard is it to understand "don't use the broadcast feature"?
I think 99% of the people here understand it, you have a few that are wilfully pretending not to in a vain attempt to internet lawyer themselves a loophole.
Yep, I just enjoy making them look a little more ignorant than they are comfortable with every time they try it.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1264
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:42:34 -
[798] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned. CCP & CSM's ... Posts like this do absolutely zero good. You both need to detail what IS allowed, and what ISN'T allowed. This typical "VagueBook" garbage doesn't fly with any of the players, and a simple explanation detailing what is allowed and what isn't, in a bullet style list, wouldn't have gotten you 40 pages of "please explain what you mean" posts. Seriously, stop beating your heads with boards like in Monty Python and talk to us like adults. We're grown ups, we can handle it. The announcement does a good job of detailing what is and isn't allowed. It explicitly lists functions that isboxer or any other broadcaster can do without violating the new rules. Steve made it clearer with an explicit no to the question asked. Nothing vague was presented. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2445
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:42:49 -
[799] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Fiberton wrote:Nituspar wrote:As someone who has extensively used ISBoxer for the last year I'd like to thank CCP for having the courage to make this change, and the way it's being implemented.
The grace time will allow people who invested heavily into the program some reprieve to make their investments back, and the general playerbase will not have to deal with singular people wiping out their fleets or multi-billion ships anymore, which was always terrible gameplay.
I believe this is a very positive change to New Eden, and the short-term loss of subscriber revenue will be more than made up for in the long run by players enjoying the game more as a result of it
Thumbs up and keep up the good work CCP As a person who has never used ISboxer but realize that CCP needs fluff subscribers to pad the wallet. I am thinking Eve loses 5 to 8% of its logins and I would assume that is a draw of atleast 300k per month in revenue. I am just some nerd who trades stocks for a living and well.. A company that makes a change that loses them revenue on purpose...boggles my mind. About the change.. CCP your stones are bigger than mine. I could never do it just for the sheer cost. The odd thing is it may have little effect on their revenue, in fact, it may increase it. Many ISboxer users use PLEX for their accounts. Now CCP does not make money when a PLEX is used. They make money when a PLEX is boiught for real money. So, how will this change effect PLEX sales?
Yes, and somebody had to buy the PLEX that ISBoxers used...so yes, CCP makes money off of PLEX.
This is what makes CCP's decision really good, IMO. Yes, they may well see a drop in revenue as some of the ISBoxers leave the game for good. But the difference between running an all out macro and ISBox was razor thin, so it the long run it will likely be a positive thing for the game.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Angus McRothimay
Norse Complex Inc
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:44:32 -
[800] - Quote
Apo Lamperouge wrote:Jvpiter wrote:Angus McRothimay wrote:However, using an exploit to cover the cost of subscription isn't really subscribing, If no one spent real money on the game there would be no game to play.
The cost of subscription is always paid with real money. There may simply be less buyers of PLEX but we don't have enough information to make a definitive conclusion. How do you figure? If you are mining 2b a day with these 25+ miners, and a plex is/was say 850m, lets do the math $15 x 25 = $375 per month. However, if you are mining say 2b a day, for only 20 days a month out of 30, then your 2b x 20d = 40b 850,000,000 x 25 accounts = 21.25b That still leaves you with a net profit of 18.75b/month isk. And you tell me that you are PAYING to play? Are you sh!tting me? Come on. What moron who profits 18b a month actually BUYS their game time. I may have been born during the day, but it wasn't yesterday.
I'm sorry - I think you misunderstood something.
ALL PLEX in the marketplace are put there by people who originally purchased them with real money - The cost of subscription is ALWAYS paid with real money - it's just not always yours.
OMG, Its obvious, everyone should be running 25 accounts ...... One question : How many PLEX can you buy with 25 billion if there were no PLEX for sale.
|
|
|
CJ Alland
Mighty Industries
The Serenity Initiative
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:45:59 -
[801] - Quote
Something tells me isboxer didn't provide it's yearly "donation" to CCP. |
Stygian Soul
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:46:59 -
[802] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Stygian Soul wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Stygian Soul wrote:Breaking down what a miner actually does that does and does not require broadcasting
1: undock (broadcast)
2: Squad warp to belt/bookmark (not a broadcast)
3: Launch drones (broadcast)
4: assist drones to overwatch (broadcast)
5: regroup command (not a broadcast)
6: cycle through each ship to put a laser on a different rock (not a broadcast)
7: jetcan ore or drag to an existing can (broadcast)
8: Squad warp out to POS when done (not a broadcast)
9: Dock when needed (broadcast)
So for mining the only difference will be:
I'll have to dock and undock each ship manually
Launch and assist drones on each ship manually
jetcan the ore from each ship manually
This isn't really that much more difficult to do, and if it means I make more on my harvest and pay less for my plexes because of all the people that quit, then so be it, can't say I'm pleased though. I just don't see how any of this should be a bannable offense.
Now for PvP
Gate camp:
1: squad warp to gate (not a broadcast)
2: launch drones (broadcast)
3: Assist drones (broadcast)
4: Manually go through and fix all the drones that didn't propery launch or assist (not a broadcast)
5: Activate various perma-running modules (broadcast)
6: Manually go through and fix all the modules that didn't properly activate (not a broadcast)
I can still do this manually, it just adds set up time. Bannable offense? meh.
Rapid deployment, giving chase through gates, and maneuvering were already difficult and prone to problems even with broadcasting, now it is more or less out of the question.
non-drone based pvp is also more or less out of the question, except perhaps capitals where you can have more breathing room between clicks (except for jumping in and out could get tricky, perhaps jump them in one at a time and get it set up)
So bombers nerfed out of existence, these were the focus of most of the calls for the nerfbat, so success there.
Suicide catalysts nerfed out of existence, lesser extent than the bombers, but no love lost there.
Multibox miners: Inconvenienced with a very heavy handed ban threat for attempting to save a little time and a lot of clicks.
Take that you exploiting evil multiboxer, if this doesn't work we will try...THE COMFY CHAIR!!!!
-Soul
I and many of my corp-mates multi-box mine, rat, and/or pvp.
When a roam comes through and sees mackinaws and skiffs, their faces turn to delight as they warp in.
There is nothing more satisfying than wiping that smug off their faces with a drone swarm of death.
Hmmm, bombers are actually in a very strong position right now... with or without ISBoxer broadcasting. This restriction has allowed them to reconsider bombers de-cloaking each other... which was a key point in their viability. I meant multi-box bombers specifically, manually aligning, manually decloaking, manually bombing, and manually warping each one. can still be effective, especially in tidi. but does not have the same level of alpha/surprise Which would affect what, a couple of dozen players that use that playstyle (ISBoxer bomber fleets)? That's a pretty small puddle to cover with the cloak of "bombers nerfed out of existence".
the couple dozen multibox bombers are the ones that generated the majority of the ISboxer tears.
and I did not intend to say that bombers were getting nerfed, I meant to say
"multi-box bombers are being nerfed out of existence" I thought that was implied
|
Alexis Nightwish
60
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:47:32 -
[803] - Quote
I absolutely support this change. I've been on both sides of "Input Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing" and thought it was broken as hell every time.
One thing CCP, focus all your energies on the NPE! The loss of many zombie accounts, while healthy of the gameplay experience as a whole does affect your bottom line and I want to see CCP stay healthy for as long as possible. So, focus on bringing in new blood (and old blood too once you've fixed null sec and high sec mechanics)!
Something I would like clarification on is this:
CCP Falcon wrote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game.
Does this mean that using special hw or sw to say activate all my hardeners at once to a singular instance of the game is acceptable use?
Power Projection: A Brighter Future
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc
The Bloc
1381
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:47:44 -
[804] - Quote
Will there be 35 days of multi-box monument shooting over this so they can show us how many of them are angry? |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
525
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:49:21 -
[805] - Quote
Angry Ganker wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if thousands of illegal multibox miners suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I am confident something awesome has happened. actually - I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if thousands of illegal multibox loyalalon gankers suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced and the universe shuddered as it appears CODE just lost.
Actually you are wrong. Loyals fleets are composed of individual players with usually one ganke char and one scout/bumper/whatever each. I personally don't know of anyone in CODE. who uses multibox software or whatever to gank.
This is a great victory for the Code indeed.
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
38
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:49:33 -
[806] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Will there be 35 days of multi-box monument shooting over this so they can show us how many of them are angry?
I'd join with 30 ish.. but i'm not angry
... i'll rep the monument?
|
Stygian Soul
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:50:14 -
[807] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Fiberton wrote:Nituspar wrote:As someone who has extensively used ISBoxer for the last year I'd like to thank CCP for having the courage to make this change, and the way it's being implemented.
The grace time will allow people who invested heavily into the program some reprieve to make their investments back, and the general playerbase will not have to deal with singular people wiping out their fleets or multi-billion ships anymore, which was always terrible gameplay.
I believe this is a very positive change to New Eden, and the short-term loss of subscriber revenue will be more than made up for in the long run by players enjoying the game more as a result of it
Thumbs up and keep up the good work CCP As a person who has never used ISboxer but realize that CCP needs fluff subscribers to pad the wallet. I am thinking Eve loses 5 to 8% of its logins and I would assume that is a draw of atleast 300k per month in revenue. I am just some nerd who trades stocks for a living and well.. A company that makes a change that loses them revenue on purpose...boggles my mind. About the change.. CCP your stones are bigger than mine. I could never do it just for the sheer cost. The odd thing is it may have little effect on their revenue, in fact, it may increase it. Many ISboxer users use PLEX for their accounts. Now CCP does not make money when a PLEX is used. They make money when a PLEX is boiught for real money. So, how will this change effect PLEX sales? Yes, and somebody had to buy the PLEX that ISBoxers used...so yes, CCP makes money off of PLEX. This is what makes CCP's decision really good, IMO. Yes, they may well see a drop in revenue as some of the ISBoxers leave the game for good. But the difference between running an all out macro and ISBox was razor thin, so it the long run it will likely be a positive thing for the game.
A Plex is functionally a gift card.
Yes the company receives cash when it is purchased, the revenue is not realized until the gift card/plex is cashed in.
This is one of the reasons why there are so many after Christmas sales, they want people to cash in those gift cards so they can claim the revenue.
It is also why CCP will sometimes seed all the plexes on banned accounts onto the market, so they can realize that revenue. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
263
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:50:17 -
[808] - Quote
virm pasuul wrote:
-snip
From your post it's difficult to work out which side of the fence you sit on.
You start off seeming to critcize the change.
You then go on to make a load of points illustrating why the change is a good thing for Eve.
Could you clarify please?
I'm personally against the change completely. I'm more annoyed at the lack of talk from CCP to the multibox community to see if a compromise could be reached (see: jump drives, bombers, nearly every other change) because I don't believe the current CSM has any multiboxers on it.
I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP with the exceptions involving defending oneself from invading forces in a WH / Null site, but CCP doesn't care. |
Revman Zim
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
259
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:50:22 -
[809] - Quote
I feel it necessary to participate in this important moment in EVE.
FANTASTIC JOB CCP! And kudos to any CSM members that fought for this change.
A very courageous decision that I believe will improve the game over time. Those ISboxer accounts that are about to be unsubbed added no content to the game and had a negative impact on the economy and some major fleet fights. If 100,000 isboxer accounts are replaced by just 5000 (#'s not important, ratio is) new player accounts then this is a huge win for the game.
This demonstrates that CCP values the quality of EVE over their bottom line. I am very confident this will pay dividends in the future. |
Systimus
Nightweave Operations
Revenant Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:52:19 -
[810] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:That is what I wasn't getting. Not to use broadcast for anything. Why could ccp not explain it as simply as that. I understand now. I can live without using broadcast at all. Thank you kraken11 for explaining that key point I'd missed. With all this trolling going on, and with so many people pretending that "their legitimate use is now banned" to seek attention, it's getting hard to sort out those who misunderstood something basic to the topic from those that understand but are trying to mislead others. Apologies.
Ranger 1, no worries. And thanks for explaining. Fly safe . Regards Systimus. |
|
|
Revman Zim
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
259
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:53:23 -
[811] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:virm pasuul wrote:
-snip
From your post it's difficult to work out which side of the fence you sit on.
You start off seeming to critcize the change.
You then go on to make a load of points illustrating why the change is a good thing for Eve.
Could you clarify please?
I'm personally against the change completely. I'm more annoyed at the lack of talk from CCP to the multibox community to see if a compromise could be reached (see: jump drives, bombers, nearly every other change) because I don't believe the current CSM has any multiboxers on it. I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP with the exceptions involving defending oneself from invading forces in a WH / Null site, but CCP doesn't care.
Why would CCP engage in dialog with cheaters and EULA violaters? Their point of view is irrelevant since their actions harm the game.
Kinda like trying to compromise with a pedophile. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
263
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:54:19 -
[812] - Quote
Revman Zim wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:virm pasuul wrote:
-snip
From your post it's difficult to work out which side of the fence you sit on.
You start off seeming to critcize the change.
You then go on to make a load of points illustrating why the change is a good thing for Eve.
Could you clarify please?
I'm personally against the change completely. I'm more annoyed at the lack of talk from CCP to the multibox community to see if a compromise could be reached (see: jump drives, bombers, nearly every other change) because I don't believe the current CSM has any multiboxers on it. I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP with the exceptions involving defending oneself from invading forces in a WH / Null site, but CCP doesn't care. Why would CCP engage in dialog with cheaters and EULA violaters? Their point of view is irrelevant since their actions harm the game. Kinda like trying to compromise with a pedophile.
Because it wasn't a violation of the EULA at the time. By your logic, anyone who has ever jumped a carrier any distance over 5 ly was using an illegal method.
Ex Post Facto. Look it up. |
Arkumord Churhee
Bavarian Unstressed Mining Mob
Synergy of Steel
21
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:54:37 -
[813] - Quote
Soren Oboro wrote: DEAD EVE !!!!!
All the players in eve have more then two, or 10 accounts do you really think what all of us will go out and buy an computer that had 10 or 20 ******* monitors REALLY!!! **** NO!!!! I will Not
unsubbed will play until the First!!!! GOOD BYE CCP AND ITS DUMM ASS POLITICS
Can i have your stuff? |
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
308
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:56:36 -
[814] - Quote
CCP, you guys rock!
I never thought that you would ever have the balls to enforce that part of the EULA.
Accepting the loss of some subscriptions to make your game better is not something most game companies would do.
Huge respect for that!
|
Javajunky
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
106
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:00:31 -
[815] - Quote
Causing people to unsub accounts when CCP is still laying people off periodically, me thinks someone didn't run this by the people who worry about how to make payroll...
Aside from that...
Sov Still Broke - Yep
POS Still Broke - Yep
Single Core / Tidi Problems - Yep
Keep dangling "ooh shiny stuff", next you'll be selling me on Obamacare.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1265
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:01:36 -
[816] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:virm pasuul wrote:
-snip
From your post it's difficult to work out which side of the fence you sit on.
You start off seeming to critcize the change.
You then go on to make a load of points illustrating why the change is a good thing for Eve.
Could you clarify please?
I'm personally against the change completely. I'm more annoyed at the lack of talk from CCP to the multibox community to see if a compromise could be reached (see: jump drives, bombers, nearly every other change) because I don't believe the current CSM has any multiboxers on it. I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP with the exceptions involving defending oneself from invading forces in a WH / Null site, but CCP doesn't care.
A subjective BAN on isboxer PvP seems like it would open subjectiveness in enforcement on top of being a very unfairly defense centric move. Why should the defender have more options from out of client software? I can't think of any logical reason for this. The change seems centered around the idea that each action a client performs needs an associated input without exception. To be honest that seems fair and this needs to be an all or nothing, preferably all. |
Mina Sebiestar
Mactabilis Simplex Cursus
769
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:05:54 -
[817] - Quote
Javajunky wrote:Causing people to unsub accounts when CCP is still laying people off periodically, me thinks someone didn't run this by the people who worry about how to make payroll...
Aside from that...
Sov Still Broke - Yep
POS Still Broke - Yep
Single Core / Tidi Problems - Yep
Keep dangling "ooh shiny stuff", next you'll be selling me on Obamacare.
No grrrr plz. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1266
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:07:38 -
[818] - Quote
Javajunky wrote:Causing people to unsub accounts when CCP is still laying people off periodically, me thinks someone didn't run this by the people who worry about how to make payroll...
Aside from that...
Sov Still Broke - Yep
POS Still Broke - Yep
Single Core / Tidi Problems - Yep
Keep dangling "ooh shiny stuff", next you'll be selling me on Obamacare.
How is this related to SOV, POS's or Tidi? Or is there some expectation that they shouldn't do anything before those are done despite being far more intensive than anything related to this policy change and presenting no reason to delay it once the decision was made?
|
Jon Hellguard
X-COM
20
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:08:03 -
[819] - Quote
Zappity wrote:The new CCP - drastic action for strengthening game play even at the cost of current accounts. Good stuff.
players demanded the old CCP that does not fear. - there we go. hope to see more decisions like that on open topics. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
264
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:08:40 -
[820] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:virm pasuul wrote:
-snip
From your post it's difficult to work out which side of the fence you sit on.
You start off seeming to critcize the change.
You then go on to make a load of points illustrating why the change is a good thing for Eve.
Could you clarify please?
I'm personally against the change completely. I'm more annoyed at the lack of talk from CCP to the multibox community to see if a compromise could be reached (see: jump drives, bombers, nearly every other change) because I don't believe the current CSM has any multiboxers on it. I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP with the exceptions involving defending oneself from invading forces in a WH / Null site, but CCP doesn't care. A subjective BAN on isboxer PvP seems like it would open subjectiveness in enforcement on top of being a very unfairly defense centric move. Why should the defender have more options from out of client software? I can't think of any logical reason for this. The change seems centered around the idea that each action a client performs needs an associated input without exception. To be honest that seems fair and this needs to be an all or nothing, preferably all.
Except they already have a massive amount of subjectiveness with their current wording. Just look at how many pages of argument this has spawned.
As to the defender thing, I merely mentioned that because if i didn't, what would happen if someone in a site gets dropped? WOuld he have to take the losses without trying to defend himself? |
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
1894
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:09:05 -
[821] - Quote
Javajunky wrote:Causing people to unsub accounts when CCP is still laying people off periodically, me thinks someone didn't run this by the people who worry about how to make payroll...
Aside from that...
Sov Still Broke - Yep
POS Still Broke - Yep
Single Core / Tidi Problems - Yep
Keep dangling "ooh shiny stuff", next you'll be selling me on Obamacare.
The current course ccp was headign was bleedign player for years. THey needed to steer of drastically or they woudl eventually die. Bleedign now to stop the hemorraging due to what the game was becommign is a wise choice.
Id o nto know what happened with CCP this year, but they are surely on their best shape since Trinity.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1149
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:10:03 -
[822] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Javajunky wrote:Causing people to unsub accounts when CCP is still laying people off periodically, me thinks someone didn't run this by the people who worry about how to make payroll...
Aside from that...
Sov Still Broke - Yep
POS Still Broke - Yep
Single Core / Tidi Problems - Yep
Keep dangling "ooh shiny stuff", next you'll be selling me on Obamacare. How is this related to SOV, POS's or Tidi? Or is there some expectation that they shouldn't do anything before those are done despite being far more intensive than anything related to this policy change and presenting no reason to delay it once the decision was made?
It's not. He's one of those types that thinks all CCP employee time is fully fungible between all potential issues with the game, and that any time spent in one area comes at complete detriment to another, despite things like this change being strictly about internal policy towards game actions and is being brought about by non-programming CCP staff.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Jedediah Arndtz
Jedediah Arndtz Corporation
34
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:10:07 -
[823] - Quote
More isk inflation, just in time for Christmas. Thanks CCP! /s
Though plex are *currently* on the down slope, which will be nice if it keeps up. |
Sentenced 1989
Data Venia
126
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:11:07 -
[824] - Quote
All in all
Players who are unsubing and leaving because of this are players you most likely don't have any interaction with. They use ISBoxer to do stuff "solo". So not a loss for community.
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
308
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:11:35 -
[825] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP
Everything you do involves some sort of PvP in EVE.
Even if you just "peacfully" slaughter incursion rats you commit PvP. The LP you farm makes the LP I farm worth less - the sites you cleared can't be cleared by my fleet,etc...
That's the beauty of EVE: everything you do effects someone else in some way, but that's also why there can never be any exceptions to the ban. |
Josef Djugashvilis
2700
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:12:44 -
[826] - Quote
So long as the Isboxer folk who are going to rage quit with their zilion accounts are the same folk who are going to rage quit with their zillion Carrier accounts because they can no longer pretty much insta hot-drop cruisers on the other side of the universe, Eve will not see much of a net loss of players.
This is not a signature.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
1894
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:14:07 -
[827] - Quote
Jedediah Arndtz wrote:More isk inflation, just in time for Christmas. Thanks CCP! /s
Though plex are *currently* on the down slope, which will be nice if it keeps up.
RIP Din-Flotten \o/
RIP that one guy who 40-boxes nightmares in HQs
The effects willb e more complicated.
Mineral prices will raise since most miners used ISBOXer. But quite some ratters did as well so less money into the system.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Ming Vue
The Scope
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:14:22 -
[828] - Quote
Sentenced 1989 wrote:All in all
Players who are unsubing and leaving because of this are players you most likely don't have any interaction with. They use ISBoxer to do stuff "solo". So not a loss for community.
i don't really play solo to be honest i use my indy power to pay for rental space and invite new and young corps to come live in null for free i provide them with ships and handle all their pos fuel needs... so i'd say i have a community mining is what i did ... gonna have to try and find something else now i plan on just moving to highsec and doing incursions or whatever people do up there |
Xavi Bastanold
Parallax Shift
The Periphery
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:18:47 -
[829] - Quote
Contract Wench wrote:Makhpella wrote:Hi CPP if I warp squad do I get banned? CCP technically this is input broadcasting. Please remove fleet based warps.
Now you guys are starting to sound like my teenager son having a surge.
Good hunting,
Xavi
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2700
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:18:53 -
[830] - Quote
Jedediah Arndtz wrote:Balder Verdandi wrote:
We're grown ups, we can handle it.
What? We're adults? SINCE WHEN? WHY DIDN'T ANYONE TELL ME?!?!
Because you are too young to handle it
This is not a signature.
|
|
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6038
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:19:20 -
[831] - Quote
Contract Wench wrote:Makhpella wrote:Hi CPP if I warp squad do I get banned? CCP technically this is input broadcasting. Please remove fleet based warps.
Within the client, controlled/limited by CCP. It is not 3rd party software.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Angela Daemonic
Jaded.
The Natural Order
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:20:21 -
[832] - Quote
Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven. |
sample2501
sample's playground
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:21:24 -
[833] - Quote
nice, good work CCP |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6038
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:22:45 -
[834] - Quote
Angela Daemonic wrote:Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven.
Indeed, very quickly the volume on PLEX sales will increase again sharply due to the lower prices... however this time it will not be fueled by people that don't care if the price is too high.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
264
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:22:46 -
[835] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Except they already have a massive amount of subjectiveness with their current wording. Just look at how many pages of argument this has spawned. Most of that seems like comprehension failure. There is only one question which I haven't been able to answer by referring back to the op and that is not the most commonly asked question by far. the number of people who are answering questions and coming to the same conclusions would evidence that the fault of the failure to comprehend doesn't really fall on CCP.
Well no. CCP is using words and phrases that we aren't used to in regards to multiboxing. I have offered my services to help CCP attempt to fix these issues as nobody on the CSM team has any experience with the "Multibox Dictionary", so to say.
Quote:Nolak Ataru wrote:As to the defender thing, I merely mentioned that because if i didn't, what would happen if someone in a site gets dropped? WOuld he have to take the losses without trying to defend himself? Yes, if you cannot control a ship in an attack you should lose it. It's fundamentally no different than asking if you should be immune to attack while AFK. If a client can't individually respond to an aggressor then the ship being controlled by that client should be lost per the attackers ability to destroy it.
I think we're trying to say the same thing but doing it two different ways. I support banning auto-bots that do not need human interction, and I wouldn't mind banning direct PVP using ISBoxer. I realize and admit this would be strange, but WoW did something similar, and I had hoped CCP could as well.
At the very least, I had hoped CCP would come to us to talk about ideas and whatnot. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2446
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:23:20 -
[836] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Revman Zim wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:virm pasuul wrote:
-snip
From your post it's difficult to work out which side of the fence you sit on.
You start off seeming to critcize the change.
You then go on to make a load of points illustrating why the change is a good thing for Eve.
Could you clarify please?
I'm personally against the change completely. I'm more annoyed at the lack of talk from CCP to the multibox community to see if a compromise could be reached (see: jump drives, bombers, nearly every other change) because I don't believe the current CSM has any multiboxers on it. I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP with the exceptions involving defending oneself from invading forces in a WH / Null site, but CCP doesn't care. Why would CCP engage in dialog with cheaters and EULA violaters? Their point of view is irrelevant since their actions harm the game. Kinda like trying to compromise with a pedophile. Because it wasn't a violation of the EULA at the time. By your logic, anyone who has ever jumped a carrier any distance over 5 ly was using an illegal method. Ex Post Facto. Look it up.
It can be argued that ISBoxer always was a EULA violation, and that CCP just did nothing about it. Now they have. Its pretty clear that ISBoxer can be used to acquire in game assets, income, etc. at a faster rate than "normal" game play. The plain language of the EULA is quite clear on this.
The section of the EULA that hits most bots/macros/etc. actually says NOTHING about being AFK or not AFK. It says you cannot use another program to speed up...i.e. make the process more efficient...for gaining items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status.
So telling others to look up the definitions of a phrase given your own obstinate refusal to consider the plain language of the EULA makes your position quite laughable.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Prisoner11213
iMmortal Wings
Most Valuable Player
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:23:52 -
[837] - Quote
Revman Zim wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:virm pasuul wrote:
-snip
From your post it's difficult to work out which side of the fence you sit on.
You start off seeming to critcize the change.
You then go on to make a load of points illustrating why the change is a good thing for Eve.
Could you clarify please?
I'm personally against the change completely. I'm more annoyed at the lack of talk from CCP to the multibox community to see if a compromise could be reached (see: jump drives, bombers, nearly every other change) because I don't believe the current CSM has any multiboxers on it. I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP with the exceptions involving defending oneself from invading forces in a WH / Null site, but CCP doesn't care. Why would CCP engage in dialog with cheaters and EULA violaters? Their point of view is irrelevant since their actions harm the game. Kinda like trying to compromise with a pedophile.
I kind of like it how u set one thing clr
Software Multiboxer = Pedophile
back to topic
CCP-¦s GM (depend wich one u ask german or english one) said once it is allowed and it isnt. Look the forum for the GM-¦s post. Some ppl reported themself " Hi im using isboxer and do X, is that a eula break or not ?" Most of the time the answer for those PPL was it isnt either allowed or forbidden. Legal limbo i would say. They dint cheat or break the eula. They used a tool what they either payed for or programmed themself. What u could aslo have done.
I would have liked if CCP would have talked to the PPL. Start a diskussion to explain stuff. For myself i dont see only the bad side of Multiboxing.
Some good sides are Incursion runners who multibox some boxes so that they can at least start the Fleet and the opposide of it are the Solo SoftwareMultiboxer who do theyr own Incursion Fleets. Same whit mining good part: more minerals, cheaper ships. Bad part solo miners isk/h is less much less.
In Apocrypta (or sooner or later) CCP banned China and the isk farmers. U can look the Market Price for now but lets say i payed only 50 mill for one hull. Something like that is going to happen soon too.
I think CCP should make some exceptions in the rule. " We dont want PPL to Software Multibox in PVP but the PVE part doesnt matter " or something like that. FInding the Middle solution for all, thats the hard part.
|
dark heartt
507
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:24:37 -
[838] - Quote
DragonHelm III wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. For god's sake CCP stop all the bluster and give a straight answer ISBOXER banned or not? It just needs a yes or no All this crap about terms like Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing mean squat to me as I have no idea what they are.
ISBoxer isn't the only program that can do it. So they can't just say ISBoxer, they need to be more vague.
http://tetrisisunrealistic.blogspot.com.au/
Just an Aussie with a mining laser and too much time.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
821
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:25:34 -
[839] - Quote
KeeperRus wrote:I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly.
its obvious. CCP doesnt need a proof, its enough if they see you're doing it. |
Contract Wench
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:27:18 -
[840] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Never establish a rule that you cannot enforce with considerable accuracy. Do You have any idea how trivial it is to detect? with nothing less than 100% accuracy?
100% accuracy haha I see someone is not an engineer. |
|
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6040
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:28:06 -
[841] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:KeeperRus wrote:I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly. its obvious. CCP doesnt need a proof, its enough if they see you're doing it.
All they have to look for are patterns of simultaneous synchronized commands being given in proximity to each other.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2446
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:31:23 -
[842] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:KeeperRus wrote:I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly. its obvious. CCP doesnt need a proof, its enough if they see you're doing it. All they have to look for are patterns of simultaneous synchronized commands being given in proximity to each other.
Exactly, when 10 guys in a belt turn on their mining lasers virtually simultaneously, it is most likely ISBoxer. Especially when it is 10 accounts all owned by the same guy. Could it be a fleet with different people all waiting for the FC to say, "Go"? Sure, but then that might be a case of account sharing...whooops another EULA violation. Or we can go with the principle of parsimony and say....ISBoxer or a similar program.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Ocih
Space Mermaids
Somethin Awfull Forums
822
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:32:56 -
[843] - Quote
I support the regulation.
I'd like to think that the nerf bat doctrine you guys employ is the result of little choice. That we might see buffs to content volume outside level 4 missions if the result wasn't feeding farm teams controlled by very select groups of people. Multiplying the size of an Asteroid belt was never a consideration because it just meant piling on 5 more accounts to the ISBox account. It's now possible to adjust up, the needs of the game and have some hope it benefits the masses more than it does the easy button few.
I watched -A- implode after Ti-Di was introduced and I'd make the unsubstantiated claim that they did so because what ever free version of ISBotter they were using failed to match up to the new theater. I will now sit back and laugh at any Alliance that crumbles because they only have a hundred guys and were cheating to hold large belts of space.
I won't sugar coat this. EVE has burned a lot of bridges and has a reputation for coddling douche bags. It's old enough it might never live that down. It still doesn't mean you shouldn't try. |
Forgotten N Forsaken
Dei-Telum Holdings
35
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:32:57 -
[844] - Quote
THANK YOU CCP. ABOUT TIME I.S BOXERS GOT BANNED. WOOOTT!!!!!! |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:33:31 -
[845] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Angela Daemonic wrote:Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven. Indeed, very quickly the volume on PLEX sales will increase again sharply due to the lower prices... however this time it will not be fueled by people that don't care if the price is too high.
Keep dreaming. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1267
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:33:38 -
[846] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Well no. CCP is using words and phrases that we aren't used to in regards to multiboxing. I have offered my services to help CCP attempt to fix these issues as nobody on the CSM team has any experience with the "Multibox Dictionary", so to say. CCP clearly defined what we are and aren't allowed to do. They also specified that the method used to do it is irrelevant, what is prohibited is prohibited through any means it is done.
It is also stated that those same tools have legitimate use cases and what those cases are.
The terms they used they took the time to define and as such it's irrelevant that they may not have been the most common usages of those terms.
Quote:I think we're trying to say the same thing but doing it two different ways. I support banning auto-bots that do not need human interction, and I wouldn't mind banning direct PVP using ISBoxer. I realize and admit this would be strange, but WoW did something similar, and I had hoped CCP could as well.
At the very least, I had hoped CCP would come to us to talk about ideas and whatnot. I don't think we are talking about the same thing. You mention botting, but I was in no way referring to that. If you have multiple clients that are vulnerable there is no justifiable reason to have a single touch escape when the aggressor cannot have a single touch attack for multiple clients. A comparison to a game with a different PvP landscape altogether does not allow direct equivalencies. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:38:03 -
[847] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Technical question.. If I train 10 parrots to repeat by voice the commands I give and each one is interpretated by a voice recognition software controlling one computer.. how would that classify? I mean.. besides "sick"
Under CCP's broad ruling that would be illegal too.. Apparently it would also be illegal for you to use multiple computers and keyboards to tell your fleet to do the same thing.
So what happens when CCP's connections is being DDoSed or doing it's usual lag at random late hours and all my commands arrive at the server at the same time? From the server's perspective it'd look like I'm using a repeater but in reality all I did was alt tab through a bunch of windows quickly. |
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
478
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:38:41 -
[848] - Quote
Revman Zim wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:virm pasuul wrote:
-snip
From your post it's difficult to work out which side of the fence you sit on.
You start off seeming to critcize the change.
You then go on to make a load of points illustrating why the change is a good thing for Eve.
Could you clarify please?
I'm personally against the change completely. I'm more annoyed at the lack of talk from CCP to the multibox community to see if a compromise could be reached (see: jump drives, bombers, nearly every other change) because I don't believe the current CSM has any multiboxers on it. I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP with the exceptions involving defending oneself from invading forces in a WH / Null site, but CCP doesn't care. Why would CCP engage in dialog with cheaters and EULA violaters? Their point of view is irrelevant since their actions harm the game. Kinda like trying to compromise with a pedophile.
You didn't just go there did you. Oh wait. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
1894
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:39:59 -
[849] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Technical question.. If I train 10 parrots to repeat by voice the commands I give and each one is interpretated by a voice recognition software controlling one computer.. how would that classify? I mean.. besides "sick" Under CCP's broad ruling that would be illegal too.. Apparently it would also be illegal for you to use multiple computers and keyboards to tell your fleet to do the same thing.
Somehow I dobut the parrots would be so precise to be detectable :P
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
184
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:40:17 -
[850] - Quote
I'm very pleased with this.
I'm very impressed.
I'm very surprised. I'd love to know the math behind the decision and how much the math impacted the decision. We all know that while it certainly wasn't doom and gloom, CCP's financials weren't the greatest last year. With competition on the horizon, and with the Phoebe changes likely resulting in fewer cyno alts, I was sure that CCP was listening to the community's complaining about ISBoxer, but would not be able to afford to risk a sudden drop in subscriptions due to lost ISBoxer alts.
I figured the day would come for ISBoxer to go away, but I was certain the day would not come particularly soon.
I really wonder what made them up and do it. Was it seriously just a reaction to community concerns? Did they just up and decide to take a financial hit to make the game better? Or is there some complex math involving drop in PLEX prices creating more alts that would offset lost ISBoxer accounts yada yada?
I'm just really curious. But in any event, bravo CCP. Good riddance ISBoxers. |
|
|
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
5683
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:40:50 -
[851] - Quote
Am I too late to drink in the tears or are they all gone?
The Paradox
|
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
282
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:41:59 -
[852] - Quote
Dear CCP, Multiboxing is a huge challenge and time investment, taken on by those who live your game. Don't hurt the dedicated players who have poured countless hours into EVE by banning multiboxing.
Edit: a clarification for those trying to walk the line between multiboxing and input duplication. I realize ccp is banning input duplication, but I think that the other capabilities of isboxer and similar software, as soon as the mob gets worked up over it, will ensure that owning 2 accounts is "unfair". The main purpose of isboxer is input duplication, allowing you to control multiple accounts as if one person. Removing that feature is a huge blow and on the path to a complete removal of management of alts with any efficiency.
1st let me say that I have multiboxed in EVE for as long as I can remember, probably it's one of the main reasons I've stayed interested in the same game outside of the increasing diminishing larger scale PVP fights.
Please read the probably too long letter below. I love Eve and all its challenges. There are many dedicated people like myself who love the game and that's why we have multiple accounts and have spent countless hours trying to become competent in multiboxing.
To me, Multiboxing is an end game level content. I spend hours.. weeks learning about the various task I'm going to undertake (recently it's been incursions or bombing), designing and testing fits, dying in horrible fire's while adapting to try and overcome the challenge.
Unlike some, I choose to pay for my accounts with cash. Yes, all my alts I pay for with cash and have never plexed my accounts. Eve is a hobby of mine, like RC planes, model training sets, golfing or any other hobby. I've designed, built and continue to upgrade 2 very high end computers so that my multi boxing experience is smoother and faster, especially as Eve's clients get better graphics or I engage in content with more and more people.
This policy doesn't just hurt the people with dozens of miners, the guy with 50 proteus accounts in wormhole space, the multi boxing haulers or any specific niche. It hurts everyone in EVE.
If this policy is enforced to appease the vocal minority, toy hurt everyone. If you wanted an alt to help you salvage or run missions faster, if you wanted a 2nd hauler to get your minerals moved around the ever larger New Eden... The example are nearly endless.
Mineral pricing, ship and module costs, invention success all will get more expensive, hurting the already fragile industry.
Yes, I am sure to the average player seeing someone with 10 mining accounts when you can barely afford one hulk is annoying and frustrating. However that is part of the same reason that the person your being angry at starred another account and learned how to run 2 accounts at once, then learned how to afford that account. They saw someone else with "more" and instead of pounding on the desk declaring how unfair the world is, they decided to adapt and become better, faster and more efficient themselves.
You see I can't help but detect some level of "it's not fair" attitude among some here who are against multi boxing. I see a thread of complaints bordering on "if I can't do it because of x, y or z you can't do it either."
Star Citizen is an example. I'm not going to spend thousands of dollars in that game, for many reasons, but I appreciate those who do. They are paying the company for better ships and items, helping that company and in turn improving their game experience. Except like Eve and multiboxing it's a fair playing field. Anyone could start a 2nd or 10 alts, all that's stopping them is money and learning the skill to control them effectively.
I feel this policy is extremely short sited. It will cost the players a tremendous amount, it will hurt the bottom line of CCP needlessly and instead placates a group of people who will surely move on to the next pitch fork issue like how unfair of an advantage officer modules are because they can't afford them.
But all that aside, your hurting the dedicated players like myself who aim to be better and more challenged in EVE. We are all extremely dedicated and loyal players, who have stayed in EVE because we love the challenge of the game and want to be ever improving in it. We've spent way more time invested into EVE partly because of our ability to multi box, have spent an enormous amount of money on our hobby which we didn't spend with another game (even the people with only 1 or 2 mining alts or ratters are vital to your game).
The call for people to remove "input duplication" (soon multiboxing all together im sure) is a case of mob mentality from people who don't understand the benefits they are gaining from it, the effort and time people put into it or how much it has helped keep CCP afloat all these years.
http://eveservers.info/index.php?topic=123.msg126#new
A fully functional Server platform dedicated to your Corp / Alliances IT needs!
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2446
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:42:53 -
[853] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Angela Daemonic wrote:Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven. Indeed, very quickly the volume on PLEX sales will increase again sharply due to the lower prices... however this time it will not be fueled by people that don't care if the price is too high. Keep dreaming. Forgotten N Forsaken wrote:THANK YOU CCP. ABOUT TIME I.S BOXERS GOT BANNED. WOOOTT!!!!!! You're dreaming. There's so many ways to hide it from CCP's eyes it'll still be abused. Hell Blizzard with their millions spent on warden can't even stop basic hackers and multibox programs. If you really want them stopped then I hope you're prepared to have your system compromised by CCP so they can scan every aspect and control what you can and cannot run.
Actually, PLEX prices have already dropped. Prices are now around 880 million down from well north of 950 million. Will it stay low? Or resume its upwards trend...hard to say, I'm inclined to think the trend will resume.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Orzsebet
Critical Error. Terminating Application
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:43:05 -
[854] - Quote
Looks like CCP is fixing the plex prices, |
Mendeli Vium
Off shore Investments
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:43:09 -
[855] - Quote
so if i understand correctly i can use IS Boxer to tile clients on my comp but not activate mods or navigate with it ? |
Jared Noan
Harbingers of Chaos Inc
Gentlemen's.Club
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:43:33 -
[856] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters
Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
Reading into this, fleet warping could be considered a banable offence.
You want to take out the lawyer talk, so will I. |
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
308
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:43:38 -
[857] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Technical question.. If I train 10 parrots to repeat by voice the commands I give and each one is interpretated by a voice recognition software controlling one computer.. how would that classify? I mean.. besides "sick"
It doesn't matter HOW you break the EULA....
You could also tape together a bunch of computer mouses (mice?) - the result would be the same.
|
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
183
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:44:10 -
[858] - Quote
While I can't say I agree with CCP's decision in this regards, I do understand it and I do respect it.
I will miss the ice mining, but it appears to be time to lay off my "employees" and go find something else worthwhile to do within New Eden. |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
36
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:44:41 -
[859] - Quote
Eugene Kerner wrote:
You should have hust changed the the way cloaking works back to how it used to be.
IS-boxing Battleship is a totally different thing as IS boxing stealth bombers that do not decloak each other.
I genuinly do not care about 30 man Skiff fleets that are operated by one guy tbh. They harm noone and should not have a
1. X battleships doing the same is just as powerful. maybe not as safe as bombers but still
2. 30miners *definitely* have an impact on the ore/mineral prices for others. market is demand and supply. and those isboxed miners can fill a lot of demand. |
Angeal MacNova
The Scope
Gallente Federation
261
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:45:33 -
[860] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5112525#post5112525
How do you translate butthurt? This thread!
http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/
CCP's true, butthurt, colors.
|
|
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
821
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:47:02 -
[861] - Quote
seeing how many people "will unsub their isbotter accounts", the problem got out of whack on a more serious level than I've thought.
Good on getting rid of all those botters, CCP. |
Martin Corwin
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
20
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:47:28 -
[862] - Quote
Finally. Thank you for this <3 |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:48:36 -
[863] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Angela Daemonic wrote:Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven. Indeed, very quickly the volume on PLEX sales will increase again sharply due to the lower prices... however this time it will not be fueled by people that don't care if the price is too high. Keep dreaming. Forgotten N Forsaken wrote:THANK YOU CCP. ABOUT TIME I.S BOXERS GOT BANNED. WOOOTT!!!!!! You're dreaming. There's so many ways to hide it from CCP's eyes it'll still be abused. Hell Blizzard with their millions spent on warden can't even stop basic hackers and multibox programs. If you really want them stopped then I hope you're prepared to have your system compromised by CCP so they can scan every aspect and control what you can and cannot run. Actually, PLEX prices have already dropped. Prices are now around 880 million down from well north of 950 million. Will it stay low? Or resume its upwards trend...hard to say, I'm inclined to think the trend will resume.
PLex prices have dropped many times over the last few months. When people were complaining about plex being +900 I was still buying them for 830 (bought 4 the day of one thread).
I personally haven't paid more then 900m for a plex even when people were trying to push the prices higher. Right now I see most areas are still +920. The reality is there's a small group of really rich people who are pushing the market up and the constant complainers are only helping them...
|
Godren Storm
Stainless Enterprises
Molten Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:49:18 -
[864] - Quote
Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:49:36 -
[865] - Quote
Jared Noan wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters
Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
Reading into this, fleet warping could be considered a banable offence. You want to take out the lawyer talk, so will I.
Yes fleet warp and more will be technically bannable under this rule change.
This is illegal too right?
https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/home
He is using hardware to duplicate an input. Hell at this point of definition it could be considered illegal to use alt tab to rapidly issue commands. |
Moonlit Raid
State War Academy
Caldari State
228
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:50:55 -
[866] - Quote
Excellent decision CCP for the betterment of EVE.
If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
821
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:50:59 -
[867] - Quote
Godren Storm wrote:Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought.
using 3rd party software for input broadcast is now bannable, no drone assign, no fleet warp no other ingame mechanic. CCP was clear about what they ban for. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4281
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:51:39 -
[868] - Quote
Godren Storm wrote:Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought.
However, fleet warp isn't using third party software to do so.
It's not food for thought at all. It's a disingenuous attempt to derail this.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
1896
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:52:30 -
[869] - Quote
Jared Noan wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters
Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
Reading into this, fleet warping could be considered a banable offence. You want to take out the lawyer talk, so will I.
The major poitn you miss is that he is not a lawyer.. he is the JUDGE.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
36
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:52:36 -
[870] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:virm pasuul wrote:
-snip
From your post it's difficult to work out which side of the fence you sit on.
You start off seeming to critcize the change.
You then go on to make a load of points illustrating why the change is a good thing for Eve.
Could you clarify please?
I'm personally against the change completely. I'm more annoyed at the lack of talk from CCP to the multibox community to see if a compromise could be reached (see: jump drives, bombers, nearly every other change) because I don't believe the current CSM has any multiboxers on it. I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP with the exceptions involving defending oneself from invading forces in a WH / Null site, but CCP doesn't care.
yes leaving that loop hole^wgate open wouldnt cause a lot of "fun" for all the GMs. Totally not. |
|
|
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:54:19 -
[871] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Yes fleet warp and more will be technically bannable under this rule change.
While I believe you're taking this route for the sake of complaining about something, you bring up an interesting point. The fleet warp mechanic is automation for everyone other than the person issuing the command. For the sake of consistency CCP should do away with this cheat as well.
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
Bakla Firoz
eXceed Inc.
No Holes Barred
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:54:41 -
[872] - Quote
I was so shocked when I found out that CCP specifically confirmed multiple times that isboxing to control multiple accounts was allowed. So why the sudden change of heart?
Nothing has changed and therefore you owe those people who have trained up 10, 20, 30, 50(?) accounts a MASSIVE apology. How about those who have recently paid for 3 month (the minimum) subscription on isboxer because you said it was okay? The very least you could do is admit you were wrong. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
4381
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:54:45 -
[873] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:If you are uncertain about your Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing use-case, please get in contact with us, as we would prefer to work with members of the community to come to an amicable resolution. What category should we petition under? As I previously posted, I'm uncertain what "Input Broadcasting" and "Input Multiplexing" mean; are they the same thing? I can't find any useful answer via Google either. EULA would be a good catergory
Ah, thanks! Missed it 
Petition sent.
I probably won't sleep until I get this clarified. The EULA prevents me from explaining why. |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
144
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:55:51 -
[874] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned.
The OP announcement by CCP Falcon is very unclear. It does sound like if someone uses ISBoxer to log on a dozen miner accounts and start mining together 'afk' then that would be illegal after the date mentioned in the OP. ISBoxer use for mining, Incursions etc does potentially damage the in-game economy and cause bother to other peoples gameplay so going by what CCP Falcon has obliquely suggested does the announcement mean the end of this use of ISBoxer type software ?
Wouldn't it be clearer and better just to say all use of ISBoxer & similar software is against the EULA and have done with it ??
Sounds like good news to me! A rare event in New Eden. |
Iudicium Vastus
Incognito Holdings and Savings
311
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:55:55 -
[875] - Quote
Godren Storm wrote:Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought.
Yeah, but here's the thing, Fleet warp and such are tools available within game set there by CCP themselves, while broadcasting software is a tool that is available only on your side after installation and is outside the game's commands and default tool-sets.
[u]Nerf stabs/cloaks in FW?[/u] No, just..
-Fit more points
-Fit faction points
-Bring a friend or two with points (an alt is fine too)
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4281
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:56:04 -
[876] - Quote
Bakla Firoz wrote:I was so shocked when I found out that CCP specifically confirmed multiple times that isboxing to control multiple accounts was allowed. So why the sudden change of heart?
Nothing has changed and therefore you owe those people who have trained up 10, 20, 30, 50(?) accounts a MASSIVE apology. How about those who have recently paid for 3 month (the minimum) subscription on isboxer because you said it was okay? The very least you could do is admit you were wrong.
1 month is minimum.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1153
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:56:55 -
[877] - Quote
Godren Storm wrote:Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought.
Not really. Neither of these activities is granted by using an external application GÇö-áthey're in the Eve client by default. As such, they don't qualify.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4281
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:57:20 -
[878] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned. The OP announcement by CCP Falcon is very unclear. It does sound like if someone uses ISBoxer to log on a dozen miner accounts and start mining together 'afk' then that would be illegal after the date mentioned in the OP. ISBoxer use for mining, Incursions etc does potentially damage the in-game economy and cause bother to other peoples gameplay so going by what CCP Falcon has obliquely suggested does the announcement mean the end of this use of ISBoxer type software ? Wouldn't it be clearer and better just to say all use of ISBoxer & similar software is against the EULA and have done with it ?? Sounds like good news to me! A rare event in New Eden.
Logging on a dozen miners: Allowed. (explicitly mentioned, in fact)
using isboxer to start all of them mining at once, with one click: Not allowed.
Isboxer has other functions, such as arranging windows to let you move your mouse less between clicks, allowed under this ruling.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Piren'e Colass
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:57:51 -
[879] - Quote
Pretty ****** of you ccp, this has been a major playstyle for while, and it makes significant game aspects so much better. Change the rules, don't start to enforce them. |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
36
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:58:45 -
[880] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Am I too late to drink in the tears or are they all gone?
dont worry, we filled the tanks. orca size or freighter size delivery? |
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1153
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:59:24 -
[881] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
Wouldn't it be clearer and better just to say all use of ISBoxer & similar software is against the EULA and have done with it ??
ISBoxer isn't the only software that allows input multiplexing. Banning ISBoxer outright as the sole action of the change would just make everyone move over to another brand of software that does the same thing.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
36
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:00:20 -
[882] - Quote
Mendeli Vium wrote:so if i understand correctly i can use IS Boxer to tile clients on my comp but not activate mods or navigate with it ?
correct. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6040
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:00:25 -
[883] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Angela Daemonic wrote:Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven. Indeed, very quickly the volume on PLEX sales will increase again sharply due to the lower prices... however this time it will not be fueled by people that don't care if the price is too high. Keep dreaming. Forgotten N Forsaken wrote:THANK YOU CCP. ABOUT TIME I.S BOXERS GOT BANNED. WOOOTT!!!!!! You're dreaming. There's so many ways to hide it from CCP's eyes it'll still be abused. Hell Blizzard with their millions spent on warden can't even stop basic hackers and multibox programs. If you really want them stopped then I hope you're prepared to have your system compromised by CCP so they can scan every aspect and control what you can and cannot run.
Oh, I have no doubt counters will be created... and those counters will be countered... so on and so forth.
But as we've seen here, many won't bother... or will simply go to using the other features of ISBoxer to get the job done... just not as efficiently. PVP activity will take the main hit, and that's not necessarily a bad thing in this particular case.
The people we will lose from mining circles will be those running huge farms that would be difficult to hide. They'll need to scale down, or slow down, or simply stop.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
36
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:01:51 -
[884] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:This is illegal too right? https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/home
He is using hardware to duplicate an input. Hell at this point of definition it could be considered illegal to use alt tab to rapidly issue commands.
Yes. it is also mentioned in the initial post. ;)
|
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:03:09 -
[885] - Quote
Forgotten N Forsaken wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Angela Daemonic wrote:Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven. Indeed, very quickly the volume on PLEX sales will increase again sharply due to the lower prices... however this time it will not be fueled by people that don't care if the price is too high. Keep dreaming. Forgotten N Forsaken wrote:THANK YOU CCP. ABOUT TIME I.S BOXERS GOT BANNED. WOOOTT!!!!!! You're dreaming. There's so many ways to hide it from CCP's eyes it'll still be abused. Hell Blizzard with their millions spent on warden can't even stop basic hackers and multibox programs. If you really want them stopped then I hope you're prepared to have your system compromised by CCP so they can scan every aspect and control what you can and cannot run. I would be okay with that :) **** the I.S boxing Cheating Pricks.
Yet they will still be there. :P |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6040
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:04:13 -
[886] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Bakla Firoz wrote:I was so shocked when I found out that CCP specifically confirmed multiple times that isboxing to control multiple accounts was allowed. So why the sudden change of heart?
Nothing has changed and therefore you owe those people who have trained up 10, 20, 30, 50(?) accounts a MASSIVE apology. How about those who have recently paid for 3 month (the minimum) subscription on isboxer because you said it was okay? The very least you could do is admit you were wrong. 1 month is minimum.
And of course, you can still use ISBoxer in EVE. Just not the broadcast function.
You'll need to stack your windows next to each other and take a second to click on each one.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
144
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:05:55 -
[887] - Quote
To Steve Ronuken: CCP are going to get flooded with requests asking if the for example twelve accounts that just logged on and started mining together are breaking the rules etc.
Why should it be legal to log them on together using ISBoxer but illegal to start the miners mining rocks ? Don't get me wrong - I agree with most people that ISBoxer use should be prohibited altogether - so it should be fairly obvious to make a clean break and remove all use of ISBoxer type software. After all it probably is a major factor in the current ISK value of PLEX. |
Dominique Vasilkovsky
BFG Tech
49
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:06:32 -
[888] - Quote
Good, about time.
GòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉ
-áDominique Vasilkovsky
GòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉGòÉ
|
Iyokus Patrouette
No Vacancies
204
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:06:32 -
[889] - Quote
Where is this list of Do's and Don'ts regarding Multi... whatever we're calling it.
Kind of seems everything technically has an impact on the game, i'm curious where they're drawing the lines in the sand on this.
---- Advocate for the initiation of purple coloured wormholes----
|
Abernie
Task Force Proteus
Protean Concept
158
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:07:58 -
[890] - Quote
Iyokus Patrouette wrote:Where is this list of Do's and Don'ts regarding Multi... whatever we're calling it.
Kind of seems everything technically has an impact on the game, i'm curious where they're drawing the lines in the sand on this.
Am I going to get banned? - The Flowchart |
|
|
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:08:09 -
[891] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:To Steve Ronuken: CCP are going to get flooded with requests asking if the for example twelve accounts that just logged on and started mining together are breaking the rules etc.
Why should it be legal to log them on together using ISBoxer but illegal to start the miners mining rocks ? Don't get me wrong - I agree with most people that ISBoxer use should be prohibited altogether - so it should be fairly obvious to make a clean break and remove all use of ISBoxer type software. After all it probably is a major factor in the current ISK value of PLEX.
Isboxers had very little to do with isk value of plex. Well before isboxers were even noticed plex had already established a history of rising in value.
If you look at the chinese server our plex is actually way undervalued right now.
If you think banning isboxer is going to suddenly stop plex from ever rising in value you're deluded. |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
144
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:08:36 -
[892] - Quote
Querns wrote:Bethan Le Troix wrote:
Wouldn't it be clearer and better just to say all use of ISBoxer & similar software is against the EULA and have done with it ??
ISBoxer isn't the only software that allows input multiplexing. Banning ISBoxer outright as the sole action of the change would just make everyone move over to another brand of software that does the same thing.
Well obviously all types of software that do the same activity would be banned. Don't split hairs. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
1896
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:09:19 -
[893] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:To Steve Ronuken: CCP are going to get flooded with requests asking if the for example twelve accounts that just logged on and started mining together are breaking the rules etc.
Why should it be legal to log them on together using ISBoxer but illegal to start the miners mining rocks ? Don't get me wrong - I agree with most people that ISBoxer use should be prohibited altogether - so it should be fairly obvious to make a clean break and remove all use of ISBoxer type software. After all it probably is a major factor in the current ISK value of PLEX.
Because CCp cannot detect anyoen using any software PRIOR to you loggin in into the game. So they cannot enforce anythign that is not giving commands to the client.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1749
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:09:43 -
[894] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:To Steve Ronuken: CCP are going to get flooded with requests asking if the for example twelve accounts that just logged on and started mining together are breaking the rules etc.
Why should it be legal to log them on together using ISBoxer but illegal to start the miners mining rocks ? Don't get me wrong - I agree with most people that ISBoxer use should be prohibited altogether - so it should be fairly obvious to make a clean break and remove all use of ISBoxer type software. After all it probably is a major factor in the current ISK value of PLEX.
The idea is that logging pilots in and adjusting screens and such has no direct impact on gameplay. The actions commuted using broadcast afterwords are the issue they want to prohibit if I understand correctly. |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
144
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:09:55 -
[895] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Bethan Le Troix wrote:To Steve Ronuken: CCP are going to get flooded with requests asking if the for example twelve accounts that just logged on and started mining together are breaking the rules etc.
Why should it be legal to log them on together using ISBoxer but illegal to start the miners mining rocks ? Don't get me wrong - I agree with most people that ISBoxer use should be prohibited altogether - so it should be fairly obvious to make a clean break and remove all use of ISBoxer type software. After all it probably is a major factor in the current ISK value of PLEX. Isboxers had very little to do with isk value of plex. Well before isboxers were even noticed plex had already established a history of rising in value. If you look at the chinese server our plex is actually way undervalued right now. If you think banning isboxer is going to suddenly stop plex from ever rising in value you're deluded.
The Chinese are another matter entirely. I won't delve too far into that bucket but its well known what goes on in the Gulags in China. |
Tappits
north eastern swat
Pandemic Legion
69
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:10:01 -
[896] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:To Steve Ronuken: CCP are going to get flooded with requests asking if the for example twelve accounts that just logged on and started mining together are breaking the rules etc.
Why should it be legal to log them on together using ISBoxer but illegal to start the miners mining rocks ? Don't get me wrong - I agree with most people that ISBoxer use should be prohibited altogether - so it should be fairly obvious to make a clean break and remove all use of ISBoxer type software. After all it probably is a major factor in the current ISK value of PLEX.
Because stating eve clients and typing the password in across all accounts and getting to login screens does not effect anything IN GAME.
Would dumb people stop going on about fleet warp too as its the most ******** thing in this whole topic. |
Ursula Thrace
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
285
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:10:13 -
[897] - Quote
i, for one, am glad CCP will be watching for these types of activities and taking the appropriate actions.
eve online original intro
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1153
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:10:42 -
[898] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:Querns wrote:Bethan Le Troix wrote:
Wouldn't it be clearer and better just to say all use of ISBoxer & similar software is against the EULA and have done with it ??
ISBoxer isn't the only software that allows input multiplexing. Banning ISBoxer outright as the sole action of the change would just make everyone move over to another brand of software that does the same thing. Well obviously all types of software that do the same activity would be banned. Don't split hairs.
That is essentially what is being proposed, right now. It has the bonus of not having to enumerate the individual varieties of software, and it leaves ISBoxer's legitimate uses intact. It's a good compromise.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25642
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:11:06 -
[899] - Quote
speaking of things that should be in the client, here's an idea players might want to get behind. it involves expanding the automation within the client to support all fleet roles that will be eliminated as a result of this ban. I am accused several times in the thread for trolling, but it is a very serious suggestion.
basically, the FC and other fleet command positions will have full control of their leadership tree.
oddly enough, I was about to install ISBoxer for the first time today. I woke up to the TMC article about this announcement.
you could say I'm feeling right as rain right now.
to anyone concerned about the loss of control without ISBoxer: the days of 50-boxing may be gone, but 10-boxing is very doable without ISBoxer, it just takes practice.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
144
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:11:16 -
[900] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Bethan Le Troix wrote:To Steve Ronuken: CCP are going to get flooded with requests asking if the for example twelve accounts that just logged on and started mining together are breaking the rules etc.
Why should it be legal to log them on together using ISBoxer but illegal to start the miners mining rocks ? Don't get me wrong - I agree with most people that ISBoxer use should be prohibited altogether - so it should be fairly obvious to make a clean break and remove all use of ISBoxer type software. After all it probably is a major factor in the current ISK value of PLEX. The idea is that logging pilots in and adjusting screens and such has no direct impact on gameplay. The actions commuted using broadcast afterwords are the issue they want to prohibit if I understand correctly.
Yes .But it would much clearer to just remove legal use of any such software. It's not really playing the game is.it. It's one step away from RMT in a way. |
|
|
Iyokus Patrouette
No Vacancies
204
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:11:59 -
[901] - Quote
Abernie wrote:Iyokus Patrouette wrote:Where is this list of Do's and Don'ts regarding Multi... whatever we're calling it.
Kind of seems everything technically has an impact on the game, i'm curious where they're drawing the lines in the sand on this. Am I going to get banned? - The Flowchart
Ah, not quite what i was chasing but answers enough. Seems silly, just say no IS Boxer and avoid all this beating around bushes.
---- Advocate for the initiation of purple coloured wormholes----
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
296
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:14:01 -
[902] - Quote
I'm wondering just how granular the logs are for this sort of thing.
If they're only in single ticks, then its gonna have serious issues with people who can just alt tab harder.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:14:07 -
[903] - Quote
Tappits wrote:Bethan Le Troix wrote:To Steve Ronuken: CCP are going to get flooded with requests asking if the for example twelve accounts that just logged on and started mining together are breaking the rules etc.
Why should it be legal to log them on together using ISBoxer but illegal to start the miners mining rocks ? Don't get me wrong - I agree with most people that ISBoxer use should be prohibited altogether - so it should be fairly obvious to make a clean break and remove all use of ISBoxer type software. After all it probably is a major factor in the current ISK value of PLEX. Because stating eve clients and typing the password in across all accounts and getting to login screens does not effect anything IN GAME. Would dumb people stop going on about fleet warp too as its the most ******** thing in this whole topic.
CCP needs to take a step back and re-evaluate what is fair here. All automation should be banned including but not limited to broadcast inputs, fleet warp, drone assignment and module auto repeating.
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
36
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:14:15 -
[904] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:speaking of things that should be in the client, here's an idea players might want to get behind. it involves expanding the automation within the client to support all fleet roles that will be eliminated as a result of this ban. I am accused several times in the thread for trolling, but it is a very serious suggestion. basically, the FC and other fleet command positions will have full control of their leadership tree. oddly enough, I was about to install ISBoxer for the first time today. I woke up to the TMC article about this announcement. you could say I'm feeling right as rain right now. to anyone concerned about the loss of control without ISBoxer: the days of 50-boxing may be gone, but 10-boxing is very doable without ISBoxer, it just takes practice.
you know drone mass assign was removed to make more people play and not having them all just twisting thumbs while the guy with all drones assigned blaps things. with that in mind how likely do you think is your dreaming in the link? |
Lelob
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
189
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:14:16 -
[905] - Quote
It is about time that CCP finally removed this garbage. Nullsec fleets were made x10 worse by the simple existence of 1 person who could multibox 7 bombers and have them all drop bombs on you in absolute perfect timing and then warp off, killing your fleet of w/e. It was blatantly unfair and it changed the meta for the worse fairly significantly. It also sucked to see incursion runners having to compete against someone who could beat them in t1 domis with the odd t2 mods at best while they were in t3's/faction bs with all sorts of faction mods etc. I would love it if CCP could add the windows functionality of isboxer into EVE but yeah, thanks for getting rid of something that was inherenly imba. |
Lengurathmir Elinor
Jovian Labs
Jovian Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:14:19 -
[906] - Quote
Good job, I fully support this! |
Somatic Neuron
Masterwork Productions Inc
54
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:15:04 -
[907] - Quote
I am assuming that you have the means to detect multiplexing and such already...so how many accounts does this currently have the potential to affect? |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:15:28 -
[908] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:I'm wondering just how granular the logs are for this sort of thing.
If they're only in single ticks, then its gonna have serious issues with people who can just alt tab harder.
I alt tab hard cause I've been multiboxing games since the meridian 59 era. I really learned the skill during lineage 2 though where I would run parties and fight pvp on my own with alts. No automation at all just extra keyboards and screens.
I'm actually worried that I'll be banned if I try to mine with my setup using alt tab. I mean really when you're mining there's nothing beyond hitting f1 occasionally.
I also sometimes experience huge lag spikes when playing the game and I'm worried that the rush of incoming packets to the server will look like I'm using isboxer or something. Especially during the DDoS days you could tell when all the packets suddenly started arriving as all the screens would kind of speed up to catch up to the server. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
296
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:15:53 -
[909] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:speaking of things that should be in the client, here's an idea players might want to get behind. it involves expanding the automation within the client to support all fleet roles that will be eliminated as a result of this ban. I am accused several times in the thread for trolling, but it is a very serious suggestion. basically, the FC and other fleet command positions will have full control of their leadership tree. oddly enough, I was about to install ISBoxer for the first time today. I woke up to the TMC article about this announcement. you could say I'm feeling right as rain right now. to anyone concerned about the loss of control without ISBoxer: the days of 50-boxing may be gone, but 10-boxing is very doable without ISBoxer, it just takes practice.
Though it breaks my 70 boxing all to heck, as the reaction time needed for that to work is 3-5s on all clients.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Flynn Starfire
Empire Demons
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:16:53 -
[910] - Quote
I can definitely get behind this, mineral prices should and will rise to the values representing proper work hours. Nullsec life will be better without ISBombers... burn the bots! |
|
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
822
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:16:58 -
[911] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:speaking of things that should be in the client, here's an idea players might want to get behind. it involves expanding the automation within the client to support all fleet roles that will be eliminated as a result of this ban. I am accused several times in the thread for trolling, but it is a very serious suggestion. basically, the FC and other fleet command positions will have full control of their leadership tree. oddly enough, I was about to install ISBoxer for the first time today. I woke up to the TMC article about this announcement. you could say I'm feeling right as rain right now. to anyone concerned about the loss of control without ISBoxer: the days of 50-boxing may be gone, but 10-boxing is very doable without ISBoxer, it just takes practice.
more automation for everyone was and still is bad idea.
CCP gone the right way. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
296
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:18:14 -
[912] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:James Baboli wrote:I'm wondering just how granular the logs are for this sort of thing.
If they're only in single ticks, then its gonna have serious issues with people who can just alt tab harder. I alt tab hard cause I've been multiboxing games since the meridian 59 era. I really learned the skill during lineage 2 though where I would run parties and fight pvp on my own with alts. No automation at all just extra keyboards and screens. I'm actually worried that I'll be banned if I try to mine with my setup using alt tab. I mean really when you're mining there's nothing beyond hitting f1 occasionally.
Yep. Thats my issue. I manually multibox up to 10 of the many accounts I run, and have same second key presses for up to 8 clients. I only fire up the boxing software when it gets into the 12+ client range or if I'm trying to do combat logi while boxing.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:20:21 -
[913] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:James Baboli wrote:I'm wondering just how granular the logs are for this sort of thing.
If they're only in single ticks, then its gonna have serious issues with people who can just alt tab harder. I alt tab hard cause I've been multiboxing games since the meridian 59 era. I really learned the skill during lineage 2 though where I would run parties and fight pvp on my own with alts. No automation at all just extra keyboards and screens. I'm actually worried that I'll be banned if I try to mine with my setup using alt tab. I mean really when you're mining there's nothing beyond hitting f1 occasionally. Yep. Thats my issue. I manually multibox up to 10 of the many accounts I run, and have same second key presses for up to 8 clients. I only fire up the boxing software when it gets into the 12+ client range or if I'm trying to do combat logi while boxing.
VG sites were my only usage for isboxer. I could still do VG sites without it but my times would suffer some and with these changes I still might get banned anyway.. |
Areen Sassel
37
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:21:23 -
[914] - Quote
Bravo, CCP. Not only is this a good idea, but I suspect you win the tear harvest for the month. :-) |
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1583
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:24:42 -
[915] - Quote
WTB Ice Miner character. 100m ISK.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:24:53 -
[916] - Quote
It's going to be hilarious post-ban when every suicide gank victim accuses the gankers of using ISboxer broadcasting & floods CCP with bogus petitions.
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
Alruan Shadowborn
InterSun Freelance
SONS of BANE
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:25:01 -
[917] - Quote
They called it the Boxer virus.
No one knew where it came from, some suspected it was a plot by Sansha Kuvakei to take control of the growing legion of capsuleers, others suggested some remnant of long lost sleeper technology.
One thing for sure, it is insipid, permeating the very fabric of New Eden.
It started small, a few capsuleers in one system. But in time it spread, with entire fleets succumbing.
The virus was strange, it didn't damage the host's health, if anything it improved it, but it exerted mind linking properties unlike anything seen before, like a hive-mind creating a fleet of drones, but rather than mechanical drones with simplistic AI, it was a capsuleer piloted drone, capable of flying any ship across the cluster.
As you can imagine, this concerned quite a few the leaders of New Eden, the empires, CONCORD, even some of the Pirate Commanders were worried. Imagine large fleets of ships controlled with a hive mind, a single action performed simultaneously across a fleet.
It was the stuff of nightmares, especially if Kuvakei were behind it and was the puppet master pulling the strings.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONCORD Research Center Alpha 357
Yulai
Planet VIII GÇô Moon 10 GÇô Concord Logistic Support
Professor Grian Julkit Falcon
Initial Research Report GÇô Boxer Virus
The virus is strange, near undetectable in itGÇÖs dormant state, it increases synaptic speed of capsuleer minds. In and of itself, this is no real concern, with the capsule linking systems achieving much the same during flight.
When the virus is active however, the change is extraordinary. Synaptic speed continues to increase, but beyond that, it seems new links form that allow the mind to transmit and receive information, however only to and from one source.
The fleet that was captured has proven interesting to study, there was one member who appeared less infected than the others, and seemed to exhibit the characteristics of controlling the other GÇ£dronesGÇ¥ for want of a better term. Interrogation techniques have so far proven futile, with the GÇ£controllerGÇ¥ yielding no new information.
I have engineered what I hope will prove to be a vaccine against the virus, and with the current production cycle planned, it should commence distribution from 1 January YC117. Given the concern around this virus and the power it could grant to one person if harnessed, vaccination will be compulsory, and conducted in top secret. It should not be too hard to have our agents install Aerosol units on every ship in the cluster when they dock.
I will continue trying to understand this Virus, who made it is truly important. As if it is Kuvakei, the stability of the Empires will be in jeopardy.
But I also highlight, as with any vaccination program, we will not prevent it all, so ongoing monitoring of the Capsuleer population will be necessary to ensure the eradication of this virus is complete.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2449
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:28:12 -
[918] - Quote
Jared Noan wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters
Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
Reading into this, fleet warping could be considered a banable offence. You want to take out the lawyer talk, so will I.
Fleet warping does not use a 3rd party program, so no. You are quite simply wrong. It uses a function already built into the client by CCP--i.e. it is a designed feature not an exploit.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Marilyn Maulerant
Throng of the Drone Amalgamate
The Ditanian Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:28:37 -
[919] - Quote
Seems that the OP here goes 100% against the following line in that page
"Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA." |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1393
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:29:33 -
[920] - Quote
Well whether one agrees with ISOBOXER or not the decision is made and it is clear, There is no room for someone to find any wriggle room whatsoever and those who try, will find that it does not pay.
We are witnessing the Age of an era.
No long will we see herds of mighty hulks sweeping across the open fields of Space, devouring all before them.
No longer will we see the vast flocks of nightmares, their hundreds of lasers cutting across space and wreaking their beautiful but deadly devastation.
We have seen the end in our time, and when we tell those that follow of the days of the mighty Isoboxer fleets, they will say.
"How the hell was that ever allowed?"
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
1896
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:33:14 -
[921] - Quote
Marilyn Maulerant wrote:Seems that the OP here goes 100% against the following line in that page "Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA."
yes andthey CHANGED their terms. Somethingthey are entitled to. And they are giving a fair warning of 1 month in advance.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
RoAnnon
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
16068
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:33:48 -
[922] - Quote
Xython wrote:Aerious wrote:Goon tears are the best tears! You may be misunderstanding a different liquid for tears. This is the best news all month.
Yeah, not all goons are crying about this...
So, you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.
|
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:34:27 -
[923] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Well whether one agrees with ISOBOXER or not the decision is made and it is clear, There is no room for someone to find any wriggle room whatsoever and those who try, will find that it does not pay. We are witnessing the Age of an era. No long will we see herds of mighty hulks sweeping across the open fields of Space, devouring all before them. No longer will we see the vast flocks of nightmares, their hundreds of lasers cutting across space and wreaking their beautiful but deadly devastation. We have seen the end in our time, and when we tell those that follow of the days of the mighty Isoboxer fleets, they will say. "How the hell was that ever allowed?"
You must be new here...
Only a complete nub would think such things. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
Cosmic Consortium
5573
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:34:29 -
[924] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:James Baboli wrote:I'm wondering just how granular the logs are for this sort of thing.
If they're only in single ticks, then its gonna have serious issues with people who can just alt tab harder. I alt tab hard cause I've been multiboxing games since the meridian 59 era. I really learned the skill during lineage 2 though where I would run parties and fight pvp on my own with alts. No automation at all just extra keyboards and screens. I'm actually worried that I'll be banned if I try to mine with my setup using alt tab. I mean really when you're mining there's nothing beyond hitting f1 occasionally. Yep. Thats my issue. I manually multibox up to 10 of the many accounts I run, and have same second key presses for up to 8 clients. I only fire up the boxing software when it gets into the 12+ client range or if I'm trying to do combat logi while boxing.
Can you show a video of pressing eight buttons in different regions of the screen within 1 second? I am wondering how you achieve this.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:34:40 -
[925] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Jared Noan wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters
Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
Reading into this, fleet warping could be considered a banable offence. You want to take out the lawyer talk, so will I. Fleet warping does not use a 3rd party program, so no. You are quite simply wrong. It uses a function already built into the client by CCP--i.e. it is a designed feature not an exploit.
CCP has reconsidered the legality of such cheats in the past. I'm sure that with enough forum posting & whine threads over the next 2 years CCP will see this cheat for what it is.
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
296
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:36:26 -
[926] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:James Baboli wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:James Baboli wrote:I'm wondering just how granular the logs are for this sort of thing.
If they're only in single ticks, then its gonna have serious issues with people who can just alt tab harder. I alt tab hard cause I've been multiboxing games since the meridian 59 era. I really learned the skill during lineage 2 though where I would run parties and fight pvp on my own with alts. No automation at all just extra keyboards and screens. I'm actually worried that I'll be banned if I try to mine with my setup using alt tab. I mean really when you're mining there's nothing beyond hitting f1 occasionally. Yep. Thats my issue. I manually multibox up to 10 of the many accounts I run, and have same second key presses for up to 8 clients. I only fire up the boxing software when it gets into the 12+ client range or if I'm trying to do combat logi while boxing. VG sites were my only usage for isboxer. I could still do VG sites without it but my times would suffer some and with these changes I still might get banned anyway..
I'm really glad I made most of my pile before these changes and have now got some decent overall isk, and a couple hundred bill in concord LP I've been too lazy to sell.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
RoAnnon
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
16068
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:37:06 -
[927] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:RoAnnon wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking. Sure, that's logical, since an AFK cloaked pilot has absolutely no way to interact with the game at all... perfect sense there... CCP is directly nerfing the force projection that one player can have affect on others in Eve. What do you think afk cloaking is?
It's psychological warfare at best, playing on nullbear fears. I have AFK cloaked my share of systems, but that doesn't change the fact an AFK or Cloaked pilot can not interact with anything in game. A pilot who is both doubly so. When was the last time you were attacked by either an AFK pilot or a cloaked ship?
So, you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
1897
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:38:30 -
[928] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:James Baboli wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:James Baboli wrote:I'm wondering just how granular the logs are for this sort of thing.
If they're only in single ticks, then its gonna have serious issues with people who can just alt tab harder. I alt tab hard cause I've been multiboxing games since the meridian 59 era. I really learned the skill during lineage 2 though where I would run parties and fight pvp on my own with alts. No automation at all just extra keyboards and screens. I'm actually worried that I'll be banned if I try to mine with my setup using alt tab. I mean really when you're mining there's nothing beyond hitting f1 occasionally. Yep. Thats my issue. I manually multibox up to 10 of the many accounts I run, and have same second key presses for up to 8 clients. I only fire up the boxing software when it gets into the 12+ client range or if I'm trying to do combat logi while boxing. Can you show a video of pressing eight buttons in different regions of the screen within 1 second? I am wondering how you achieve this.
The eula doe snot prevent octopuses from playing the game with 8 mice at same time.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
296
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:40:28 -
[929] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:James Baboli wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:James Baboli wrote:I'm wondering just how granular the logs are for this sort of thing.
If they're only in single ticks, then its gonna have serious issues with people who can just alt tab harder. I alt tab hard cause I've been multiboxing games since the meridian 59 era. I really learned the skill during lineage 2 though where I would run parties and fight pvp on my own with alts. No automation at all just extra keyboards and screens. I'm actually worried that I'll be banned if I try to mine with my setup using alt tab. I mean really when you're mining there's nothing beyond hitting f1 occasionally. Yep. Thats my issue. I manually multibox up to 10 of the many accounts I run, and have same second key presses for up to 8 clients. I only fire up the boxing software when it gets into the 12+ client range or if I'm trying to do combat logi while boxing. Can you show a video of pressing eight buttons in different regions of the screen within 1 second? I am wondering how you achieve this.
Alt+ tab bound to one key. F1-F8 bound to keys in the same area. Mouse with a control click bind, and use of Window splitting software and UI assimilation to put all the overviews or broadcast historys in a nice perfectly Identical stack if I need to do target acquisition quickly. So, keybinds and specifically allowed functions of software.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
46
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:41:33 -
[930] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:James Baboli wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:James Baboli wrote:I'm wondering just how granular the logs are for this sort of thing.
If they're only in single ticks, then its gonna have serious issues with people who can just alt tab harder. I alt tab hard cause I've been multiboxing games since the meridian 59 era. I really learned the skill during lineage 2 though where I would run parties and fight pvp on my own with alts. No automation at all just extra keyboards and screens. I'm actually worried that I'll be banned if I try to mine with my setup using alt tab. I mean really when you're mining there's nothing beyond hitting f1 occasionally. Yep. Thats my issue. I manually multibox up to 10 of the many accounts I run, and have same second key presses for up to 8 clients. I only fire up the boxing software when it gets into the 12+ client range or if I'm trying to do combat logi while boxing. Can you show a video of pressing eight buttons in different regions of the screen within 1 second? I am wondering how you achieve this. The eula doe snot prevent octopuses from playing the game with 8 mice at same time.
Does eve work on a touch-screen currently?
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
|
|
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7283
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:42:06 -
[931] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:James Baboli wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:James Baboli wrote:I'm wondering just how granular the logs are for this sort of thing.
If they're only in single ticks, then its gonna have serious issues with people who can just alt tab harder. I alt tab hard cause I've been multiboxing games since the meridian 59 era. I really learned the skill during lineage 2 though where I would run parties and fight pvp on my own with alts. No automation at all just extra keyboards and screens. I'm actually worried that I'll be banned if I try to mine with my setup using alt tab. I mean really when you're mining there's nothing beyond hitting f1 occasionally. Yep. Thats my issue. I manually multibox up to 10 of the many accounts I run, and have same second key presses for up to 8 clients. I only fire up the boxing software when it gets into the 12+ client range or if I'm trying to do combat logi while boxing. Can you show a video of pressing eight buttons in different regions of the screen within 1 second? I am wondering how you achieve this. The eula doe snot prevent octopuses from playing the game with 8 mice at same time.
Or squids.
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'.
|
Dazamin
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:42:45 -
[932] - Quote
Can we remove squad / wing / fleet warps too? |
Black Ambulance
18
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:43:37 -
[933] - Quote
February at Evenews24
Devs allowing Isboxer back as there were no Christmas bonuses due to mass unsub |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25642
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:43:37 -
[934] - Quote
I remember that lore article.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2449
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:46:34 -
[935] - Quote
Godren Storm wrote:Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought.
Wrong, already explained, no third party software.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1393
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:47:01 -
[936] - Quote
Godren Storm wrote:Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought.
No not even a nibble, a snack, or a roasted peanut.
A completely meaningless connection. A pointless effort to derail the decision.
The rules could not have been made clearer, you may very well not like it.
And you are of course welcome to take your bat and ball away and go and play outside someone else house.
What you will find, is that telling the umpire that you do not like his rules and trying to dictate new ones to him will not advance your cause.
and in no universe, no version of twisted logic, no amount of wanting , will persuade a single player, (other than one who is desperately holding out for a branch like a drowning man), let alone CCP who have made their decision, that fleet warp is in any way the same thing.
The decision is made, Move on. Sell your alts while there are still customers who do not read the forums.
or actually play with them if you prefer.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7283
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:47:34 -
[937] - Quote
Dazamin wrote:Can we remove squad / wing / fleet warps too?
Why would they remove an in-game feature when they are addressing out of game issues?
You mad bro?
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'.
|
Nemed Bererund
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:48:00 -
[938] - Quote
So no more Eve-Central Market crawler then? |
Artistul
Meet The Fockers
Northern Associates.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:48:48 -
[939] - Quote
When you think of fanfest when a CCP was actually encouraging people to use ISBoxer...Change of heart, ha? Good!
I fully endorse this change,
\o/ |
Alruan Shadowborn
InterSun Freelance
SONS of BANE
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:49:43 -
[940] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I remember that lore article.
If you are talking about mine, where from, I just typed it this morning.
If there is somewhere else it has been printed i will remove it, however if there is I may just have the Boxer virus as I have never read it |
|
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
4381
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:50:29 -
[941] - Quote
CCP Falcon,
Please add CCP Random's flowchart to the first post.
https://twitter.com/CCP_Random/status/537380608906104833 |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2449
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:51:08 -
[942] - Quote
Dazamin wrote:Can we remove squad / wing / fleet warps too?
No. Already explained.
For the love of all that is unholy....fleet warp, drone assist, fleet broadcasts via the fleet window in game...none use a third party software.
Given the nonsense on this, let me repeat that....
If it does not use 3rd party software and is part of the client it is by default acceptable, not an exploit, does not need to be removed.
Everyone who has written comments to that effect you should feel ashamed at how horrible you are.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1393
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:51:25 -
[943] - Quote
Nemed Bererund wrote:So no more Eve-Central Market crawler then?
Keep making stuff up, You might eventually make some sense.
The first post is wonderfully clear. Is it a Banned mechanic yes/no? advance to Go or you are bad. no room for confusion there.
Once again it is ALL in the first post, If it is not there, or not already in the ULEA you are good to go.
If it is? stop doing whatever it is.
Read it .
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
237
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:53:23 -
[944] - Quote
RoAnnon wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:RoAnnon wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking. Sure, that's logical, since an AFK cloaked pilot has absolutely no way to interact with the game at all... perfect sense there... CCP is directly nerfing the force projection that one player can have affect on others in Eve. What do you think afk cloaking is? It's psychological warfare at best, playing on nullbear fears. I have AFK cloaked my share of systems, but that doesn't change the fact an AFK or Cloaked pilot can not interact with anything in game. A pilot who is both doubly so. When was the last time you were attacked by either an AFK pilot or a cloaked ship?
Yes, let's turn this thread into an argument about afk cloaking!
I'll start.
The threat from AFK cloaking doesn't come from the pilot literally being AFK, obviously. The threat comes from the pilot being in a perfectly invulnerable position for up to 23 hours without having to touch anything, and can manage a huge amount of these pilots by himself- either for intel or as a cyno target. The issue is not that someone is cloaked in system. The issue is that one player can manage a huge number of perfectly invulnerable pilots that can either be gathering information or setting up hotdrops. (We know, it works!)
This change to broadcasting is a great change for the game overall (not sure about the timing or exact implementation, but whatever). The change removes the force projection of one person to not being able to accurately manage a large group of characters in game.
"AFK Cloaking" is basically the same thing- one pilot is projecting the ability to be an entry point to strike or gathering high quality intel in multiple systems. The ability for the cloak to be able to cycle indefinitely results in a similar effect of broadcasting module commands across multiple accounts utilizing ISBoxer. I'm not saying that any module repeating indefinitely is dumb. Being able to easily manage (or be afk) with a large number of alts spread across the entire universe because of cloaks cycling indefinitely and there being zero way to identify a cloaked target- is dumb.
CCP has basically said that AFK cloaking is OK as-is. But they also have said that they don't see an issue with isboxer/multiboxing in the past, and look where we are now.
Until then, we'll keep doing our thang with the afk cloaking
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25642
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:55:09 -
[945] - Quote
Alruan Shadowborn wrote:Rain6637 wrote:I remember that lore article. If you are talking about mine, where from, I just typed it this morning. If there is somewhere else it has been printed i will remove it, however if there is I may just have the Boxer virus as I have never read it
it rings a bell. or, I just had a serious case of deja vu.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Dazamin
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:00:22 -
[946] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:Dazamin wrote:Can we remove squad / wing / fleet warps too? Why would they remove an in-game feature when they are addressing out of game issues? You mad bro?
Well its the behaviour that's the problem surely? Not sure how its achieved is really an issue. But I do think rid of in game fleet warps would be genuinely good for the same reasons as getting rid of out of game methods of key / mouse broadcasting would be. Make each character take their own actions, make their own mistakes, etc. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4284
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:00:31 -
[947] - Quote
Nemed Bererund wrote:So no more Eve-Central Market crawler then?
Actually, there's stuff in play which will make that entirely redundant come Rhea.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2450
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:02:47 -
[948] - Quote
Nemed Bererund wrote:So no more Eve-Central Market crawler then?
Everyone can use it so no unfair advantage.
No, not everyone can use ISBoxer, it has a non-zero price therefore some will be excluded (ok, ISBoxer is free, but the platform it runs on is not, no platform, i.e. no subscription, no ISBoxer).
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Ginger Barbarella
2040
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:03:26 -
[949] - Quote
Black Ambulance wrote:February at Evenews24
Devs allowing Isboxer back as there were no Christmas bonuses due to mass unsub
From my read the only mass anything here is the people in loud SUPPORT of this move. Let the botters leave to farm another game. I don't care in the slightest.
"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2450
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:04:29 -
[950] - Quote
Dazamin wrote:Doc Fury wrote:Dazamin wrote:Can we remove squad / wing / fleet warps too? Why would they remove an in-game feature when they are addressing out of game issues? You mad bro? Well its the behaviour that's the problem surely? Not sure how its achieved is really an issue. But I do think rid of in game fleet warps would be genuinely good for the same reasons as getting rid of out of game methods of key / mouse broadcasting would be. Make each character take their own actions, make their own mistakes, etc.
Oh for crying out loud....
How it is achieved IS the issue. Which is why the EULA specifically mentions 3rd party software. If it is in the client, then everyone has it, CCP has implicitly approved it (they designed it), and thus no unfair advantage.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1395
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:07:05 -
[951] - Quote
Nemed Bererund wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Nemed Bererund wrote:So no more Eve-Central Market crawler then? Keep making stuff up, You might eventually make some sense. The first post is wonderfully clear. Read it . Oh I did I just want some clarification on third party apps like the Market crawlers that automate search's in the market browser. Through the IGB Quote:This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters
Any software that is not banned by the licensing agreement and clarified by the original post is not discussed here. If an uncertainly exists any such software can be petitioned for clarification.
I realise that people are desperately trying to find a loophole, and CCP have been amazingly clear as to WHAT IS NOT ALLOWED. If you think you have found a loophole, give it up, they have made their decision.
I also point out, that if anyone thinks that Trying to sow the maximum confusion or creating spurious petitions to overwhelm them will benefit in some way? It is very unlikely to end well, and not recommended. Even if one feels the accounts are worthless and it is worth the risk. It isn't. those who decide such things, will not be amused.
The days of ISObox plenty are coming to an end, whether one likes it or not. Accept it, being in denial, will just frustrate.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Mashimara
Defenders of Commerce
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:07:30 -
[952] - Quote
Budsin Adar wrote:My Question is okay multi boxing is okay!! i can understand that now the ones that are allowing it as bots instead of banning them which makes sense to all of us. My question is when they do that why can't we shoot them and keep the ships or loot just have them show also as an NPC free kills they would get the hint and have to start over when there pods are floating in space.. we all could use the practice Right guys and gals? not being a care bare on this but it would be fun and give others points shoot for the lulz and others grab the ore we all could use it thanks fly safe or freely everyone o7
^^ This. Great idea for the masses.
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:07:48 -
[953] - Quote
Just wanna throw this out there to start, I am always amazed how players can support actions taken to shrink their player base. That actually like seeing people quit and their game shrivel. I laugh every time. With that said...
This seems like a far more harmful action to be taking without concurrent buffs within the game. I personally do not ISBox, yet can see it's necessity within a game with a shrinking player base for market stability. Think about it's primary use: Mining. Can you tell me that you think that when this starts being enforced that mineral prices will not begin to skyrocket? Do you believe that ship, module, ammo, and drone prices will not go up in turn? Simple case of supply and demand people. This will not cut off your supply entirely, but it will completely remove a large percentage of your suppliers. I would assume most players who make use of this program are strongly contemplating unloading their characters and leaving entirely.
While most of us can say that the multiboxing suicide ganks and bombers are annoying.. and may be glad to see their frequency decline (they will NEVER stop unless ccp wants to kill this game entirely).. this action is too broad without a patch hitting concurrently increasing the mineral payouts of refining modules and ore. CCP is removing a large portion of the game supply without supplementing it with anything. More players will not start mining until the prices are already increasing making the profits worth their time to change their professions. By that time the damage has been done and while the market will stabilize it will be much higher than what we currently see.
CCP this is too broad an action. Some people are upset about the pvp related actions of that segment of the player base. Those you see crying now about multiboxing miners don't seem to understand what they actually contribute to the game or are simply bandwagoning trolls who do understand but just like to watch the world burn.
I'll end with this I really have no horse in this game. Just wanted to throw that out there and maybe open some eyes. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1395
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:08:34 -
[954] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Well whether one agrees with ISOBOXER or not the decision is made and it is clear, There is no room for someone to find any wriggle room whatsoever and those who try, will find that it does not pay. We are witnessing the Age of an era. No long will we see herds of mighty hulks sweeping across the open fields of Space, devouring all before them. No longer will we see the vast flocks of nightmares, their hundreds of lasers cutting across space and wreaking their beautiful but deadly devastation. We have seen the end in our time, and when we tell those that follow of the days of the mighty Isoboxer fleets, they will say. "How the hell was that ever allowed?" You must be new here... Only a complete nub would think such things.
ooh. I bow to your wisdom.
No wait.....
Sorry which one of the multibox alts am i replying to?
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
62
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:08:53 -
[955] - Quote
Goons are crying and trying to derail this into usual goon tear topics, this time it's afk cloackers, but could be anything.
That means we have a good change.
I do see a loophole in the condition, but will ask for a clarification in a petition to not reveal it. Out of pure academic interest, mind you, despite having alts, I never used multiboxing software or input automation of any kind. I might say that policy is very vague and the part "but not limited to" fails to draw a clear line, possibly prosecuting anything that resembles input automation/multiplication, or being quite inefficient, because there's no indication where this policy stops.
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.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25643
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:10:41 -
[956] - Quote
no one is crying. this is fair, considering the removal of med clone costs. not all multiboxers use ISBoxer anyway.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7283
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:11:06 -
[957] - Quote
Dazamin wrote:Doc Fury wrote:Dazamin wrote:Can we remove squad / wing / fleet warps too? Why would they remove an in-game feature when they are addressing out of game issues? You mad bro? Well its the behaviour that's the problem surely? Not sure how its achieved is really an issue. But I do think rid of in game fleet warps would be genuinely good for the same reasons as getting rid of out of game methods of key / mouse broadcasting would be. Make each character take their own actions, make their own mistakes, etc.
Well, this is quite specifically just about rules pertaining to out-of-game actions, and not changes to existing in-game features.
If this were about behavior and not external influence via 3rd party apps it would also be verboten to run multiple clients on the same PC.
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'.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1267
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:11:06 -
[958] - Quote
Dazamin wrote:Doc Fury wrote:Dazamin wrote:Can we remove squad / wing / fleet warps too? Why would they remove an in-game feature when they are addressing out of game issues? You mad bro? Well its the behaviour that's the problem surely? Not sure how its achieved is really an issue. But I do think rid of in game fleet warps would be genuinely good for the same reasons as getting rid of out of game methods of key / mouse broadcasting would be. Make each character take their own actions, make their own mistakes, etc. The issue is the behaviors yes, but that may or may not include various activities within the game on a micro level. Outside tools and their capabilities are outside of CCP control. Fleet mechanics are well within their control. They also have limitations that 3rd party repeater warping does not like moving at the lowest warp speed of the ships in the group (I think that is still a thing anyways).
|
Hott Pocket
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:14:46 -
[959] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking.
That would figure. First thing I did when I saw this post was switch training to stealth bombers/cyno V. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2450
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:15:43 -
[960] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Dazamin wrote:Doc Fury wrote:Dazamin wrote:Can we remove squad / wing / fleet warps too? Why would they remove an in-game feature when they are addressing out of game issues? You mad bro? Well its the behaviour that's the problem surely? Not sure how its achieved is really an issue. But I do think rid of in game fleet warps would be genuinely good for the same reasons as getting rid of out of game methods of key / mouse broadcasting would be. Make each character take their own actions, make their own mistakes, etc. The issue is the behaviors yes, but that may or may not include various activities within the game on a micro level. Outside tools and their capabilities are outside of CCP control. Fleet mechanics are well within their control. They also have limitations that 3rd party repeater warping does not like moving at the lowest warp speed of the ships in the group (I think that is still a thing anyways).
The behavior, fleet warping, is NOT the issue. Fleet warping is a feature built into the game by CCP. Since the portion of the EULA relating to ISBoxer refers SPECIFICALLY to 3rd party software and modifying the client, fleet warping, drone assist and other IN GAME features (features designed in game by CCP) are irrelevant.
It is just that simple.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
36
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:15:55 -
[961] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:Just wanna throw this out there to start, I am always amazed how players can support actions taken to shrink their player base. That actually like seeing people quit and their game shrivel. I laugh every time. With that said...
This seems like a far more harmful action to be taking without concurrent buffs within the game. I personally do not ISBox, yet can see it's necessity within a game with a shrinking player base for market stability. Think about it's primary use: Mining. Can you tell me that you think that when this starts being enforced that mineral prices will not begin to skyrocket? Do you believe that ship, module, ammo, and drone prices will not go up in turn? Simple case of supply and demand people. This will not cut off your supply entirely, but it will completely remove a large percentage of your suppliers. I would assume most players who make use of this program are strongly contemplating unloading their characters and leaving entirely.
While most of us can say that the multiboxing suicide ganks and bombers are annoying.. and may be glad to see their frequency decline (they will NEVER stop unless ccp wants to kill this game entirely).. this action is too broad without a patch hitting concurrently increasing the mineral payouts of refining modules and ore. CCP is removing a large portion of the game supply without supplementing it with anything. More players will not start mining until the prices are already increasing making the profits worth their time to change their professions. By that time the damage has been done and while the market will stabilize it will be much higher than what we currently see.
CCP this is too broad an action. Some people are upset about the pvp related actions of that segment of the player base. Those you see crying now about multiboxing miners don't seem to understand what they actually contribute to the game or are simply bandwagoning trolls who do understand but just like to watch the world burn.
I'll end with this I really have no horse in this game. Just wanted to throw that out there and maybe open some eyes.
See it from this side ... we just try to get a lot of rookies into the game. do we really want to tell them "oh and you can run in 10-20 people controlled by isboxer to kill you" or "you have to compete with 20 isboxed miners, and most of the time they will clear out the ice belt that you are happy you get one load of ice before it is gone"
is that really the message you want to tell them? |
Good Apollo BS4
Valar Morghulis.
Goonswarm Federation
65
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:16:25 -
[962] - Quote
Replicator tears best tears!! |
Steppa Musana
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:17:02 -
[963] - Quote
I don't understand why this has to apply to mining or ratting. You're going to lose hundreds of subscriptions over this CCP. What a terrible decision this is.
Please place an exception where broadcasting commands to mine rocks, shoot rats, jettison cargo, etc. is all permitted. |
Hurtado Soneka
Balls to the Walls
Brawls Deep
243
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:17:10 -
[964] - Quote
Well played CCP, get those damn cheaters the hell outta here! |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2450
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:17:39 -
[965] - Quote
Hott Pocket wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking. That would figure. First thing I did when I saw this post was switch training to stealth bombers/cyno V.
It is only the "logical" next step if you have failed to engage your brain. Does AFK cloaking utilize third party software? No. End discussion.
I believe that CCP also indicated they will look at AFK cloaking in the context of a major Sov overhaul.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Dazamin
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:19:08 -
[966] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Dazamin wrote:Doc Fury wrote:Dazamin wrote:Can we remove squad / wing / fleet warps too? Why would they remove an in-game feature when they are addressing out of game issues? You mad bro? Well its the behaviour that's the problem surely? Not sure how its achieved is really an issue. But I do think rid of in game fleet warps would be genuinely good for the same reasons as getting rid of out of game methods of key / mouse broadcasting would be. Make each character take their own actions, make their own mistakes, etc. Oh for crying out loud.... How it is achieved IS the issue. Which is why the EULA specifically mentions 3rd party software. If it is in the client, then everyone has it, CCP has implicitly approved it (they designed it), and thus no unfair advantage.
I could be wrong, but my understanding is this isn't about unfair advantage because not everyone has ISBoxer, its about being able to get multiple characters doing the exact same thing at the exact same time being a bad thing. Specifically people talk about ISBoxed Bomber fleets being more effective than a bomber fleet with seven individuals running one character each. I don't see whats unreasonable about applying that principle to fleet warps, in fact its the same reason that drone assign was heavily nerfed, because it involved the whole fleets actions being handed over to one player. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
239
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:19:18 -
[967] - Quote
Good Apollo BS4 wrote:Replicator tears best tears!!
CONDI corps and their recruiting policies, sigh |
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
3968
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:19:19 -
[968] - Quote
The tears of unfathomable sadness.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1267
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:19:20 -
[969] - Quote
Hott Pocket wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking. That would figure. First thing I did when I saw this post was switch training to stealth bombers/cyno V.
I still don't see the logic there. One is a duplication of commands to allow activity beyond player capability, the other a purely player fear driven effect from complete inactivity. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:22:03 -
[970] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote:
See it from this side ... we just try to get a lot of rookies into the game. do we really want to tell them "oh and you can run in 10-20 people controlled by isboxer to kill you" or "you have to compete with 20 isboxed miners, and most of the time they will clear out the ice belt that you are happy you get one load of ice before it is gone"
is that really the message you want to tell them?
I get what you're saying. But I see the reality of it being that single new player will likely never contribute as much to the economy as that single ISBoxer. And will be several months before he can even mine as much as one of his alts. That's assuming he's willing to put in the same amount of time.
I see this best for the new players, I just am fearful about how many we will lose compared to how many we will gain. I'm not going anywhere either way, CCP obviously thinks this is for the best so we will have to sit, wait, and see. |
|
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1267
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:22:35 -
[971] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:The behavior, fleet warping, is NOT the issue. Fleet warping is a feature built into the game by CCP. Since the portion of the EULA relating to ISBoxer refers SPECIFICALLY to 3rd party software and modifying the client, fleet warping, drone assist and other IN GAME features (features designed in game by CCP) are irrelevant.
It is just that simple. Maybe I made some mistake in phrasing but my point was that CCP has decided certain things are allowable and has provided the capability to do them with limitations under their control via the client, fully justifying being able to do x within the client but not with a 3rd party tool.
I never said fleet warping WAS an issue, I said CCP decided fleet warping was NOT an issue as they built it. |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
38
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:23:37 -
[972] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:Airi Cho wrote:
See it from this side ... we just try to get a lot of rookies into the game. do we really want to tell them "oh and you can run in 10-20 people controlled by isboxer to kill you" or "you have to compete with 20 isboxed miners, and most of the time they will clear out the ice belt that you are happy you get one load of ice before it is gone"
is that really the message you want to tell them?
I get what you're saying. But I see the reality of it being that single new player will likely never contribute as much to the economy as that single ISBoxer. And will be several months before he can even mine as much as one of his alts. That's assuming he's willing to put in the same amount of time. I see this best for the new players, I just am fearful about how many we will lose compared to how many we will gain. I'm not going anywhere either way, CCP obviously thinks this is for the best so we will have to sit, wait, and see.
right but i would rather have 20 newbies become profitable miners instead of 1 guy with 20 accounts. |
Villtora Aldurald
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:23:47 -
[973] - Quote
This is actually quite easy to check. 1 ip adres sending the exact same data to multiple clients at the same speed. They could even write a program to monitor the specific commands sent and sway the banhammer. It would require some decent hardware to keep up with all the packets. |
Steppa Musana
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:24:22 -
[974] - Quote
CCP can save almost the entirety of their mining alt ISBox subscriptions by allowing us to jettison cargo or move cargo to an Orca using broadcasting.
Without that ability it's too much of a hassle to mine and I personally will be retiring my entire fleet over it.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25644
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:25:13 -
[975] - Quote
don't worry about detection. I'm sure automatic broadcasting has a robotic signature over a time span, that isn't human.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2450
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:26:19 -
[976] - Quote
Dazamin wrote:
I could be wrong, but my understanding is this isn't about unfair advantage because not everyone has ISBoxer, its about being able to get multiple characters doing the exact same thing at the exact same time being a bad thing. Specifically people talk about ISBoxed Bomber fleets being more effective than a bomber fleet with seven individuals running one character each. I don't see whats unreasonable about applying that principle to fleet warps, in fact its the same reason that drone assign was heavily nerfed, because it involved the whole fleets actions being handed over to one player.
For the love of...
It is about using 3rd party software....to get characters to do stuff in the game. Really, read the OP it is quite clear. See, when CCP Falcon wrote:
Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.
He was referring to this passage in the EULA:
Quote:A. Specifically Restricted Conduct Your continued access to the System and license to play the Game is subject to proper conduct. Without limiting CCP's rights to control the Game environment, and the conduct of the players within that environment, CCP prohibits the following practices that CCP has determined detract from the overall user experience of the users playing the Game.
- You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.
- You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
- You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.
- You may not use the Software, or any information accessible through the System, to bypass the System login architecture or create or provide any other means through which the System may be accessed and/or the Game may be played by others, as, for example, through server emulators.
- You may not submit any content to any chat room or other public forum within the Game that is harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, libelous or defamatory, encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liabilities, or is unlawful in any other way, including without limitation the submission of content that infringes on a third-partyGÇÖs intellectual property rights.
- You may not engage in any conduct that results in an Account containing items, objects, currency, character attributes, rank, or status that are inappropriate for the level or rank of the character contained in the Account, including without limitation arranging, making or accepting transfers of items to a character without adequate consideration, thereby augmenting or aggregating items in an Account and increasing its value for an Account sale.
I have bolded, italicized and highlighted the relevant section.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
239
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:26:39 -
[977] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Hott Pocket wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking. That would figure. First thing I did when I saw this post was switch training to stealth bombers/cyno V. I still don't see the logic there. One is a duplication of commands to allow activity beyond player capability, the other a purely player fear driven effect from complete inactivity.
To reiterate what I've said a few times- we are in favor of this broadcast change- it sucks for a few of us, but it's an overall good change for the game.
The reason for the change isn't "they're using 3rd party software or not". It's being able to unreasonably project the power that one player has in Eve.
It doesn't matter if someone is sitting in a system cloaked all day, personally. Jump fatigue and range nerfs really limited the effect of AFK cloaking. If CCP is going with the route of putting more power into the individual player rather than how many accounts that player controls (which is what this nerf is), then AFK cloaking would be a logical next step. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
319
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:30:58 -
[978] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
To reiterate what I've said a few times- we are in favor of this broadcast change- it sucks for a few of us, but it's an overall good change for the game.
The reason for the change isn't "they're using 3rd party software or not". It's being able to unreasonably project the power that one player has in Eve.
It doesn't matter if someone is sitting in a system cloaked all day, personally. Jump fatigue and range nerfs really limited the effect of AFK cloaking. If CCP is going with the route of putting more power into the individual player rather than how many accounts that player controls (which is what this nerf is), then AFK cloaking would be a logical next step.
Edit: I explained the similarity on the previous page, check there, not retyping that **** again.
also that's the last time I troll about afk cloaking and get caught up in an actual argument about it
AFK cloaking is a perfectly fine and normal mechanic. Either ignore the guy and hope that he is AFK, or take defensive measures. Problem solved. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2450
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:33:17 -
[979] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:
To reiterate what I've said a few times- we are in favor of this broadcast change- it sucks for a few of us, but it's an overall good change for the game.
The reason for the change isn't "they're using 3rd party software or not". It's being able to unreasonably project the power that one player has in Eve.
It doesn't matter if someone is sitting in a system cloaked all day, personally. Jump fatigue and range nerfs really limited the effect of AFK cloaking. If CCP is going with the route of putting more power into the individual player rather than how many accounts that player controls (which is what this nerf is), then AFK cloaking would be a logical next step.
Edit: I explained the similarity on the previous page, check there, not retyping that **** again.
also that's the last time I troll about afk cloaking and get caught up in an actual argument about it
AFK cloaking is a perfectly fine and normal mechanic. Either ignore the guy and hope that he is AFK, or take defensive measures. Problem solved.
It is totally irrelevant to this discussion as well. Does AFK cloaking make use of 3rd party software? No. No EULA violation even remotely possible. Discussion over (as far as this thread is concerned--i.e. take it elsewhere).
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
240
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:35:42 -
[980] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:AFK cloaking is a perfectly fine and normal mechanic. Either ignore the guy and hope that he is AFK, or take defensive measures. Problem solved.
No.
Look at the trillions of isk worth of damage that one man (Replicator) with tens of accounts did to goons, according to Gevlon Goblin-statistician extraordinaire |
|
|
Dazamin
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:36:49 -
[981] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Dazamin wrote:
I could be wrong, but my understanding is this isn't about unfair advantage because not everyone has ISBoxer, its about being able to get multiple characters doing the exact same thing at the exact same time being a bad thing. Specifically people talk about ISBoxed Bomber fleets being more effective than a bomber fleet with seven individuals running one character each. I don't see whats unreasonable about applying that principle to fleet warps, in fact its the same reason that drone assign was heavily nerfed, because it involved the whole fleets actions being handed over to one player.
For the love of... It is about using 3rd party software....to get characters to do stuff in the game. Really, read the OP it is quite clear. See, when CCP Falcon wrote: Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation. He was referring to this passage in the EULA: Quote:A. Specifically Restricted Conduct Your continued access to the System and license to play the Game is subject to proper conduct. Without limiting CCP's rights to control the Game environment, and the conduct of the players within that environment, CCP prohibits the following practices that CCP has determined detract from the overall user experience of the users playing the Game.
- You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.
- You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
- You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.
- You may not use the Software, or any information accessible through the System, to bypass the System login architecture or create or provide any other means through which the System may be accessed and/or the Game may be played by others, as, for example, through server emulators.
- You may not submit any content to any chat room or other public forum within the Game that is harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, libelous or defamatory, encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liabilities, or is unlawful in any other way, including without limitation the submission of content that infringes on a third-partyGÇÖs intellectual property rights.
- You may not engage in any conduct that results in an Account containing items, objects, currency, character attributes, rank, or status that are inappropriate for the level or rank of the character contained in the Account, including without limitation arranging, making or accepting transfers of items to a character without adequate consideration, thereby augmenting or aggregating items in an Account and increasing its value for an Account sale.
I have bolded, italicized and highlighted the relevant section.
This would make sense if I suggested CCP should ban people who use fleet warp, since I never mentioned the EULA and it has no relevance to what I said, I'm not sure why you're quoting it.
I was just wondering if, while we're on the subject of automation, things in game that allow one person to control the actions of a number of pilots (like fleet warps) could be looked at, like other similar in game mechanics have been (like drone assign). |
RoAnnon
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
16074
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:37:47 -
[982] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:I'm a Mac user, and to be perfectly honest it would never have occurred to me to control EVE clients through AppleScript--though, granted, that's because I usually control one, and at most two, accounts at once on a single monitor, and those two accounts are usually doing distinctly different things.
That's my case. I've used Applescript in other apps, but never even thought about trying to multibox EVE with it. Most accounts I've ever run at once was 3. I have two displays, and I had one miner, one hauler and a scout going. Only did that once though. And haven't run 2 for a long time.
Frankly, if someone thinks they MUST multibox to play EVE, they're doing it wrong.
So, you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1268
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:39:05 -
[983] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:To reiterate what I've said a few times- we are in favor of this broadcast change- it sucks for a few of us, but it's an overall good change for the game.
The reason for the change isn't "they're using 3rd party software or not". It's being able to unreasonably project the power that one player has in Eve.
It doesn't matter if someone is sitting in a system cloaked all day, personally. Jump fatigue and range nerfs really limited the effect of AFK cloaking. If CCP is going with the route of putting more power into the individual player rather than how many accounts that player controls (which is what this nerf is), then AFK cloaking would be a logical next step.
Edit: I explained the similarity on the previous page, check there, not retyping that **** again.
also that's the last time I troll about afk cloaking and get caught up in an actual argument about it
I guess I'm not seeing the link between that and this. Specifically the conflation of the power of a single player and that of a single character. This relates to the former while AFK cloaking relates to the latter. There may arguably be an issue with cloaking, but this doesn't necessarily support that notion in any direct way I can discern.
As you noted the "issue" lies with the lack of need for interaction, which, being so low, isn't notably changed by the line of thinking for banning command broadcasting software.
I guess this is an agree to disagree thing, actual thoughts on AFK cloaking aside. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6483
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:40:36 -
[984] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:also that's the last time I troll about afk cloaking and get caught up in an actual argument about it
No way is this the last time.
You know it will happen again . Hey at least you can log in all your afk cloakers at once, though then you must hurriedly get them to cloak (since you can't broadcast the cloak command).
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Arla Sarain
140
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:42:26 -
[985] - Quote
I imagine the online counter will drop on Tranquility. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
240
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:42:37 -
[986] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:also that's the last time I troll about afk cloaking and get caught up in an actual argument about it No way is this the last time. You know it will happen again . Hey at least you can log in all your afk cloakers at once, though then you must hurriedly get them to cloak (since you can't broadcast the cloak command).
Thank goodness I can automate the cloak to run for 23 hours on my 17 afk cloakers. Otherwise I'd actually have to play this game |
Ssabat Thraxx
Dominion Tenebrarum
Reverberation Project
1027
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:43:51 -
[987] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:CCP can save almost the entirety of their mining alt ISBox subscriptions by allowing us to jettison cargo or move cargo to an Orca using broadcasting. Without that ability it's too much of a hassle to mine and I personally will be retiring my entire fleet over it.
Awesome! Dont let the door hit ya in the arse on the way out!
\m/ O.o \m/
"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
241
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:45:30 -
[988] - Quote
I give it 4 megathreads before this guy and others saying the same thing start making threads in Eve Industry about the rising prices of all t1 items made from minerals, because all of these cheating multibox miners are quitting |
Paranoid Loyd
2800
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:48:50 -
[989] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:CCP can save almost the entirety of their mining alt ISBox subscriptions by allowing us to jettison cargo or move cargo to an Orca using broadcasting. Without that ability it's too much of a hassle to mine and I personally will be retiring my entire fleet over it.
ROFL
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
|
Firestorm Delta
Aphotic Machina
42
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:49:09 -
[990] - Quote
Dazamin wrote:
This would make sense if I suggested CCP should ban people who use fleet warp, since I never mentioned the EULA and it has no relevance to what I said, I'm not sure why you're quoting it.
I was just wondering if, while we're on the subject of automation, things in game that allow one person to control the actions of a number of pilots (like fleet warps) could be looked at, like other similar in game mechanics have been (like drone assign).
Fleet warp is entirely different as its intended to let a fleet actually travel as one. Larger ships already suffer from being slower in warp, making fleet warp any different will just make it harder to do things as a fleet.
We want things that allow for groups of players to work together, not one guy with 30 accounts. Warp fleet is there for the former. |
|
|
Marilyn Maulerant
Throng of the Drone Amalgamate
The Ditanian Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:49:26 -
[991] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Marilyn Maulerant wrote:Seems that the OP here goes 100% against the following line in that page "Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA." yes andthey CHANGED their terms. Somethingthey are entitled to. And they are giving a fair warning of 1 month in advance.
I don't disagree with it at all, in fact I like it TBH, and I think that for most of us, it won't matter.
If anyone reads the text on that page though, they will need to remember that this supersedes that now.
|
Ginger Barbarella
2041
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:49:26 -
[992] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:
So what happens when CCP's connections is being DDoSed or doing it's usual lag at random late hours and all my commands arrive at the server at the same time? From the server's perspective it'd look like I'm using a repeater but in reality all I did was alt tab through a bunch of windows quickly.
Blue sky must mean the planet is surrounded by water (according to your logic)...
"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3103
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:50:18 -
[993] - Quote
Another unfair automated thing that can be removed is auto-repeat for mining equipment.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25645
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:51:39 -
[994] - Quote
hahahah that's just mean bro.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2451
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:52:14 -
[995] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:AFK cloaking is a perfectly fine and normal mechanic. Either ignore the guy and hope that he is AFK, or take defensive measures. Problem solved. No. Look at the trillions of isk worth of damage that one man (Replicator) with tens of accounts did to goons, according to Gevlon Goblin- statistician extraordinaireEdit: Teckos Pech wrote:It is totally irrelevant to this discussion as well. Does AFK cloaking make use of 3rd party software? No. No EULA violation even remotely possible. Discussion over (as far as this thread is concerned--i.e. take it elsewhere). Counterpoint: we and others use isboxer to manage afk cloakers, both to move them into position and to gather intel from them blammo
AFK cloaking is still irrelevant so long as you aren't using ISBoxer (and broadcasts--using it to manage CPU and/or memory is another thing). The cloaking mechanic itself is a built in game feature. So, no issue.
Seriously people need to stop trying to usurp this to their own personal crusade.
EDIT: BTW, that argument against AFK cloaking is like saying ratting is against the EULA since some ratters used ISBoxer.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Firestorm Delta
Aphotic Machina
42
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:53:23 -
[996] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Another unfair automated thing that can be removed is auto-repeat for mining equipment.
I could actually go along with that, the rare times I do mine I'm not afk anyway. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
320
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:53:41 -
[997] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:I give it 4 megathreads before this guy and others saying the same thing start making threads in Eve Industry about the rising prices of all t1 items made from minerals, because all of these cheating multibox miners are quitting
The rise in prices for mods should lead to a decrease in Plex prices, making the overall effect positive. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1268
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:53:48 -
[998] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Another unfair automated thing that can be removed is auto-repeat for mining equipment.
How is that unfair? |
Marilyn Maulerant
Throng of the Drone Amalgamate
The Ditanian Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:54:09 -
[999] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:hahahah that's just mean bro.
Naw, just make it apply to all modules in the game and it would be fair.
o/
|
Hal Morsh
Exodus Mining Corp
203
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:54:15 -
[1000] - Quote
1 person operated fleets won't be against the rules, just using a program to operate them all at once will be, you can still click through each client, you just can't use a program to automate it.
Even if you found a way for isboxer to delay it's commands randomly to each miner it would still be automation and against the rules.
Lets face it, isboxers were a literal cancer killing eve.
CCP - Outpost code is scary.
CCP Greyscale - Starbases - They need to look @#$%ing awesome, and people need to want them and
want to be around them and have them and use them and like them and want them and stuff.
|
|
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3107
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:56:52 -
[1001] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Another unfair automated thing that can be removed is auto-repeat for mining equipment. How is that unfair?
Repeated automated input without any user interaction, it gives an unfair advantage to those of us that use it. Its a fairly abused mechanic too if you consider all of the AFK miners about.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
47
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:58:06 -
[1002] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Another unfair automated thing that can be removed is auto-repeat for mining equipment. How is that unfair?
Automation. CCP needs to take a fair stance on these things after all.
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:58:47 -
[1003] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:AFK cloaking is still irrelevant so long as you aren't using ISBoxer (and broadcasts--using it to manage CPU and/or memory is another thing). The cloaking mechanic itself is a built in game feature. So, no issue.
Seriously people need to stop trying to usurp this to their own personal crusade.
EDIT: BTW, that argument against AFK cloaking is like saying ratting is against the EULA since some ratters used ISBoxer.
Every time you post, it's reminding me about afk cloaking because of your signature. Thanks.
And no, it's not. But nice try. |
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
47
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:59:00 -
[1004] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Another unfair automated thing that can be removed is auto-repeat for mining equipment. How is that unfair? Repeated automated input without any user interaction, it gives an unfair advantage to those of us that use it. Its a fairly abused mechanic too if you consider all of the AFK miners about.
Yeah dude, people should have to actually play this game if they want to progress.
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1269
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:59:23 -
[1005] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Another unfair automated thing that can be removed is auto-repeat for mining equipment. How is that unfair? Repeated automated input without any user interaction, it gives an unfair advantage to those of us that use it. Its a fairly abused mechanic too if you consider all of the AFK miners about. And how does that differ from the auto repeat of any other module? Or are you in favor of the wholesale removal of auto repeat? |
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
342
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:59:43 -
[1006] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned. CCP & CSM's ... Posts like this do absolutely zero good. You both need to detail what IS allowed, and what ISN'T allowed. This typical "VagueBook" garbage doesn't fly with any of the players, and a simple explanation detailing what is allowed and what isn't, in a bullet style list, wouldn't have gotten you 40 pages of "please explain what you mean" posts. Seriously, stop beating your heads with boards like in Monty Python and talk to us like adults. We're grown ups, we can handle it.
As that was exactly what the first post was (essentially), you're premise is flawed. What happens when they do that is that the people who don't like it spend 40 pages trying to find the edges of the rule so they can try and skirt the spirit while obeying the letter of the rule.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
Cancel Align NOW
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
261
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:00:20 -
[1007] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:I give it 4 megathreads before this guy and others saying the same thing start making threads in Eve Industry about the rising prices of all t1 items made from minerals, because all of these cheating multibox miners are quitting
The great irony is that as ingame prices rise plex prices shall fall.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:01:07 -
[1008] - Quote
Also, it's a proven fact that the CCP is more likely to push through a change depending on the relative number of posts from members of Goonswarm Federation in the thread. The more posts, the more likely the change is going to happen- whether or not the posts support the change.
I think we'll keep posting on this one. |
Firestorm Delta
Aphotic Machina
42
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:01:36 -
[1009] - Quote
Syllviaa wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Another unfair automated thing that can be removed is auto-repeat for mining equipment. How is that unfair? Automation. CCP needs to take a fair stance on these things after all.
They did already.
Are you using third party software/hardware? If yes then you are in violation of the EULA.
I can only get behind removing auto repeat from mining lasers, or at least strip miners to cut down on afk mining, also I know full well it'll never happen. |
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
47
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:01:44 -
[1010] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Another unfair automated thing that can be removed is auto-repeat for mining equipment. How is that unfair? Repeated automated input without any user interaction, it gives an unfair advantage to those of us that use it. Its a fairly abused mechanic too if you consider all of the AFK miners about. And how does that differ from the auto repeat of any other module? Or are you in favor of the wholesale removal of auto repeat?
Yep, auto-repeat needs to go, period. CCP has shown that they are willing to change their stance on these thing & the banning of ISboxer automation was a beginning step in the right direction. Now they need to follow through.
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
|
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3107
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:01:55 -
[1011] - Quote
Hal Morsh wrote:1 person operated fleets won't be against the rules, just using a program to operate them all at once will be, you can still click through each client, you just can't use a program to automate it.
Even if you found a way for isboxer to delay it's commands randomly to each miner it would still be automation and against the rules.
Lets face it, isboxers were a literal cancer killing eve.
I agree using a program such as the .exe for eve to operate all the mining lasers at once and make them repeat exactly as the cycle ends is cancerous and killing eve.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Marilyn Maulerant
Throng of the Drone Amalgamate
The Ditanian Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:02:52 -
[1012] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Another unfair automated thing that can be removed is auto-repeat for mining equipment. How is that unfair? Repeated automated input without any user interaction, it gives an unfair advantage to those of us that use it. Its a fairly abused mechanic too if you consider all of the AFK miners about.
Then you wholeheartedly support applying the one cycle per click limit on ALL modules in EvE right?
Armor reppers, shield boosters, resistance mods, guns, missiles, ect ect ect.
o/
|
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
47
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:03:04 -
[1013] - Quote
Firestorm Delta wrote:Syllviaa wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Another unfair automated thing that can be removed is auto-repeat for mining equipment. How is that unfair? Automation. CCP needs to take a fair stance on these things after all. They did already. Are you using third party software/hardware? If yes then you are in violation of the EULA. I can only get behind removing auto repeat from mining lasers, or at least strip miners to cut down on afk mining, also I know full well it'll never happen.
That's what the ISboxers said, but CCP that they are willing to change their stance on these matters.
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
Hott Pocket
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:04:41 -
[1014] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Bakla Firoz wrote:I was so shocked when I found out that CCP specifically confirmed multiple times that isboxing to control multiple accounts was allowed. So why the sudden change of heart?
Nothing has changed and therefore you owe those people who have trained up 10, 20, 30, 50(?) accounts a MASSIVE apology. How about those who have recently paid for 3 month (the minimum) subscription on isboxer because you said it was okay? The very least you could do is admit you were wrong. 1 month is minimum.
I have 10 accounts. Three of them I will keep forever, because I absolutely love Eve. 7 are ISBoxer miners, paid in full until October 2015. I fully support the (effective) banning of ISBoxer, as it will be easier to be competitive without it. However, will CCP offer ISBoxers with a significant real $$ investment a way out? Perhaps converting unused subs to PLEX, or moving the game time to my other accounts?
I understand that the game will change as CCP sees fit, but as the poster above stated, CCP has repeatedly clarified that they are ok with ISBoxer. If it had been a grey area, I would have never started the extra accounts. Here's hoping CCP will make this right...
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3107
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:05:42 -
[1015] - Quote
Marilyn Maulerant wrote:La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Another unfair automated thing that can be removed is auto-repeat for mining equipment. How is that unfair? Repeated automated input without any user interaction, it gives an unfair advantage to those of us that use it. Its a fairly abused mechanic too if you consider all of the AFK miners about. Then you wholeheartedly support applying the one cycle per click limit on ALL modules in EvE right? Armor reppers, shield boosters, resistance mods, guns, missiles, ect ect ect. o/
It doesn't make sense for non-mining equipment because in 10%TIDI we only get one cycle in the first place. Miners never experience 10%TIDI in great numbers so auto repeat as mike azariah put it "doesn't make sense."
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Macker Momo
The Big Moe
Eternal Pretorian Alliance
26
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:07:08 -
[1016] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:Black Ambulance wrote:February at Evenews24
Devs allowing Isboxer back as there were no Christmas bonuses due to mass unsub From my read the only mass anything here is the people in loud SUPPORT of this move. Let the botters leave to farm another game. I don't care in the slightest.
Yes. Go quickly! I'm wondering who will buy their toons...miner 14, miner 15, miner 16. Talk about a grief magnet.
Eve releases are coming so quickly, I had to start wearing a seat belt.
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
342
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:07:20 -
[1017] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Except they already have a massive amount of subjectiveness with their current wording. Just look at how many pages of argument this has spawned.
As to the defender thing, I merely mentioned that because if i didn't, what would happen if someone in a site gets dropped? WOuld he have to take the losses without trying to defend himself?
The only reason this is spawning so much discussion is people are being deliberately obtuse to try and wiggle around it. And your defense argument is a strawman. Let it go before you make yourself look even more foolish.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1270
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:08:19 -
[1018] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Marilyn Maulerant wrote:La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Another unfair automated thing that can be removed is auto-repeat for mining equipment. How is that unfair? Repeated automated input without any user interaction, it gives an unfair advantage to those of us that use it. Its a fairly abused mechanic too if you consider all of the AFK miners about. Then you wholeheartedly support applying the one cycle per click limit on ALL modules in EvE right? Armor reppers, shield boosters, resistance mods, guns, missiles, ect ect ect. o/ It doesn't make sense for non-mining equipment because in 10%TIDI we only get one cycle in the first place. Miners never experience 10%TIDI in great numbers so auto repeat as mike azariah put it "doesn't make sense." So outside of Tidi it would be fair for all modules since they operate the same and inside of Tidi it doesn't work thus it would still be fair to remove it for all modules. |
Firestorm Delta
Aphotic Machina
42
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:09:50 -
[1019] - Quote
Syllviaa wrote:Firestorm Delta wrote:Syllviaa wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Another unfair automated thing that can be removed is auto-repeat for mining equipment. How is that unfair? Automation. CCP needs to take a fair stance on these things after all. They did already. Are you using third party software/hardware? If yes then you are in violation of the EULA. I can only get behind removing auto repeat from mining lasers, or at least strip miners to cut down on afk mining, also I know full well it'll never happen. That's what the ISboxers said, but CCP have shown that they are willing to change their stance on these matters.
ISboxers are also using third party software that was questionable in regards to the EULA, the way modules function is a part of EVE and functions in the way CCP chooses. Everyone has the same functionality in regards to modules. If you don't want any automation at all then you are more than capable of turning off auto-repeat on all your modules.
The only thing CCP did now was take a stance on the use of something that has always been technically against the EULA. The fact that they allowed it for some time does not change that fact. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3108
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:10:51 -
[1020] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:So outside of Tidi it would be fair for all modules since they operate the same and inside of Tidi it doesn't work thus it would still be fair to remove it for all modules.
Of course because of TIDI its necessary for other modules but, miners do not experience it in great numbers so its not necessary for them. As mike azariah would say "it doesn't make sense" for mining equipment to have auto-repeat.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
|
|
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7286
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:11:18 -
[1021] - Quote
Hott Pocket wrote:I fully support the (effective) banning of ISBoxer, as it will be easier to be competitive without it. However, will CCP offer ISBoxers with a significant real $$ investment a way out? Perhaps converting unused subs to PLEX, or moving the game time to my other accounts?
Good luck with that.
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'.
|
Andiedeath
Sefem Ortus
Ushra'Khan
286
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:11:44 -
[1022] - Quote
Finally! RIP ISBoxer!
Director
Swift Angels Alliance
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3247397#post3247397
INGAME CHANNEL: Sefem Public
|
Marilyn Maulerant
Throng of the Drone Amalgamate
The Ditanian Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:12:41 -
[1023] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Marilyn Maulerant wrote:La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Another unfair automated thing that can be removed is auto-repeat for mining equipment. How is that unfair? Repeated automated input without any user interaction, it gives an unfair advantage to those of us that use it. Its a fairly abused mechanic too if you consider all of the AFK miners about. Then you wholeheartedly support applying the one cycle per click limit on ALL modules in EvE right? Armor reppers, shield boosters, resistance mods, guns, missiles, ect ect ect. o/ It doesn't make sense for non-mining equipment because in 10%TIDI we only get one cycle in the first place. Miners never experience 10%TIDI in great numbers so auto repeat as mike azariah put it "doesn't make sense."
so then no?, and if so, you are a hypocrite.
if you wish to make something apply to a certain module just because you think it doesn't affect others, then you are forgetting about AFK OGBs, where the ship is left AFK for all intents and purposes to boost fleets, also, your argument about tidi is irrelevant since not everyone in EvE will ever be in that situation, how would fights be if everyone's guns and repppers stopped after one cycle?, what about the guys who go into an anom, and set out drones?, should their drones fire only one shot each and then disengage until told to fire again?
AFK miners pay for their being afk, there are many ganking organizations that just love to gank.grief AFK miners, so if you hate miners so much, why not just go join CODE and become a Knight of the New Order?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10708
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:13:49 -
[1024] - Quote
Beautiful.
I never thought you'd have the spine to actually do this, but you surprised me. Bravo.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
5709
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:14:09 -
[1025] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Plex prices dropping from lack of ISBoxing = more people buying plex to MCT and other things.
Plex consumption will likely not change very much. Plex prices in game may drop however. But the in game price doesn't have a direct effect on CCP's wallet, only an indirect effect, and we don't know how the supply of plex has changed as prices increased. Or how much was simply due to manipulation.
Bingo.
If PLEX prices were where they used to be back in better days, I'd be using them to train more than one character at a time. Presently they cost almost everything I have as I don't get to grind much.
Now, for everbody who is like "Hurrrr durrr there goes my 20+ accounts Eve is dead hurrr durrr CCP dancing in the street for nickels in a year" I have a little song for you.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3108
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:15:03 -
[1026] - Quote
Marilyn Maulerant wrote:
so then no?, and if so, you are a hypocrite.
if you wish to make something apply to a certain module just because you think it doesn't affect others, then you are forgetting about AFK OGBs, where the ship is left AFK for all intents and purposes to boost fleets, also, your argument about tidi is irrelevant since not everyone in EvE will ever be in that situation, how would fights be if everyone's guns and repppers stopped after one cycle?, what about the guys who go into an anom, and set out drones?, should their drones fire only one shot each and then disengage until told to fire again?
AFK miners pay for their being afk, there are many ganking organizations that just love to gank.grief AFK miners, so if you hate miners so much, why not just go join CODE and become a Knight of the New Order?
Its nuance, not that I expect you flagrant mechanic exploiters to understand the difference between the two. Auto repeat being a part of mining equipment is just as much of an grievous problem as isboxed bomber fleets. In fact the two are nearly identical which means auto repeat should not be on mining equipment.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
47
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:15:14 -
[1027] - Quote
Firestorm Delta wrote:ISboxers are also using third party software that was questionable in regards to the EULA, the way modules function is a part of EVE and functions in the way CCP chooses. Everyone has the same functionality in regards to modules. If you don't want any automation at all then you are more than capable of turning off auto-repeat on all your modules.
The only thing CCP did now was take a stance on the use of something that has always been technically against the EULA. The fact that they allowed it for some time does not change that fact.
CCP has shown that they are willing to revise their stance of unfair gameplay mechanics in the past. The recent policy change regarding ISboxer & automation are great examples of this new stance CCP is undertaking. Given time, there is no reason for them to not go all the way for the sake of fair gameplay & immersion.
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1271
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:15:26 -
[1028] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:So outside of Tidi it would be fair for all modules since they operate the same and inside of Tidi it doesn't work thus it would still be fair to remove it for all modules. Of course because of TIDI its necessary for other modules but, miners do not experience it in great numbers so its not necessary for them. As mike azariah would say "it doesn't make sense" for mining equipment to have auto-repeat. The only fair solution then is that the use of any non-mining module with auto repeat will cause the engagement of Tidi and mining modules will have auto repeat removed. Since we are creating a global rule for one type based on a situational condition of another that situation also needs to become a global. |
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
342
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:15:30 -
[1029] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Technical question.. If I train 10 parrots to repeat by voice the commands I give and each one is interpretated by a voice recognition software controlling one computer.. how would that classify? I mean.. besides "sick"
Don't make me call PETA on you. Those ******* are crazy, so please - just stay away from the parrots.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
342
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:16:47 -
[1030] - Quote
Mechanic Hotz wrote:I think it should be allowed seen as its been legal so far and your paying for your accounts legally
And I think I should be able to challenge you to a duel and shoot you in the face when you insult me. I mean after all that was legal before, so why can't it be legal now?
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
|
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
342
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:18:25 -
[1031] - Quote
Mendeli Vium wrote:so if i understand correctly i can use IS Boxer to tile clients on my comp but not activate mods or navigate with it ?
Yes
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3108
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:18:38 -
[1032] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:So outside of Tidi it would be fair for all modules since they operate the same and inside of Tidi it doesn't work thus it would still be fair to remove it for all modules. Of course because of TIDI its necessary for other modules but, miners do not experience it in great numbers so its not necessary for them. As mike azariah would say "it doesn't make sense" for mining equipment to have auto-repeat. The only fair solution then is that the use of any non-mining module with auto repeat will cause the engagement of Tidi and mining modules will have auto repeat removed. Since we are creating a global rule for one type based on a situational condition of another that situation also needs to become a global.
I can agree to this, the amount of TIDI in a system will be determined by current factors and now the amount of mining equipment in use. We should also add autopilot to this list because that is also unfair automation.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
342
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:19:35 -
[1033] - Quote
Jared Noan wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters
Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
Reading into this, fleet warping could be considered a banable offence. You want to take out the lawyer talk, so will I.
Just when I thought all the ridiculous arguments had been taken. Oh wait, some gormless bellend already brought this up.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25648
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:21:01 -
[1034] - Quote
WTS mining characters is already happening in bazaar.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
342
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:21:22 -
[1035] - Quote
Godren Storm wrote:Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought.
Not really, since CCP included those commands inside the game client, I think we can safely assume that their use is ok. Otherwise, they could just delete the command options.
I do wish people would quit using the same dumbass arguments over and over again.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project
Surely You're Joking
614
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:21:46 -
[1036] - Quote
Because of Falcon
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Marilyn Maulerant
Throng of the Drone Amalgamate
The Ditanian Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:21:58 -
[1037] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Marilyn Maulerant wrote:
so then no?, and if so, you are a hypocrite.
if you wish to make something apply to a certain module just because you think it doesn't affect others, then you are forgetting about AFK OGBs, where the ship is left AFK for all intents and purposes to boost fleets, also, your argument about tidi is irrelevant since not everyone in EvE will ever be in that situation, how would fights be if everyone's guns and repppers stopped after one cycle?, what about the guys who go into an anom, and set out drones?, should their drones fire only one shot each and then disengage until told to fire again?
AFK miners pay for their being afk, there are many ganking organizations that just love to gank.grief AFK miners, so if you hate miners so much, why not just go join CODE and become a Knight of the New Order?
Its nuance, not that I expect you flagrant mechanic exploiters to understand the difference between the two. Auto repeat being a part of mining equipment is just as much of an grievous problem as isboxed bomber fleets. In fact the two are nearly identical which means auto repeat should not be on mining equipment.
w00t name called in 2 posts..
well My dear sir, I don't use IS-boxer LOL so I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by pointing out facts.
I do run 4 monitors, and multiple accounts, and I click to each instance of the client to make it do my bidding.
I do also love how you've completely evaded my questions though.
GOOD JOB!!!!!!!
PS. I know some folks in CODE, I'd be willing to put in a good word for you if you'd like?
|
Firestorm Delta
Aphotic Machina
42
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:23:39 -
[1038] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Godren Storm wrote:Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought. Not really, since CCP included those commands inside the game client, I think we can safely assume that their use is ok. Otherwise, they could just delete the command options. I do wish people would quit using the same dumbass arguments over and over again.
But there aren't any good arguments, how are they going to show how upset they are if they don't have anything to argue with other than ignorance? Oh wait. |
Rayzilla Zaraki
Tandokuno
271
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:24:47 -
[1039] - Quote
Sarah Shadow wrote:
The other load is the question of why activities couldn't be segregated based on their impact to others.
I think CCP Falcon was quite clear on this: whatever affects the Eve Universe.
Whether it is PvP, PvE, mining or freighting goods from here to there, input broadcasting affects the Eve universe.
PvP - pretty obvious (or at least I would hope it is)
PvE - one player can wipe out multiple sites easily removing them for others and also gaining the player a distinct advantage in income.
Mining - one player decimating an ice field in 10 minutes using 20+ skiffs all responding to one click. Does the work of 20 players for just one. Removes content, income advantage.
Freighting goods - this one is not as obvious, or frankly, bad as the others. But runs a similar line to mining.
This is a great move by CCP. I regularly run three accounts but I click on each one to accomplish my goals. I am glad to see the days of 20 cruisers sitting on a gate, all boosting each others sensors to insta-lock, then targeting all 20 on a ship with one click and delivering a 20-ship mega-alpha with one click GONE.
P.S. Dear ISBoxer guys: can I haz ur stuffs?
Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
342
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:25:58 -
[1040] - Quote
Iyokus Patrouette wrote:Where is this list of Do's and Don'ts regarding Multi... whatever we're calling it.
Kind of seems everything technically has an impact on the game, i'm curious where they're drawing the lines in the sand on this.
FFS, someone even made a damned flow chart. It's not hard. It's really not.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
|
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3108
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:26:19 -
[1041] - Quote
Marilyn Maulerant wrote:
w00t name called in 2 posts..
well My dear sir, I don't use IS-boxer LOL so I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by pointing out facts.
I do run 4 monitors, and multiple accounts, and I click to each instance of the client to make it do my bidding.
I do also love how you've completely evaded my questions though.
GOOD JOB!!!!!!!
PS. I know some folks in CODE, I'd be willing to put in a good word for you if you'd like?
So basically you are a no good cheater that is abusing a mechanic.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Zalena Skytrayn
The Pack
Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:27:38 -
[1042] - Quote
FZappa wrote:this is .. interesting . i guess its time to downsize my mining fleet , i only used to isbox 6 miners , but since broadcasting is not allowed anymore i dont see a point in subbing all 6 . probably go down to 3 , more manageable to manually control. i can imagine the people using 20+ accounts dropping most of those now. side effect would include massive amounts of mining toons going up for sale , steep increase in mineral and ice prices , decrease in plex prices (?) . fun fun.
I Multibox (Mining) with 10 Accounts.. 1 x Rorqual booster, and 9 miners.
2 screens, Main character on the big screen, she controls the squad warp if **** happens, the other 9 are on the 2nd smaller monitor.
It takes me best part of 5 - 10 minutes, to log all accounts in, join them to fleet and get them warping, then once in the belt, another 2 mins to get them all mining. after that, it's constant listening to 'Asteroid Depleted' messages, and quickly switching from tab to tab to make sure they are all active ...
My previous corp, I thought was quite successful capital building corp, but after moving to a bigger alliance, I realised that we just can't compete, not even slightly, with what can only be described as massive industrial capability, from pvp focused groups.
Today's news, has just given hope, that there might actually be a future once again for myself, and the friends that have flown with me for the last few years, and that we may actually be capable of competing, especially after reading all the posts from people that seemingly can't mine with more than one account manually ??
I have always shot down people that say mining is boring, with the response 'you should try it with 10 accounts, it's a full time job' I enjoy that, I enjoy the challenge of keeping the efficiency up as best I can, while maintaining my squads safety, that's eve for me, not some crap like ISboxer..
This is one of the best announcements I can ever recall from CCP, well done ... it gives the smaller scale guys a chance, and hope for the future :)
As a side note, I also PVP, but with 1 account, and no miners on whilst doing so... mining is easy with multi accounts, but I never felt comfortable pvp with more than 1 (unlike the isboxer posts above regarding quite large fleets.. good riddance ...)
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1271
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:28:27 -
[1043] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:So outside of Tidi it would be fair for all modules since they operate the same and inside of Tidi it doesn't work thus it would still be fair to remove it for all modules. Of course because of TIDI its necessary for other modules but, miners do not experience it in great numbers so its not necessary for them. As mike azariah would say "it doesn't make sense" for mining equipment to have auto-repeat. The only fair solution then is that the use of any non-mining module with auto repeat will cause the engagement of Tidi and mining modules will have auto repeat removed. Since we are creating a global rule for one type based on a situational condition of another that situation also needs to become a global. I can agree to this, the amount of TIDI in a system will be determined by current factors and now the amount of mining equipment in use. We should also add autopilot to this list because that is also unfair automation. Current factors for Tidi are insufficient. As stated this needs to be global. Every non-mining module needs to induce a level of Tidi sufficient to cause auto repeat to fail at a rate comparable with the situations justifying the mining module nerf. This probably needs to include some dropped requests as well to get the full max Tidi experience, but that is debatable.
Tidi would need full invocation regardless of node activity in order for tidi to be a justification for the wholesale removal of miner auto repeat. |
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
47
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:29:27 -
[1044] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Godren Storm wrote:Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought. Not really, since CCP included those commands inside the game client, I think we can safely assume that their use is ok. Otherwise, they could just delete the command options. I do wish people would quit using the same dumbass arguments over and over again.
Everyone safely assumed that input broadcasting was ok & look what happened. CCP has shown that they are willing to revise their stance on unfair mechanics.
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
Marilyn Maulerant
Throng of the Drone Amalgamate
The Ditanian Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:30:09 -
[1045] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Marilyn Maulerant wrote:
w00t name called in 2 posts..
well My dear sir, I don't use IS-boxer LOL so I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by pointing out facts.
I do run 4 monitors, and multiple accounts, and I click to each instance of the client to make it do my bidding.
I do also love how you've completely evaded my questions though.
GOOD JOB!!!!!!!
PS. I know some folks in CODE, I'd be willing to put in a good word for you if you'd like?
So basically you are a no good cheater that is abusing a mechanic.
Yay, More name calling.
I'm sorry, since when is being at the keyboard being a no good cheater?
Don't bother answering my friend, its ok to hate miners... I hate idiots, so we both have our own agendas.
o/
Goodnight. |
Firestorm Delta
Aphotic Machina
43
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:30:34 -
[1046] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Marilyn Maulerant wrote:
w00t name called in 2 posts..
well My dear sir, I don't use IS-boxer LOL so I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by pointing out facts.
I do run 4 monitors, and multiple accounts, and I click to each instance of the client to make it do my bidding.
I do also love how you've completely evaded my questions though.
GOOD JOB!!!!!!!
PS. I know some folks in CODE, I'd be willing to put in a good word for you if you'd like?
So basically you are a no good cheater that is abusing a mechanic.
Actually quite legal to alt tab and click into different sessions to make them work, doing one click that affects more than a single session is in breach of the EULA. |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:30:36 -
[1047] - Quote
I cannot believe I read every post in this thread. I feel as though I am going to get cancer from this, but I thought it would be prudent to read all of the opinions expressed in this thread before expressing my own.
I am neither for nor against these changes to CCP's stance.
On a personal level, this will be annoying but it will be something that can be adapted to. Multiboxing has existed in its true alt+tab form for many years before ISBoxer came into existence and will continue to do so.
With that out of the way, many players have this sentiment that Multiboxing is easy and takes away from the health of the game. While plex prices have continued to trend upward, mineral prices have been relatively stable for years. Looking at tritanium prices year over year have seen very little increase where as an item such as plex has inflated at an incredible rate. One of the reasons for this would have to be given credit to the multiboxed miners in null and hisec. The abundance of minerals that a 10 man multiboxed miner can provide far outweighs the amount of minerals a single person with a single toon can provide. This allows for diminished inflation on mineral prices which is why we, the players, can enjoy fairly un-inflated ship prices to get ourselves blown up in.
The reason the 1b per plex prices seem high is also because of the lack of mineral inflation. Prices for minerals have stayed steady while plex has steadily increased. Removing multiboxed miners from the equation, you will start to see an uptick in mineral prices as time goes on and plex prices will see continued growth as time goes on. This means that the lower prices prices that people seem to be cheering about will be short lived while still having to pay more per ship.
With these changes, you will see a separation of the casual multiboxers and the true fans of multiboxing. There will still be multiboxed mining fleets that come into ice belts and "hoover" the entire belt. It will be more obnoxious for them to do it, but its more of a reduction of quality of life rather than removable of a certain gameplay.
Now with that out of the way,
My main concern with these changes has little to do with the actual changes, but with how GM's will be handling enforcing these changes. Consistency is something that I have requested of CCP for a very long time and it is sometimes hit or miss.
With multiboxers still in existence post mutiplexing changes, CCP's shoot from the hip approach to banning offenders will need to be closely monitored. Especially with the policy of the first violation being a 30 day ban, If someone is falsely accused and banned for multiplexing when they are instead alt tabbing, it will be a lot of time and effort to get this sorted and all accounts restored.
Due to the architecture of the game engine, commands can and will be delayed processing into Tranquility and sometimes they will show up as being sent with similar time logs. A careful eye will be able to distinguish the difference between a multiplex'd command and a player who is simply adept at alt tabbing, but I fear that the average GM may not be able to without proper training. I understand that it is difficult to train all GMs to be properly informed about these nuances, but having to deal with petitions and delays will be a deal breaker for many people.
Even if a player goes through the motion of petitioning and getting everything sorted, how will the time they had to take to get everything sorted be compensated? Restored SP for the time they were banned? What about loss of play time due to GM ignorance?
If the initial penalty for it was a warning, said player could always petition and have the warning removed off the accounts at their leisure, however the penalty for this is a 30 day instant ban. Which means the player will need to take the time and lost game time to have this sorted even if the player is eventually unbanned.
If CCP's wish is to take a no compromise stance on multiplexing, I will neither argue for nor against these changes. What I will argue against is GM negligence and ignorance. Before these changes go in, please take the time, ( and i do truly mean take the time, and not a small memo ) to train the GMs to identify the differences and ban accordingly.
Eve online is a sandbox game that boasts an open world for all types of gameplay. Multiboxing is one of these types of gameplays. CCP has decided to crack down on a quality of life feature of ISBoxer that has been breaking the game experience for other players and which other players have been claiming to be a method of botting. Having a neutral view on this change of policy, I will be watching very closely the implementation and enforcement of these policy changes.
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3108
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:32:15 -
[1048] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:So outside of Tidi it would be fair for all modules since they operate the same and inside of Tidi it doesn't work thus it would still be fair to remove it for all modules. Of course because of TIDI its necessary for other modules but, miners do not experience it in great numbers so its not necessary for them. As mike azariah would say "it doesn't make sense" for mining equipment to have auto-repeat. The only fair solution then is that the use of any non-mining module with auto repeat will cause the engagement of Tidi and mining modules will have auto repeat removed. Since we are creating a global rule for one type based on a situational condition of another that situation also needs to become a global. I can agree to this, the amount of TIDI in a system will be determined by current factors and now the amount of mining equipment in use. We should also add autopilot to this list because that is also unfair automation. Current factors for Tidi are insufficient. As stated this needs to be global. Every non-mining module needs to induce a level of Tidi sufficient to cause auto repeat to fail at a rate comparable with the situations justifying the mining module nerf. This probably needs to include some dropped requests as well to get the full max Tidi experience, but that is debatable. Tidi would need full invocation regardless of node activity in order for tidi to be a justification for the wholesale removal of miner auto repeat.
The non-mining modules already induce a disproportionate amount of TIDI versus the mining modules hence they can be left alone.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Helfeln Meathead
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:32:26 -
[1049] - Quote
The main hit here isn't mining or ganking. Both of these processes can be done across several boxes without using broadcasts. Mining will take a few more clicks and will require more time at the keyboard. Ganking can be done by head-butting the keyboard as many times as necessary.
Additionally, neither of these things really affect the outcome of any engagement or directly affect the wider landscape of the game
The real hit here is logistics. Some small corporations and alliances rely on people running multiple accounts to take care of roles that sometimes otherwise just don't get filled.Running logistics across several accounts without broadcasting will be extremely demanding, especially over long engagements.
Question to the Dev Team: Will CCP be taking other measures to decrease this load while still allowing users to operate within the EULA such as allowing modules presently non-stackable (eg. Logi, EWar, Mining Equipment, Festival Launchers etc) to be stacked in one module slot? |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3108
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:33:05 -
[1050] - Quote
Firestorm Delta wrote:La Nariz wrote:Marilyn Maulerant wrote:
w00t name called in 2 posts..
well My dear sir, I don't use IS-boxer LOL so I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by pointing out facts.
I do run 4 monitors, and multiple accounts, and I click to each instance of the client to make it do my bidding.
I do also love how you've completely evaded my questions though.
GOOD JOB!!!!!!!
PS. I know some folks in CODE, I'd be willing to put in a good word for you if you'd like?
So basically you are a no good cheater that is abusing a mechanic. Actually quite legal to alt tab and click into different sessions to make them work, doing one click that affects more than a single session is in breach of the EULA.
Sure you can alt tab but, that automation that is running your mining lasers is unfair just like isboxer thus auto repeat must be removed from mining equipment.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
|
|
Sentenced 1989
Quantum Anomaly Corporation
128
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:36:40 -
[1051] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Firestorm Delta wrote:La Nariz wrote:Marilyn Maulerant wrote:
w00t name called in 2 posts..
well My dear sir, I don't use IS-boxer LOL so I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by pointing out facts.
I do run 4 monitors, and multiple accounts, and I click to each instance of the client to make it do my bidding.
I do also love how you've completely evaded my questions though.
GOOD JOB!!!!!!!
PS. I know some folks in CODE, I'd be willing to put in a good word for you if you'd like?
So basically you are a no good cheater that is abusing a mechanic. Actually quite legal to alt tab and click into different sessions to make them work, doing one click that affects more than a single session is in breach of the EULA. Sure you can alt tab but, that automation that is running your mining lasers is unfair just like isboxer thus auto repeat must be removed from mining equipment.
And from guns, and from prop modules, and from points, and from bubbles, and from sebos, and from invuls, and from armor reppers, and from... you get the picture :D
This thread will really give me cancer...
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
Marilyn Maulerant
Throng of the Drone Amalgamate
The Ditanian Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:37:08 -
[1052] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:
Sure you can alt tab but, that automation that is running your mining lasers is unfair just like isboxer thus auto repeat must be removed from mining equipment.
Then by your own reasoning when you alt tab or switch screens and your guns are firing on auto-repeat it is just like IS-boxer and it is abusing a mechanic.
Therefore by your own statement auto-repeat must be removed from EVERY module in EvE.
|
Marilyn Maulerant
Throng of the Drone Amalgamate
The Ditanian Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:38:07 -
[1053] - Quote
Sentenced 1989 wrote:
And from guns, and from prop modules, and from points, and from bubbles, and from sebos, and from invuls, and from armor reppers, and from... you get the picture :D
This thread will really give me cancer...
^^THIS^^
|
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
48
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:38:54 -
[1054] - Quote
Marilyn Maulerant wrote:La Nariz wrote:
Sure you can alt tab but, that automation that is running your mining lasers is unfair just like isboxer thus auto repeat must be removed from mining equipment.
Then by your own reasoning when you alt tab or switch screens and your guns are firing on auto-repeat it is just like IS-boxer and it is abusing a mechanic. Therefore by your own statement auto-repeat must be removed from EVERY module in EvE.
Yes, it should. All automation needs to be removed from EVE for a fair & immersive experience.
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
Firestorm Delta
Aphotic Machina
43
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:39:09 -
[1055] - Quote
Syllviaa wrote:Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Godren Storm wrote:Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought. Not really, since CCP included those commands inside the game client, I think we can safely assume that their use is ok. Otherwise, they could just delete the command options. I do wish people would quit using the same dumbass arguments over and over again. Everyone safely assumed that input broadcasting was ok & look what happened. CCP has shown that they are willing to revise their stance on unfair mechanics.
If they decide to change them in the future then they will. Remember that the legality of said built in options has NEVER been in question, while the use of macros and such as been against the EULA since before I even started playing.
Also remember it's not ISBoxer that's banned, its the use of third party features that allow a single player to control multiple accounts while only having to input one set of commands. Botting, automation of controls, and stuff like that has been against the EULA for some time, CCP just decided to make it clear that broadcasting commands to multiple game sessions does in fact fall under that category, and is therefore bannable. |
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
344
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:39:38 -
[1056] - Quote
Nemed Bererund wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Nemed Bererund wrote:So no more Eve-Central Market crawler then? Keep making stuff up, You might eventually make some sense. The first post is wonderfully clear. Read it . Oh I did I just want some clarification on third party apps like the Market crawlers that automate search's in the market browser. Through the IGB Quote:This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters
Since the market data will be available through Crest shortly, I doubt cache scrapers will be of much use going forward.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
344
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:42:11 -
[1057] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:I don't understand why this has to apply to mining or ratting. You're going to lose hundreds of subscriptions over this CCP. What a terrible decision this is.
Please place an exception where broadcasting commands to mine rocks, shoot rats, jettison cargo, etc. is all permitted.
No, no, NO, NONONONO.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
|
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
48
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:43:07 -
[1058] - Quote
Dear CCP Falcon,
This is a completely legitimate question. If I perform a suicide gank on a miner using input broadcasting on my lead at 23:59:59 31.12.2014, but the following accounts don't fire until 00:00:00 01.01.2015, will I get banned?
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1271
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:43:14 -
[1059] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:The non-mining modules already induce a disproportionate amount of TIDI versus the mining modules hence they can be left alone. Total tidi production only makes sense as a factor if the reasoning being used is that miners are responsible for non miners voluntarily inducing controlled degradation. This isn't the case by your own admission.
Maybe I'm missing something, but fundamentally I understand you claim to be that since some players voluntarily deny themselves the use of auto repeat selectively, others should have it removed arbitrarily and permanently.
That only becomes justifiable is it's the same across all modules, so either all auto repeat needs removed or activation of non mining modules needs to guarantee the same penalty through tidi regardless of node condition. |
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
344
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:43:22 -
[1060] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:CCP can save almost the entirety of their mining alt ISBox subscriptions by allowing us to jettison cargo or move cargo to an Orca using broadcasting. Without that ability it's too much of a hassle to mine and I personally will be retiring my entire fleet over it.
I call that mission accomplished, personally.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
|
|
|
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
48
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:45:50 -
[1061] - Quote
Firestorm Delta wrote:Syllviaa wrote:Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Godren Storm wrote:Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought. Not really, since CCP included those commands inside the game client, I think we can safely assume that their use is ok. Otherwise, they could just delete the command options. I do wish people would quit using the same dumbass arguments over and over again. Everyone safely assumed that input broadcasting was ok & look what happened. CCP has shown that they are willing to revise their stance on unfair mechanics. If they decide to change them in the future then they will. Remember that the legality of said built in options has NEVER been in question, while the use of macros and such as been against the EULA since before I even started playing. Also remember it's not ISBoxer that's banned, its the use of third party features that allow a single player to control multiple accounts while only having to input one set of commands. Botting, automation of controls, and stuff like that has been against the EULA for some time, CCP just decided to make it clear that broadcasting commands to multiple game sessions does in fact fall under that category, and is therefore bannable.
CCP has shown that they are willing to revise their stance on unfair gameplay mechanics. Automation in all of its forms, whether in built or not are detrimental to the health of EVE Online & must be removed to provide an immersive experience for all.
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
Electra Magnetic
EVE University
Ivy League
17
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:48:07 -
[1062] - Quote
Sounds like the devs are reading the reasons why people unsubscribed 10 years ago and just now starting to listen. Guess they had to wait to get their moneys worth before they decided it was worth it to do anything about it. Typical of CCP not to give a **** until everyone is starting to walk away... and then they are like oh no wait... we will give you new content and fix our lousy game. Pathetic...
Glad they are doing something now.... but
10 years to late. |
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
344
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:48:14 -
[1063] - Quote
Hott Pocket wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Bakla Firoz wrote:I was so shocked when I found out that CCP specifically confirmed multiple times that isboxing to control multiple accounts was allowed. So why the sudden change of heart?
Nothing has changed and therefore you owe those people who have trained up 10, 20, 30, 50(?) accounts a MASSIVE apology. How about those who have recently paid for 3 month (the minimum) subscription on isboxer because you said it was okay? The very least you could do is admit you were wrong. 1 month is minimum. I have 10 accounts. Three of them I will keep forever, because I absolutely love Eve. 7 are ISBoxer miners, paid in full until October 2015. I fully support the (effective) banning of ISBoxer, as it will be easier to be competitive without it. However, will CCP offer ISBoxers with a significant real $$ investment a way out? Perhaps converting unused subs to PLEX, or moving the game time to my other accounts? I understand that the game will change as CCP sees fit, but as the poster above stated, CCP has repeatedly clarified that they are ok with ISBoxer. If it had been a grey area, I would have never started the extra accounts. Here's hoping CCP will make this right...
Why in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendages would they need to make anything right? You can still use that game time, whether you choose to do so or not.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3111
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:49:20 -
[1064] - Quote
Marilyn Maulerant wrote:La Nariz wrote:
Sure you can alt tab but, that automation that is running your mining lasers is unfair just like isboxer thus auto repeat must be removed from mining equipment.
Then by your own reasoning when you alt tab or switch screens and your guns are firing on auto-repeat it is just like IS-boxer and it is abusing a mechanic. Therefore by your own statement auto-repeat must be removed from EVERY module in EvE.
No you are wrong as mike azariah said "it doesn't make sense" removing auto-repeat from mining equipment is the only thing that makes sense.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:50:06 -
[1065] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Hott Pocket wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Bakla Firoz wrote:I was so shocked when I found out that CCP specifically confirmed multiple times that isboxing to control multiple accounts was allowed. So why the sudden change of heart?
Nothing has changed and therefore you owe those people who have trained up 10, 20, 30, 50(?) accounts a MASSIVE apology. How about those who have recently paid for 3 month (the minimum) subscription on isboxer because you said it was okay? The very least you could do is admit you were wrong. 1 month is minimum. I have 10 accounts. Three of them I will keep forever, because I absolutely love Eve. 7 are ISBoxer miners, paid in full until October 2015. I fully support the (effective) banning of ISBoxer, as it will be easier to be competitive without it. However, will CCP offer ISBoxers with a significant real $$ investment a way out? Perhaps converting unused subs to PLEX, or moving the game time to my other accounts? I understand that the game will change as CCP sees fit, but as the poster above stated, CCP has repeatedly clarified that they are ok with ISBoxer. If it had been a grey area, I would have never started the extra accounts. Here's hoping CCP will make this right... Why in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendages would they need to make anything right? You can still use that game time, whether you choose to do so or not.
Chill out dude, people are trying to have a reasonable conversation here. Go & derail an AFK cloaking thread or something.
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3111
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:50:42 -
[1066] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:The non-mining modules already induce a disproportionate amount of TIDI versus the mining modules hence they can be left alone. Total tidi production only makes sense as a factor if the reasoning being used is that miners are responsible for non miners voluntarily inducing controlled degradation. This isn't the case by your own admission. Maybe I'm missing something, but fundamentally I understand your claim to be that since some players voluntarily deny themselves the use of auto repeat selectively, others should have it removed arbitrarily and permanently. That only becomes justifiable is it's the same across all modules, so either all auto repeat needs removed or activation of non mining modules needs to guarantee the same penalty through tidi regardless of node condition.
What are you talking about? It makes plenty of sense and is totally justifiable to remove auto repeat from mining equipment. I do agree with you though that system TIDI should also scale with the amount of mining equipment being used.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1272
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:52:51 -
[1067] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:
No you are wrong as mike azariah said "it doesn't make sense" removing auto-repeat from mining equipment is the only thing that makes sense.
A lot of people have said "it doesn't make sense" though that's meaningless without context. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of the context which justifies his being quoted here? |
Firestorm Delta
Aphotic Machina
44
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:52:58 -
[1068] - Quote
Syllviaa wrote:
CCP has shown that they are willing to revise their stance on unfair gameplay mechanics. Automation in all of its forms, whether in built or not are detrimental to the health of EVE Online & must be removed to provide an immersive experience for all.
So you plan on clicking your hardeners and weapons every single cycle manually? You want fleets of hundreds of people who are stuck under Tidi to have to manually click everything every cycle? Please, turn all your modules to not auto repeat, play the game for two weeks at every chance you get, and then come explain how having auto repeat on modules is unfair and causes imbalance.
Meanwhile I'll be accepting CCPs decision to make a program that has been in a grey area in regards to the EULA for sometime bannable with certain uses, ie broadcasting across multiple game clients. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1272
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:55:05 -
[1069] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:The non-mining modules already induce a disproportionate amount of TIDI versus the mining modules hence they can be left alone. Total tidi production only makes sense as a factor if the reasoning being used is that miners are responsible for non miners voluntarily inducing controlled degradation. This isn't the case by your own admission. Maybe I'm missing something, but fundamentally I understand your claim to be that since some players voluntarily deny themselves the use of auto repeat selectively, others should have it removed arbitrarily and permanently. That only becomes justifiable is it's the same across all modules, so either all auto repeat needs removed or activation of non mining modules needs to guarantee the same penalty through tidi regardless of node condition. What are you talking about? It makes plenty of sense and is totally justifiable to remove auto repeat from mining equipment. I do agree with you though that system TIDI should also scale with the amount of mining equipment being used.
Actually you haven't provided any justification as of yet, other than pointing out that someone said something doesn't make sense at some point in time in the past with potentially no relation to this. I thought you had a real reasoning here but I'm beginning to doubt. |
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:55:49 -
[1070] - Quote
Firestorm Delta wrote:Syllviaa wrote:
CCP has shown that they are willing to revise their stance on unfair gameplay mechanics. Automation in all of its forms, whether in built or not are detrimental to the health of EVE Online & must be removed to provide an immersive experience for all.
So you plan on clicking your hardeners and weapons every single cycle manually? You want fleets of hundreds of people who are stuck under Tidi to have to manually click everything every cycle? Please, turn all your modules to not auto repeat, play the game for two weeks at every chance you get, and then come explain how having auto repeat on modules is unfair and causes imbalance. Meanwhile I'll be accepting CCPs decision to make a program that has been in a grey area in regards to the EULA for sometime bannable with certain uses, ie broadcasting across multiple game clients.
Yes, once CCP removes this botting mechanic from the game I am more than willing to do things as they should be done. CCP has shown that they are willing to revise their stance on unfair gameplay mechanics, particularly where automation is concerned. Be worried for your days are numbered.
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
|
|
Marilyn Maulerant
Throng of the Drone Amalgamate
The Ditanian Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:56:05 -
[1071] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Marilyn Maulerant wrote:La Nariz wrote:
Sure you can alt tab but, that automation that is running your mining lasers is unfair just like isboxer thus auto repeat must be removed from mining equipment.
Then by your own reasoning when you alt tab or switch screens and your guns are firing on auto-repeat it is just like IS-boxer and it is abusing a mechanic. Therefore by your own statement auto-repeat must be removed from EVERY module in EvE. No you are wrong as mike azariah said "it doesn't make sense" removing auto-repeat from mining equipment is the only thing that makes sense.
I am right my friend, and I am not the only one telling you this.
you see, your argument?, "it doesn't make sense" if you want things to be fair to all.
I do however appreciate you not calling me names this time.
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3114
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:56:08 -
[1072] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:
No you are wrong as mike azariah said "it doesn't make sense" removing auto-repeat from mining equipment is the only thing that makes sense.
A lot of people have said "it doesn't make sense" though that's meaningless without context. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of the context which justifies his being quoted here?
I don't have to he is the representative of highsec and in his words "it doesn't make sense."
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Kouga Pegasus
13th Squadron
The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:56:53 -
[1073] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
[/i]
this include the macros than the gamer keyboard or mouse keyboard use , for example for pvp i have 1 button than turn on my hardener
that is a ban
use a gaming keyboard for play a game?ban |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3114
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:58:34 -
[1074] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:The non-mining modules already induce a disproportionate amount of TIDI versus the mining modules hence they can be left alone. Total tidi production only makes sense as a factor if the reasoning being used is that miners are responsible for non miners voluntarily inducing controlled degradation. This isn't the case by your own admission. Maybe I'm missing something, but fundamentally I understand your claim to be that since some players voluntarily deny themselves the use of auto repeat selectively, others should have it removed arbitrarily and permanently. That only becomes justifiable is it's the same across all modules, so either all auto repeat needs removed or activation of non mining modules needs to guarantee the same penalty through tidi regardless of node condition. What are you talking about? It makes plenty of sense and is totally justifiable to remove auto repeat from mining equipment. I do agree with you though that system TIDI should also scale with the amount of mining equipment being used. Actually you haven't provided any justification as of yet, other than pointing out that someone said something doesn't make sense at some point in time in the past with potentially no relation to this. I thought you had a real reasoning here but I'm beginning to doubt.
It doesn't make sense both isboxer and mining equipment auto repeat are exploits.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
344
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:59:04 -
[1075] - Quote
Syllviaa wrote:Dear CCP Falcon,
This is a completely legitimate question. If I perform a suicide gank on a miner using input broadcasting on my lead at 23:59:59 31.12.2014, but the following accounts don't fire until 00:00:00 01.01.2015, will I get banned?
Dear Mr. The Mittani,
In the spirit of Christmas, could you lovely chaps do us all a favor and pod this idiot back to 900,000 skill points before Rhea hits?
Thanks much. Cookies and a nice 25 year old scotch are by the mantle.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3114
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:59:20 -
[1076] - Quote
Marilyn Maulerant wrote:La Nariz wrote:Marilyn Maulerant wrote:La Nariz wrote:
Sure you can alt tab but, that automation that is running your mining lasers is unfair just like isboxer thus auto repeat must be removed from mining equipment.
Then by your own reasoning when you alt tab or switch screens and your guns are firing on auto-repeat it is just like IS-boxer and it is abusing a mechanic. Therefore by your own statement auto-repeat must be removed from EVERY module in EvE. No you are wrong as mike azariah said "it doesn't make sense" removing auto-repeat from mining equipment is the only thing that makes sense. I am right my friend, and I am not the only one telling you this. you see, your argument?, "it doesn't make sense" if you want things to be fair to all. I do however appreciate you not calling me names this time.
I'm only using the argument your highsec representative used. It applied then so it applies now too. You need to be consistent.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1275
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:01:09 -
[1077] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:
No you are wrong as mike azariah said "it doesn't make sense" removing auto-repeat from mining equipment is the only thing that makes sense.
A lot of people have said "it doesn't make sense" though that's meaningless without context. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of the context which justifies his being quoted here? I don't have to he is the representative of highsec and in his words "it doesn't make sense."
Well, I'm done. An argument of absurdity from some sort of in joke can't make for anything resembling productive conversation. At best it can only degenerate to the counter claim "Removing auto repeat for miners is bad because mike azariah said 'it doesn't make sense.'"
Let's just go with that. |
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:02:20 -
[1078] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Syllviaa wrote:Dear CCP Falcon,
This is a completely legitimate question. If I perform a suicide gank on a miner using input broadcasting on my lead at 23:59:59 31.12.2014, but the following accounts don't fire until 00:00:00 01.01.2015, will I get banned? Dear Mr. The Mittani, In the spirit of Christmas, could you lovely chaps do us all a favor and pod this idiot back to 900,000 skill points before Rhea hits? Thanks much. Cookies and a nice 25 year old scotch are by the mantle.
That is a legitimate question. If you're incapable of answering it then would you kindly allow someone who is capable of answering to answer it (Example: Not you).
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
344
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:05:14 -
[1079] - Quote
Syllviaa wrote:Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Syllviaa wrote:Dear CCP Falcon,
This is a completely legitimate question. If I perform a suicide gank on a miner using input broadcasting on my lead at 23:59:59 31.12.2014, but the following accounts don't fire until 00:00:00 01.01.2015, will I get banned? Dear Mr. The Mittani, In the spirit of Christmas, could you lovely chaps do us all a favor and pod this idiot back to 900,000 skill points before Rhea hits? Thanks much. Cookies and a nice 25 year old scotch are by the mantle. That is a legitimate question. If you're incapable of answering it then would you kindly allow someone who is capable of answering to answer it (Example: Not you).
Hey. Mine was a legitimate request too. What makes you so special that you should get your question answered but I can't get mine? Or it because your avatar is female? Is that it? Is this a reverse discrimination kind of thing? Punish the man for being a man.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
|
Brutus Le'montac
236
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:05:29 -
[1080] - Quote
are logitech keyboards with macro keys now also prohibited ( if i use the 1 or more of the 18 macro keys)?
Thought is dangerous; lack of thought, deadly!
|
|
|
Santa Spirit
Christmas Spirit and Goodwill Toward Man
305
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:06:38 -
[1081] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
Thanks much. Cookies and a nice 25 year old scotch are by the mantle.
Cookies?
hmmmmmmmm cookies
Santa
On Occasion, I must apologize for the things I say because they sometimes make me sound as though I have a clue.
Please feel free to join in on the fun Dec 14th. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3918380 (2013) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=183205 (2012)
|
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:06:54 -
[1082] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Syllviaa wrote:Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Syllviaa wrote:Dear CCP Falcon,
This is a completely legitimate question. If I perform a suicide gank on a miner using input broadcasting on my lead at 23:59:59 31.12.2014, but the following accounts don't fire until 00:00:00 01.01.2015, will I get banned? Dear Mr. The Mittani, In the spirit of Christmas, could you lovely chaps do us all a favor and pod this idiot back to 900,000 skill points before Rhea hits? Thanks much. Cookies and a nice 25 year old scotch are by the mantle. That is a legitimate question. If you're incapable of answering it then would you kindly allow someone who is capable of answering to answer it (Example: Not you). Hey. Mine was a legitimate request too. What makes you so special that you should get your question answered but I can't get mine? Or it because your avatar is female? Is that it? Is this a reverse discrimination kind of thing? Punish the man for being a man.
Please take your cyber-bullying away from the forums. The EVE community will not stand for such behavior.
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
Kouga Pegasus
13th Squadron
The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:07:57 -
[1083] - Quote
Brutus Le'montac wrote:are logitech keyboards with macro keys now also prohibited ( if i use the 1 or more of the 18 macro keys)?
if so please send me the info i need to claim 150$ from ccp for a new keybord, or send me a gamer keyboard that does not have macro keys ccp, tyvm in advance.
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
SAME QUESTION HELLOO CCPP i am asking tooooo |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3115
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:08:15 -
[1084] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:
No you are wrong as mike azariah said "it doesn't make sense" removing auto-repeat from mining equipment is the only thing that makes sense.
A lot of people have said "it doesn't make sense" though that's meaningless without context. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of the context which justifies his being quoted here? I don't have to he is the representative of highsec and in his words "it doesn't make sense." Well, I'm done. An argument of absurdity from some sort of in joke can't make for anything resembling productive conversation. At best it can only degenerate to the counter claim "Removing auto repeat for miners is bad because mike azariah said 'it doesn't make sense.'" Let's just go with that. Edit: Are we(you/them?) mad at mike azariah for some reason? I've been out of touch for a bit.
Nah I'm just enjoying using some of his idiocy brilliance in an identical situation.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Marilyn Maulerant
Throng of the Drone Amalgamate
The Ditanian Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:11:54 -
[1085] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:
I'm only using the argument your highsec representative used. It applied then so it applies now too. You need to be consistent.
And I'm only using your own logic and statement that you based on that representative to come to the conclusion that auto-repeat on any module is just like IS-Boxer and should be removed from all modules, Mining, firing, repping, resistance, boosting, ect ect ect.
Also, while I do like Mike and he was elected to be the rep for high sec, it was not by unanimous vote, so please don't tell folks he's "Their" rep unless you know how they in particular voted.
Just saying.
|
Nyan Lafisques
Epsilon Lyr
Nulli Secunda
10
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:13:30 -
[1086] - Quote
Kouga Pegasus wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
[/i] this include the macros than the gamer keyboard or mouse keyboard use , for example for pvp i have 1 button than turn on my hardener that is a ban use a gaming keyboard for play a game?ban
Using the keyboard won't get you banned, using its function to replicate commands will. Just like ISBoxer isn't banned but its use to broadcast commands to multiple clients is, use your brain. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3115
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:14:01 -
[1087] - Quote
Marilyn Maulerant wrote:La Nariz wrote:
I'm only using the argument your highsec representative used. It applied then so it applies now too. You need to be consistent.
And I'm only using your own logic and statement that you based on that representative to come to the conclusion that auto-repeat on any module is just like IS-Boxer and should be removed from all modules, Mining, firing, repping, resistance, boosting, ect ect ect. Also, while I do like Mike and he was elected to be the rep for high sec, it was not by unanimous vote, so please don't tell folks he's "Their" rep unless you know how they in particular voted. Just saying.
No, no you're wrong you don't understand the nuance. I suppose I should be more considerate because you highsec people are woefully unaware and uneducated. You need to be more aware of your representatives doings and his logic applies here too.
ISBoxer and auto repeat being on mining equipment "doesn't make sense."
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Brutus Le'montac
236
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:18:50 -
[1088] - Quote
Kouga Pegasus wrote:Brutus Le'montac wrote:are logitech keyboards with macro keys now also prohibited ( if i use the 1 or more of the 18 macro keys)?
if so please send me the info i need to claim 150$ from ccp for a new keybord, or send me a gamer keyboard that does not have macro keys ccp, tyvm in advance. This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to: GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules SAME QUESTION HELLOO CCPP i am asking tooooo
aslong as i use it for 1 client only, to activate all my hardners for example it isnt broadcasting to multiple clients so should be allowed?
its so nice that ccp i so clear about this, instead off dropping 1 long list of should and shouldnts, and then withdraw in the dark, oow wait, they are doing just that aint they....
Thought is dangerous; lack of thought, deadly!
|
Marilyn Maulerant
Throng of the Drone Amalgamate
The Ditanian Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:20:00 -
[1089] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:
No, no you're wrong you don't understand the nuance. I suppose I should be more considerate because you highsec people are woefully unaware and uneducated. You need to be more aware of your representatives doings and his logic applies here too.
ISBoxer and auto repeat being on mining equipment "doesn't make sense."
Oh wait, I know what's wrong now
I guess I need to move out of null and live in high sec...
my bad....
BTW? Assumptive much?
no need to answer that either, I'm going to follow the other fellow's lead and ignore your absurdity.
you should probably look up the definition of nuance too as I don't think your explanations met the requirement to differentiate between an empty vessel and nuance, at least they didn't to myself and some other folks.
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3117
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:21:55 -
[1090] - Quote
Marilyn Maulerant wrote:La Nariz wrote:
No, no you're wrong you don't understand the nuance. I suppose I should be more considerate because you highsec people are woefully unaware and uneducated. You need to be more aware of your representatives doings and his logic applies here too.
ISBoxer and auto repeat being on mining equipment "doesn't make sense."
Oh wait, I know what's wrong now I guess I need to move out of null and live in high sec... my bad.... BTW? Assumptive much? no need to answer that either, I'm going to follow the other fellow's lead and ignore your absurdity. you should probably look up the definition of nuance too as I don't think your explanations met the requirement to differentiate between an empty vessel and nuance, at least they didn't to myself and some other folks.
That means you admit defeat I've won the argument and am thus right, mining equipment should no longer have auto repeat.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
|
|
DH Bergamont
Null. Recruitment. Center.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:28:18 -
[1091] - Quote
Banning Is Boxer it will bring a lot of satisfied people in EVE but only on short period of time, banning that program from a form of using it for mining ops it will get to increasing prices of ships and equipment in EVE universe, so it means there will be no more small gangs while small gang will be countered with larger and more organized group, so there you are getting again large scale fights with limited engagement, while every FC will first calculate ship reimbursement
this means small gangs of people who can not afford to lose fitted cruiser that cost 150 mil are dead.
second thing is that price of PLEX will for a first period of time drastically fall down, while there will be no more multyboxing after that due lower income on selling plex some of people might stop bringing PLEX on market while there is no reason to pay 15$ for few cruisers
and third is that CCP will suffer large loss on subscription income, while each serious miner in eve have minimum of 10 mining accounts, and there is many of them in eve
my opinion is that with banning IsBoxer from this game will slow down playing tempo and with time it will become expensive and slow boring thing where most of players will calculate do they can afford to lose ship today or not |
Quinn Oron
Apraxia
42
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:30:43 -
[1092] - Quote
RIP bikkus dikkus. |
Paul AtreidesMuad
Coreli Corporation
Ineluctable.
96
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:31:12 -
[1093] - Quote
My god finally, thank you person who made this real, I start to believe ccp understands what eve players need |
Max Kolonko
WATAHA.
Unseen Wolves
491
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:33:32 -
[1094] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:CCP can save almost the entirety of their mining alt ISBox subscriptions by allowing us to jettison cargo or move cargo to an Orca using broadcasting. Without that ability it's too much of a hassle to mine and I personally will be retiring my entire fleet over it.
good
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
937
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:35:57 -
[1095] - Quote
DH Bergamont wrote:Banning Is Boxer it will bring a lot of satisfied people in EVE but only on short period of time, banning that program from a form of using it for mining ops it will get to increasing prices of ships and equipment in EVE universe, so it means there will be no more small gangs while small gang will be countered with larger and more organized group, so there you are getting again large scale fights with limited engagement, while every FC will first calculate ship reimbursement
this means small gangs of people who can not afford to lose fitted cruiser that cost 150 mil are dead.
second thing is that price of PLEX will for a first period of time drastically fall down, while there will be no more multyboxing after that due lower income on selling plex some of people might stop bringing PLEX on market while there is no reason to pay 15$ for few cruisers
and third is that CCP will suffer large loss on subscription income, while each serious miner in eve have minimum of 10 mining accounts, and there is many of them in eve
my opinion is that with banning IsBoxer from this game will slow down playing tempo and with time it will become expensive and slow boring thing where most of players will calculate do they can afford to lose ship today or not
The problem with the logic is that if cruisers jump to 150 million, the typical person, crazy person, or anybody, won't bother buying them. Market gets flooded, people want to sell it, price drops. The market balances itself out in the end.
Not worried about it (then again I fly around in crap made from gas not rock).
You cannot use the threat of "the market" as a reason to change or not change something.
Yaay!!!!
|
Good Posting Reloaded
My Real Mind
25
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:36:47 -
[1096] - Quote
Good job CCP.
I wondering why now and not before but better late than never. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
109
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:42:00 -
[1097] - Quote
wont this just mean that a person has to bind more keys to there keyboard. f1 can be guns on client 1 f2 guns on client 2. So I would say see how the changes shake out once they are live. I'm sure the isboxer that tries will still find ways to do most of what he does and still be legal, just with a little more thought and planning in the set up. Along with the fact that isboxer is will to make changes to better adapt there program to the game. |
Brutus Le'montac
236
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:43:48 -
[1098] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:wont this just mean that a person has to bind more keys to there keyboard. f1 can be guns on client 1 f2 guns on client 2. So I would say see how the changes shake out once they are live. I'm sure the isboxer that tries will still find ways to do most of what he does and still be legal, just with a little more thought and planning in the set up. Along with the fact that isboxer is will to make changes to better adapt there program to the game.
you still have to alt tab to every client and then press the correct keybind to activate it,
if you are in client 1 and use keybind for client 2, client 2 will not read the input and wont respond.
only the client "on top" will recieve input and read it, till you select the second client " on top"
Thought is dangerous; lack of thought, deadly!
|
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7292
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:44:30 -
[1099] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:Steppa Musana wrote:CCP can save almost the entirety of their mining alt ISBox subscriptions by allowing us to jettison cargo or move cargo to an Orca using broadcasting. Without that ability it's too much of a hassle to mine and I personally will be retiring my entire fleet over it. good
good
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'.
|
DH Bergamont
Null. Recruitment. Center.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:51:56 -
[1100] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:DH Bergamont wrote:Banning Is Boxer it will bring a lot of satisfied people in EVE but only on short period of time, banning that program from a form of using it for mining ops it will get to increasing prices of ships and equipment in EVE universe, so it means there will be no more small gangs while small gang will be countered with larger and more organized group, so there you are getting again large scale fights with limited engagement, while every FC will first calculate ship reimbursement
this means small gangs of people who can not afford to lose fitted cruiser that cost 150 mil are dead.
second thing is that price of PLEX will for a first period of time drastically fall down, while there will be no more multyboxing after that due lower income on selling plex some of people might stop bringing PLEX on market while there is no reason to pay 15$ for few cruisers
and third is that CCP will suffer large loss on subscription income, while each serious miner in eve have minimum of 10 mining accounts, and there is many of them in eve
my opinion is that with banning IsBoxer from this game will slow down playing tempo and with time it will become expensive and slow boring thing where most of players will calculate do they can afford to lose ship today or not The problem with the logic is that if cruisers jump to 150 million, the typical person, crazy person, or anybody, won't bother buying them. Market gets flooded, people want to sell it, price drops. The market balances itself out in the end. Not worried about it (then again I fly around in crap made from gas not rock). You cannot use the threat of "the market" as a reason to change or not change something.
150 mil T2 fitted, it-¦s chained reaction, less miners less ore, less ice. less ore is resulting in higher prices of minerals and with that ships, less ice is resulting higher prices of ice products, and with that higher price of POS fuel, higher price of that is resulting with prices of moon materials, and everything what is based on POS even living in WH |
|
|
RoAnnon
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
16088
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 02:53:56 -
[1101] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:"AFK Cloaking" is basically the same thing-
Yeah, it really isn't the same at all. A fleet of 20 bombers, or 4 maledictions flying in unison to a single control vs one player with an equal number of characters in different systems... You're not even comparing apples to apples, more like apples to tunafish.
Your original comment that AFK cloaking is the next "logical" target doesn't follow based on force projection.
Based on things people do because CCP has said it's allowed, that might get reversed later... now I can see how it might follow.
So, you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.
|
RoAnnon
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
16090
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:02:02 -
[1102] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:
To reiterate what I've said a few times- we are in favor of this broadcast change- it sucks for a few of us, but it's an overall good change for the game.
The reason for the change isn't "they're using 3rd party software or not". It's being able to unreasonably project the power that one player has in Eve.
It doesn't matter if someone is sitting in a system cloaked all day, personally. Jump fatigue and range nerfs really limited the effect of AFK cloaking. If CCP is going with the route of putting more power into the individual player rather than how many accounts that player controls (which is what this nerf is), then AFK cloaking would be a logical next step.
Edit: I explained the similarity on the previous page, check there, not retyping that **** again.
also that's the last time I troll about afk cloaking and get caught up in an actual argument about it
AFK cloaking is a perfectly fine and normal mechanic. Either ignore the guy and hope that he is AFK, or take defensive measures. Problem solved.
I think Mr. O may have missed all the AFK cloaker discussions in F&I, and doesn't realize how much it's been hashed over..
So, you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.
|
Marilyn Maulerant
Throng of the Drone Amalgamate
The Ditanian Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:02:11 -
[1103] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Marilyn Maulerant wrote:La Nariz wrote:
No, no you're wrong you don't understand the nuance. I suppose I should be more considerate because you highsec people are woefully unaware and uneducated. You need to be more aware of your representatives doings and his logic applies here too.
ISBoxer and auto repeat being on mining equipment "doesn't make sense."
Oh wait, I know what's wrong now I guess I need to move out of null and live in high sec... my bad.... BTW? Assumptive much? no need to answer that either, I'm going to follow the other fellow's lead and ignore your absurdity. you should probably look up the definition of nuance too as I don't think your explanations met the requirement to differentiate between an empty vessel and nuance, at least they didn't to myself and some other folks. OF course you live in highsec, if you didn't then you wouldn't have claimed mike azariah as your representative. You also would be more aware and less uneducated. That means you admit defeat I've won the argument and am thus right, mining equipment should no longer have auto repeat.
no, i didn't, I simply am not going to waste any more time with someone who has absolutely no clue and evidently no ability to read what was presented to them.
and I wasn't the one who claimed Mike, you're the one who said he was my rep.. LOL
o/
|
Draconis Rebellious
The Konvergent League
Sev3rance
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:03:07 -
[1104] - Quote
WOOT!!!
Very much in favor of this decision. Thanks CCP! |
RoAnnon
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
16090
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:03:51 -
[1105] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:No.
Look at the trillions of isk worth of damage that one man (Replicator) with tens of accounts did to goons, according to Gevlon Goblin-statistician extraordinaire
Replicator was neither AFK, nor cloaked, at the time he attacked anyone. Your argument is disingenuous at best.
So, you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.
|
Marilyn Maulerant
Throng of the Drone Amalgamate
The Ditanian Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:07:53 -
[1106] - Quote
RoAnnon wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:No.
Look at the trillions of isk worth of damage that one man (Replicator) with tens of accounts did to goons, according to Gevlon Goblin-statistician extraordinaire Replicator was neither AFK, nor cloaked, at the time he attacked anyone. Your argument is disingenuous at best.
it is true that you can be AFK and uncloaked, but you cannot attack and be afk, nor can you attack cloaked.
LOL
|
Robart Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
34
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:08:16 -
[1107] - Quote
To those worried about higher equipment prices, do you remember when CCP first introduced titans, and thought that eve players would never build more than a hand-full, just because of the massive expense and size of them? CCP has underestimated the ability of players, despite having a hell of a lot more in the way of information as far as production. And with higher prices of trit ETC coming because of these changes, i predict that the smaller guys, many of which i knew, who got out of it when the margins were so low they were being bled dry, will return. It takes a certain crazed mindset to actually like mining, so it isn't like they will come out of the woodwork.
But at one point, before the margins crashed, i ran 5 toons on 3 computers, and had to go up and down a flight of stairs to do it. If you think dedicated miners, or even the people who currently get the easy mode on boxing stuff, are going to entirely give up as profits rise, then you are out of your collective minds. I've a bundle of barges i don't use anymore, because i found other, actually profitable things to do with my time. But i think i may put them back into service, and take advantage of my newly upgraded computers.
I will miss Bikkus, our awesome Korean HQ boxer, and his 40 NMs. I'll miss seeing fungu, Nolak, Cube, Nuabi, and Scruffy destroy anything on grid. But honestly, the more boxers proliferated, the less profitable it was to be a real person. The better the site times an incursion boxer could eke out of a given value of ships made it so it was either shiny or boxing to really make isk, which meant that the faucet drip rate kept going up, despite it going into fewer pockets, as more and more sites went to a hoard of toons all run by one person.
I've seen the effects of boxers on incursions, and mining, Two of the stereotypical carebear activities, from the inside. It was great, so long as the boxers liked you, or you could manage to trawl up enough friends to beat them out short term. But as boxing increases in scope, the ease of abuse of it increases. after all, take two guys running for the same amount of time, enough to say plex 3 accounts, and some spending money. the guy who's running a single toon, he makes enough for his three accounts, and is pretty much tapped. the guy multiboxing, he can start up 6 more accounts, and wait the several months for them to train (not an insubstantial investment of time and plex, i admit) . But if he just goes to a minimum survivable spec for HQs, (i'm an incursioner primarily, so i'll stick with what i know), it only takes 3 months. every three months, he has the potential to triple his income and account base. the bar is even lower for VGs, far what i've seen.
This is ignoring the inactive isk sources, be it research or PI, both of which are tedious pains in the ass to do manually, PI from experience, and research from what i've heard. The potential for massive market manipulation also exists, as you can get around limits on numbers of buy orders, or contracts. (although i've yet to hear of someone actually putting this harebrained idea i came up with into practice, so obviously it's a pretty terrible one, since i am dumb, and admit it.)
Then take gank catalysts. The justification for the suicide ganking mechanic i've usually heard is that if you can get enough people together to hit a target, then you shouldn't be immune. But if it's one player behind it, which by the cries of some people here, seems somewhat plausible, although i doubt many of the actual organizations do it, since they have the people, and getting people together to do it is their point. Then it becomes My 20 cheap ships should be able to kill your one expensive ship, cause i bought this program from some guy that lets me pretend i have friends. The arguement for requiring co-ordination among people as a justification is entirely valid. I enjoy seeing when it goes wrong, honestly. That it works so well is a testament to the work these people have put in. I don't want anyone thinking that i don't like seeing work put into whatever facet of eve that you enjoy. I may curse and ***** when ganked, and in the past, i've certainly been the fool for people like CODE. but that's what makes eve brilliant.
It is my firm belief that determined effort and social action are what should be the make/break point for eve. It is after all, a sandbox where CCP insists that all of our actions matter. I do however have a serious problem when one guy can go ahead, and after paying a fee to some group of people, win at whatever actions they take, because their volleys are perfectly synced, the spacing precise. That makes eve pay to win. And it isn't even supporting the people who make the game, or run it. That's what i take offense at, beyond all the various occupations that boxers may take up, making them either unprofitable, or taking up finite resources. Or both.
You want to pay to win at eve, pay CCP. buy the bloody plex, buy a titan, and throw enough isk around people pretend to be your friends. Don't go buy some program that you can pretend makes you better at what is ultimately a social game, because you no longer need other people. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
265
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:08:21 -
[1108] - Quote
I would like to request that CCP consider allowing Broadcasting to be used to update skillqueues, whether it be adding skills to the queue via broadcasting throughout, or only allowing one to hit "Accept" at the very end of manually-adding skills to the queue. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25651
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:08:31 -
[1109] - Quote
ITT: players assuming their myopic reasons for disliking ISBoxer are shared by CCP.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Jeanette Leon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:11:24 -
[1110] - Quote
Brutus Le'montac wrote:Kouga Pegasus wrote:Brutus Le'montac wrote:are logitech keyboards with macro keys now also prohibited ( if i use the 1 or more of the 18 macro keys)?
if so please send me the info i need to claim 150$ from ccp for a new keybord, or send me a gamer keyboard that does not have macro keys ccp, tyvm in advance. This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to: GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules SAME QUESTION HELLOO CCPP i am asking tooooo aslong as i use it for 1 client only, to activate all my hardners for example it isnt broadcasting to multiple clients so should be allowed? its so nice that ccp i so clear about this, instead off dropping 1 long list of should and shouldnts, and then withdraw in the dark, oow wait, they are doing just that aint they....
With a two strike permaban policy I'd surely appreciate some clarification on that aswell |
|
|
Juvenius Drakonius
8
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:12:28 -
[1111] - Quote
This is a good measure, hard and log clap by my part
There is no shame in saying you don't know something, and there is no glory in keeping knolege to yourself.
|
NEDM500
Honestly We didnt know
Unsettled.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:13:03 -
[1112] - Quote
If you can't control multiple characters competently without a script doing the heavy lifting for you, what are you doing that is worth letting you continue to do so?
good call CCP, drawing the line between people playing an MMO as they would an RTS and people who aren't satisfied with the limitations associated with being a single char.
|
Hulky Boy
From Our Cold Dead Hands
The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:28:11 -
[1113] - Quote
It took me 2 weeks to learn how to use is-Boxer well, people like to have a cry because they don't have the initiative to learn how to use it them selves, why should some be punishing for pushing their limits in eve. If i wanted to play on one toon the X series is a much better game. Also CCP you just lost more subscriptions than you realise and once again added to the already rapid rise in the price of plex. I will soon ill be lucky to log on in the Australian time zone now and find more than 1000 people in tranquility. In all it was a fair playing field because every body could do it but only the brave and resourceful dared try. |
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7294
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:31:54 -
[1114] - Quote
Hulky Boy wrote:It took me 2 weeks to learn how to use is-Boxer well, people like to have a cry because they don't have the initiative to learn how to use it them selves, why should some be punishing for pushing their limits in eve. If i wanted to play on one toon the X series is a much better game. Also CCP you just lost more subscriptions than you realise and once again added to the already rapid rise in the price of plex. I will soon ill be lucky to log on in the Australian time zone now and find more than 1000 people in tranquility. In all it was a fair playing field because every body could do it but only the brave and resourceful dared try.
Your stuffz, can I haz them?
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'.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
109
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:35:03 -
[1115] - Quote
Brutus Le'montac wrote:Lady Rift wrote:wont this just mean that a person has to bind more keys to there keyboard. f1 can be guns on client 1 f2 guns on client 2. So I would say see how the changes shake out once they are live. I'm sure the isboxer that tries will still find ways to do most of what he does and still be legal, just with a little more thought and planning in the set up. Along with the fact that isboxer is will to make changes to better adapt there program to the game. you still have to alt tab to every client and then press the correct keybind to activate it, if you are in client 1 and use keybind for client 2, client 2 will not read the input and wont respond. only the client "on top" will recieve input and read it, till you select the second client " on top"
isoboxer has this function to switch windows easily |
Brenner Freeman
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:35:16 -
[1116] - Quote
Hulky Boy wrote:It took me 2 weeks to learn how to use is-Boxer well, people like to have a cry because they don't have the initiative to learn how to use it them selves, why should some be punishing for pushing their limits in eve. If i wanted to play on one toon the X series is a much better game. Also CCP you just lost more subscriptions than you realise and once again added to the already rapid rise in the price of plex. I will soon ill be lucky to log on in the Australian time zone now and find more than 1000 people in tranquility. In all it was a fair playing field because every body could do it but only the brave and resourceful dared try.
cool story bro |
Commentus Nolen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:37:14 -
[1117] - Quote
Actually the ban would be easy to get around by any programer worth his salt. A random number generator set within a certain ms second range could simulate a player going from one screen to another on a multi-screen setup. While it will kill large fleet multi-boxers, six ships are quite doable.
Trying to combat this will affect multi-boxers who do not use software to control their accounts. |
Andreas Askiras
Brotherhood of Heart and Steel
The Bastion
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:45:03 -
[1118] - Quote
I feel this is about the right level for the game, and always felt allowing input replication was unbalanced.
Having your 100 player fleet destroyed by one player with 30 accounts in bombers, simply not fun.
Having your 100 player fleet destroyed by 30 players in bombers, may not be fun, but you can appreciate it - kind of like we appreciate Rooks and Kings pipebombing even when we are the victims of it. Not to mention all 30 of those players had a lot of fun pulling of a successful bombing run. With input replication, only one guy had fun, and everyone else just felt frustrated.
Having said that, I don't mind people playing with multiple accounts in PvP, as long as they have to manage each one. It is reasonably hard to play with more than one account for most things, and it lowers reaction times - so it seems like a reasonably fair trade off.
I'm not worried about the effect this will have on the market. Right now mining in null is just a bit less than most PvE in isk/hour, if material prices rise even a little, people will switch to mining, and the market will balance out. Also this doesn't actually kill running multiple accounts for mining, just makes it harder, so some people will keep doing it (just maybe with 5 accounts instead of 50).
Lower plex prices would be great for most people. And might even result in some people coming back if it becomes easier to PLEX again. I know lots of people who left because it was too hard to PLEX with one account.
Overall between the force projection changes, the awesome new trailer, and now this, I'd say I'm very pleased with the direction CCP Seagull (and all the CCP Devs) have been taking the game. |
Cordo Draken
ABOS Industrial Enterprises
The Marmite Collective
92
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:50:53 -
[1119] - Quote
I don't like swearing, but about F'ing time CCP! You just saved your game from ISO Boxer only gameplay.
Thank you!
eëÆWhomever said, "You only get one shot to make a good impression," was utterly wrong. I've made plenty of great impressions with my AutocannonseëÆ eÉà
|
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
162
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:53:06 -
[1120] - Quote
Commentus Nolen wrote:Actually the ban would be easy to get around by any programer worth his salt. A random number generator set within a certain ms second range could simulate a player going from one screen to another on a multi-screen setup. While it will kill large fleet multi-boxers, six ships are quite doable.
Trying to combat this will affect multi-boxers who do not use software to control their accounts.
Isboxer has said they won't do this. If Isboxer did this they would quickly get the program banned from Eve. |
|
|
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
367
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:55:02 -
[1121] - Quote
DragonHelm III wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. For god's sake CCP stop all the bluster and give a straight answer ISBOXER banned or not? It just needs a yes or no All this crap about terms like Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing mean squat to me as I have no idea what they are.
Really? You can't comprehend that? |
Brutus Le'montac
236
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 03:56:45 -
[1122] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Brutus Le'montac wrote:Lady Rift wrote:wont this just mean that a person has to bind more keys to there keyboard. f1 can be guns on client 1 f2 guns on client 2. So I would say see how the changes shake out once they are live. I'm sure the isboxer that tries will still find ways to do most of what he does and still be legal, just with a little more thought and planning in the set up. Along with the fact that isboxer is will to make changes to better adapt there program to the game. you still have to alt tab to every client and then press the correct keybind to activate it, if you are in client 1 and use keybind for client 2, client 2 will not read the input and wont respond. only the client "on top" will recieve input and read it, till you select the second client " on top" isoboxer has this function to switch windows easily
right but even then, it requires more input to do so, i have no problem with using isboxer for window manegment or whatever, i do if it is used for synced strikes.
i also dont see a problem using keybaords that can use macro's. if ccp doesnt like that, then reimburse those who got one. or give a free keyboard upon joining eve with a big " CCP approved" sticker on the box.
Thought is dangerous; lack of thought, deadly!
|
Cordo Draken
ABOS Industrial Enterprises
The Marmite Collective
93
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 04:00:24 -
[1123] - Quote
Brenner Freeman wrote:Hulky Boy wrote:It took me 2 weeks to learn how to use is-Boxer well, people like to have a cry because they don't have the initiative to learn how to use it them selves, why should some be punishing for pushing their limits in eve. If i wanted to play on one toon the X series is a much better game. Also CCP you just lost more subscriptions than you realise and once again added to the already rapid rise in the price of plex. I will soon ill be lucky to log on in the Australian time zone now and find more than 1000 people in tranquility. In all it was a fair playing field because every body could do it but only the brave and resourceful dared try. cool story bro
QFT Signed
I like how those cheating (ruining the game) get slapped in the face finally, and they try to equivocate their use of it.
eëÆWhomever said, "You only get one shot to make a good impression," was utterly wrong. I've made plenty of great impressions with my AutocannonseëÆ eÉà
|
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation
DemSal Unlimited
2017
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 04:01:54 -
[1124] - Quote
As much as I like the notoriety . . . duplication of keystrokes is not the same as autorepeat so using my catch phrase of 'it makes sense' is just out of context quoting. But at least you spelled my name right so that's nice.
Secondly, while I would LOVE to be considered the representative of all of highsec I am not so you cannot tar a highsec rep with the 'Mike Brush' (me).
Now onto the topic that is actually at hand.
Edge cases are just that but seriously, shooting someone at midnight on new years? Why don't you drag timezones in as well?
No, I don't think we should have grades of OK like it is OK in self defense. No, I don't think mining is OK as a person who uses stuff in game I look forward to mineral prices finding a new balance after entire belts are NOT eaten by one player.
Yes, I think every action in Eve can be considered a form of PvP if you want to stretch the definition. Yes, I want to see 30 players doing things where one guy and a program were before. I have been in a bomber wing, an incursion fleet, mining op. They were better because of the people around me and I want all the new player to experience that, not see some growler1 growler2 growler3 take all the targets out from under them.
Last point. There is, here, a warning of a rule change coming. I have yet to see any salient argument except for people warning of their leaving, which is to be expected. Multiboxing and simultaneity of commands has lessened our game, not made it better, and this change is long overdue. It may cause some to go and take their 'x' accounts with them. The PEOPLE will be missed but not what they were doing.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Commentus Nolen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 04:06:14 -
[1125] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote:Commentus Nolen wrote:Actually the ban would be easy to get around by any programer worth his salt. A random number generator set within a certain ms second range could simulate a player going from one screen to another on a multi-screen setup. While it will kill large fleet multi-boxers, six ships are quite doable.
Trying to combat this will affect multi-boxers who do not use software to control their accounts. Isboxer has said they won't do this. If Isboxer did this they would quickly get the program banned from Eve.
The point being you go from the enemy you know to the dozens you don't.
Don't get me wrong I would not do this but it is not that hard. Put a programed PIE between your mouse and keyboard and who ever sells them makes a killing and there is no way to detect it. |
Marilyn Maulerant
Throng of the Drone Amalgamate
The Ditanian Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 04:15:25 -
[1126] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:As much as I like the notoriety . . . duplication of keystrokes is not the same as autorepeat so using my catch phrase of 'it makes sense' is just out of context quoting. But at least you spelled my name right so that's nice.
Secondly, while I would LOVE to be considered the representative of all of highsec I am not so you cannot tar a highsec rep with the 'Mike Brush' (me).
Now onto the topic that is actually at hand.
Edge cases are just that but seriously, shooting someone at midnight on new years? Why don't you drag timezones in as well?
No, I don't think we should have grades of OK like it is OK in self defense. No, I don't think mining is OK as a person who uses stuff in game I look forward to mineral prices finding a new balance after entire belts are NOT eaten by one player.
Yes, I think every action in Eve can be considered a form of PvP if you want to stretch the definition. Yes, I want to see 30 players doing things where one guy and a program were before. I have been in a bomber wing, an incursion fleet, mining op. They were better because of the people around me and I want all the new player to experience that, not see some growler1 growler2 growler3 take all the targets out from under them.
Last point. There is, here, a warning of a rule change coming. I have yet to see any salient argument except for people warning of their leaving, which is to be expected. Multiboxing and simultaneity of commands has lessened our game, not made it better, and this change is long overdue. It may cause some to go and take their 'x' accounts with them. The PEOPLE will be missed but not what they were doing.
m
See, I knew you weren't a tard, and that's why allot of folks that I know voted for you.
M.M.
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 04:19:20 -
[1127] - Quote
My faith in humanity has improved after reading the first 1/4 of this thread. So much entitlement from the botters. Plus the glorious tears, Let them flow. Good call CCP. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
265
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 04:27:07 -
[1128] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Last point. There is, here, a warning of a rule change coming. I have yet to see any salient argument except for people warning of their leaving, which is to be expected. Multiboxing and simultaneity of commands has lessened our game, not made it better, and this change is long overdue. It may cause some to go and take their 'x' accounts with them. The PEOPLE will be missed but not what they were doing.
Counter-point: I have yet to see any salient argument as to why it should be banned besides "muh ice/minerals", "muh freighter afk piloting with 20b of stuff" and last but not least, "muh PLEX".
if you want to talk about changes being long overdue, swapping clones in wormholes, the new mission-creator program that CCP promised to us that would add many new missions so it isn't the same stuff over and over, the rebalance to T3s, the ease of buying and fitting mutiple ships with fewer than a million clicks, and just about anything in the "CCP Karkur Little Things" thread. |
Capt JJ
Van Diemen's Demise
Pandemic Legion
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 04:32:58 -
[1129] - Quote
So is Squad / wing or fleet warps a bannable offense?
(GÇó Navigation and movement within the EVE universe)
As this moves multiple accounts at once.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2281
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 04:33:14 -
[1130] - Quote
So is this a veiled suicide-ganking nerf? Because a big portion of freighter ganks is done by single players, or small groups of players, with multiple accounts each. There's no way that some dude with a bunch of bombers, or derpy miners sucking at Veld, are responsible for this change.
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
|
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25653
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 04:35:02 -
[1131] - Quote
I think this is a move to discourage third party support for EVE, so that CCP can own and balance in-game automation.
I'm going to stake whatever reputation I have on claiming this is not a move to murder multiboxing. It's a first step in owning and balancing it.
Related Features and Ideas suggestion I felt compelled to make after chewing on this announcement for a day.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Kur Wallmark
13th Squadron
The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 04:37:21 -
[1132] - Quote
Aleluya |
OldWolf69
Applied Anarchy
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
169
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 04:44:34 -
[1133] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:So is this a veiled suicide-ganking nerf? Because a big portion of freighter ganks is done by single players, or small groups of players, with multiple accounts each. There's no way that some dude with a bunch of bombers, or derpy miners sucking at Veld, are responsible for this change.
Why should suicide ganking be mining-like? Ohmygodderpforever... |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2001
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 04:45:55 -
[1134] - Quote
nerf to miners that arent me?
woo!
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1276
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 04:52:52 -
[1135] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:So is this a veiled suicide-ganking nerf? Because a big portion of freighter ganks is done by single players, or small groups of players, with multiple accounts each. There's no way that some dude with a bunch of bombers, or derpy miners sucking at Veld, are responsible for this change.
I'm not a CCP dev, but 20 plus ISboxer mining fleets would have been plenty of reason for this long ago were the decision mine. Killing other multiboxed activities facilitated by the same would just be the icing on the cake.
That said it's not a change in eve without someone getting a persecution complex over it. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
247
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 04:56:58 -
[1136] - Quote
I blame ISBoxer for not getting all reps on Cain |
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
357
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 05:04:46 -
[1137] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:
I have yet to see any salient argument except for people warning of their leaving, which is to be expected. Multiboxing and simultaneity of commands has lessened our game, not made it better, and this change is long overdue.
The farthest I can stretch it is in theory it reduced mineral prices so we all have cheaper ships to blow up....in theory.
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
Pinky Panda
Perkone
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 05:08:17 -
[1138] - Quote
Warlords of Draenor is the best expansion for eve since 2007 |
WolfSchwarzMond
Martyr's Vengence
Nulli Secunda
44
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 05:19:09 -
[1139] - Quote
HAPPY!!! HAPPY!!! JOY!!! JOY!!! My profits shall rise!!! |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2281
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 05:20:25 -
[1140] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:So is this a veiled suicide-ganking nerf? Because a big portion of freighter ganks is done by single players, or small groups of players, with multiple accounts each. There's no way that some dude with a bunch of bombers, or derpy miners sucking at Veld, are responsible for this change. I'm not a CCP dev, but 20 plus ISboxer mining fleets would have been plenty of reason for this long ago were the decision mine. Killing other multiboxed activities facilitated by the same would just be the icing on the cake. That said it's not a change in eve without someone getting a persecution complex over it.
Something tells me that CCP isn't targeting miners, because mining is already suicidally-boring, and quite frankly, CCP needs all the miner bots it can get to supply the market with ore. Granted, we can let the invisible hand take over and pay the 50 ISK per unit of Trit that it's actually worth in a normal gameplay environment, so this isn't as troubling from this perspective.
However, in the case of suicide-ganking, it's much more worrisome, because that means that CCP is targeting it as an activity in a way that's different from decreasing the server-wide mineral output. Unlike any other activity in the game, freighter-ganking is one that relies on multiple participants in one form or another, and the time constraints inherent to it mean that one person can't do it as efficiently by slowly, manually tabbing through windows and activating the gankers one at a time.
Now, it's fine if CCP wishes to say that freighter-ganking should be a group thing, that's fine. But then they shouldn't hold it to a double standard, and change current game mechanics so that the activity is as alt-friendly as all others. It's a fact that CONCORD on grid results in a decreased CONCORD response time, which is a problem for someone trying to manually gank with multiple accounts, as each subsequent shooter after the first will suffer an efficiency loss. This type of penalty doesn't exist for someone manually mining with multiple accounts, whether or not they're using multiboxing software (the only difference they'd experience is an increase in effort).
CCP is literally saying that freighter-ganking is the only activity in the game that will now penalize small groups of players using alts in comparison to multiple players using one account each. And I personally don't think that such a double standard should exist.
PS: I don't multibox or gank freighters.
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
|
|
|
Masao Kurata
Z List
163
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 05:28:02 -
[1141] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:It's a fact that CONCORD on grid results in a decreased CONCORD response time, which is a problem for someone trying to manually gank with multiple accounts, as each subsequent shooter after the first will suffer an efficiency loss.
Actually the squad's assigned to them until their ship's destroyed, as long as everyone shoots at (very) approximately the same time everyone gets the full response time. |
EaTCarbS
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 05:35:56 -
[1142] - Quote
The toxicity in this thread from the general player base displayed toward multiboxers is really disconcerting. Almost makes me embarrassed to call myself an EVE player. |
Jibaja
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 05:39:50 -
[1143] - Quote
I am rather neutral on this topic. Yes i run 10 accounts, and yea i was just starting to get into ISBoxer. the last time i was in the game that is. It sucks that i won't be able to do the same that i always do as easy. But damnt, i started out as an alt-tab *****.
i guess people need to get use to not using it as an exploit. I will still use ISBoxer, i'm glad they didn't ban it. If anything it has ALOT of features that still have worth. Like how well it sets up your accounts next to eachother. All people have to get use to with it is not using that broadcast all feature. so your going from one click to going and clicking on each client themselves. It beats the hell out of atl-tab, alt-tab-tab. alt-tab-tab-tab, many times if you get my drift. I mean hell, i only used it for mining anyway... only difference is, is that i'll have to have my cycles going off at different times instead of the same. who cares. :3
otherwise, i am ok with this change. Takes those who would be hostile towards people like me with their suicide army of 1 out of the picture.. :3 |
Deimos Barret
THE GWG
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 05:40:32 -
[1144] - Quote
+1 Thank you for continuing to try to level the playing field.
That said, since you banned all the bot miners, and another couple dozen thousand are about to quit, think you can like... fix the economy still? Mineral prices are about to skyrocket even more.
Maybe fix those faucets, eh? Incursions*coughcough*
Add significant sinks too maybe? NPC-costs keep going down, and isk-injection keeps going up. Couple that with the (good) increasing crack-down on automated resource gathering, and you're looking at 100m isk T1 cruisers in another year or two.
Also, something, something, Plush.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6484
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 05:40:32 -
[1145] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:It's a fact that CONCORD on grid results in a decreased CONCORD response time, which is a problem for someone trying to manually gank with multiple accounts, as each subsequent shooter after the first will suffer an efficiency loss. Actually the squad's assigned to them until their ship's destroyed, as long as everyone shoots at (very) approximately the same time everyone gets the full response time.
Ah I see.
So unless there's a CONCORD on grid when you agress, it will have to take a timer to spawn them?
Can a CONCORD that has killed a ganker immediately kill someone else who was already agressed 2 seconds ago, or will it essentially only start killing other people if they agress in front of it?
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Carmen Electra
The Scope
Gallente Federation
13688
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 05:41:26 -
[1146] - Quote
Yikes! As an ISBoxer user, I've been pretty hesitant to chime in on this thread since it's pretty clear that the GD population isn't too hot on us 'boxers.
CCP: Tip of my hat to you for being willing to make such a gutsy move. I respect that you're willing to exchange the extra subscription revenue for the possibility of a better EVE in the long term. I agree that ISBoxer is likely bad for the overall health of the game for reasons that have been thorougly covered in this thread.
I started using ISBoxer to earn ISK faster, but it quickly became a playstyle unto itself. It put a particularly new and interesting spin on EVE for me. I have 15 accounts, and after this new policy takes effect, I will have absolutely no use for 13 of them. Given that this amounts to what is effectively a permaban for 13 of my accounts, this feels severely punative. I'm sure you can understand how this would be frustrating given that I have always played by the rules.
This puts me and others in a pretty tight spot. I've spent about a year carefully planning and tending to my ISBoxer fleet and it was nearly unbearable to log them in tonight knowing that my creation was about to be pretty much erased. "What you build has value" has been a marketing line in the past, and is what draws many people to EVE. What I've built is about to have no value 
If the last couple of release cycles are any indicator, EVE is headed in an exciting new direction. I'm torn because part of me is very excited to see what unfolds, but part of me will know that many people, myself included, were thrown under the bus to achieve EVE 2.0.
There must be some way to follow through with this excellent new direction for EVE without imposing what feels like a severe punishment on players who, though perhaps unpopular, have played by the rules.
Bacon makes us stronger
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2281
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 05:44:21 -
[1147] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:It's a fact that CONCORD on grid results in a decreased CONCORD response time, which is a problem for someone trying to manually gank with multiple accounts, as each subsequent shooter after the first will suffer an efficiency loss. Actually the squad's assigned to them until their ship's destroyed, as long as everyone shoots at (very) approximately the same time everyone gets the full response time.
Which is my point: all shooters need to shoot at the same time in order to achieve normal efficiency. This means either multiple players shoot at the same time using one account each, or one player uses software to accomplish the same thing with multiple accounts.
A single player manually shooting with multiple accounts is getting penalized in a way that is not applied to any other form of alt usage in the game. Seriously, I can't think of a single other one.
So if CCP goes through with this without extra modifications, they're basically saying that one player, at the expense of extra input effort, can use alt accounts with the efficiency of multiple players using single accounts for any activity except freighter-ganking (i.e., "being mean to others"). There's also the matter of multiple bombers, but that's such a fringe case that I doubt CCP is balancing around it anyway, as I said before.
My issue here is the precedent this rule change sets.
Alavaria Fera wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:It's a fact that CONCORD on grid results in a decreased CONCORD response time, which is a problem for someone trying to manually gank with multiple accounts, as each subsequent shooter after the first will suffer an efficiency loss. Actually the squad's assigned to them until their ship's destroyed, as long as everyone shoots at (very) approximately the same time everyone gets the full response time. Ah I see. So unless there's a CONCORD on grid when you agress, it will have to take a timer to spawn them? Can a CONCORD that has killed a ganker immediately kill someone else who was already agressed 2 seconds ago, or will it essentially only start killing other people if they agress in front of it?
The first CONCORD spawn (for the first ganker) will start killing the second ganker before the second CONCORD spawn appears for the second ganker, as long as it's finished killing the first ganker first.
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
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6484
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 05:47:02 -
[1148] - Quote
EaTCarbS wrote:The toxicity in this thread from the general player base displayed toward multiboxers is really disconcerting. Almost makes me embarrassed to call myself an EVE player.
You're not new here, are you?
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Kajurei Delainen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 05:50:09 -
[1149] - Quote
The last few months of game changes have all left us wondering...why does CCP want to scew the solo player and small groups?
Reducing capital jump distances mostly hurts the smaller operators that relied on capitals to get product to market from 0.0. Only the big alliances can now afford the chains and fuel to move products...everyone else is reduced to moving product through choke points.
If you wanted to get rid of capital power projection, and move the game towards sub cap fleet fights and roams, why not open up more transit points from 0.0 to low and high sec?
ISBox allowed the solo player or small groups to leverage their play experience with their wallet, time, and effort, to be able to take part in game content that would otherwise never be available to them.
CCP is all about letting certain parties like CODE. / Goons to Hi-Sec suicide kill small / solo players in empire; or reduce income from PI by making it a taxable and sov warfare related infrastructure - again hurting the small operators or solo players, and or cutting them off from that aspect of the game.
If its the biggest alliance wins this game, and to hell with everyone else; everyone else will go play Elite Dangerous, Star Citizen, or a multitude of other games.
CCP please consider not hurting the solo or small operators in the game. Small startups employ the most people, EVE's economy should reflect that also. Cutting off parts of the game from all but the largest groups of players is bad for business imo.
If you're going to ban people for automation, how about a ban for the people that suicide gank in hi-sec, or grief small groups with countless war decs, and on and on. ISBox is the least of your worries for the longevity of our player base.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1276
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 05:53:39 -
[1150] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:So is this a veiled suicide-ganking nerf? Because a big portion of freighter ganks is done by single players, or small groups of players, with multiple accounts each. There's no way that some dude with a bunch of bombers, or derpy miners sucking at Veld, are responsible for this change. I'm not a CCP dev, but 20 plus ISboxer mining fleets would have been plenty of reason for this long ago were the decision mine. Killing other multiboxed activities facilitated by the same would just be the icing on the cake. That said it's not a change in eve without someone getting a persecution complex over it. Something tells me that CCP isn't targeting miners, because mining is already suicidally-boring, and quite frankly, CCP needs all the miner bots it can get to supply the market with ore. Granted, we can let the invisible hand take over and pay the 50 ISK per unit of Trit that it's actually worth in a normal gameplay environment, so this isn't as troubling from this perspective. However, in the case of suicide-ganking, it's much more worrisome, because that means that CCP is targeting it as an activity in a way that's different from decreasing the server-wide mineral output. Unlike any other activity in the game, freighter-ganking is one that relies on multiple participants in one form or another, and the time constraints inherent to it mean that one person can't do it as efficiently by slowly, manually tabbing through windows and activating the gankers one at a time. Now, it's fine if CCP wishes to say that freighter-ganking should be a group thing, that's fine. But then they shouldn't hold it to a double standard, and change current game mechanics so that the activity is as alt-friendly as all others. It's a fact that CONCORD on grid results in a decreased CONCORD response time, which is a problem for someone trying to manually gank with multiple accounts, as each subsequent shooter after the first will suffer an efficiency loss. This type of penalty doesn't exist for someone manually mining with multiple accounts, whether or not they're using multiboxing software (the only difference they'd experience is an increase in effort). CCP is literally saying that freighter-ganking is the only activity in the game that will now penalize small groups of players using alts in comparison to multiple players using one account each. And I personally don't think that such a double standard should exist. PS: I don't multibox or gank freighters.
Just about all of what you have said holds true for anything but mining when it comes to tasks that hold a benefit for command broadcast multiboxing. 1 player bomber groups and incursions fleets come to mind in addition to gankers. In the former case it makes controlling a group of bombers unfeasible at best and in the latter case trashes efficiency while creating significant potential for losses.
There also seems to be some idea that all activities should have the same effort and character number requirements, as that would be necessary across all activities to prevent "selective" nerfing.
I don't think it an exaggeration to say that more than one multiboxing activity is dying because of this, including single player freighter ganking, but then I don't have any issue with the loss. |
|
|
Deimos Barret
THE GWG
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 05:54:55 -
[1151] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:[quote=Tyberius Franklin][quote=Destiny Corrupted]
... However, in the case of suicide-ganking, it's much more worrisome, because that means that CCP is targeting it as an activity in a way that's different from decreasing the server-wide mineral output. Unlike any other activity in the game, freighter-ganking is one that relies on multiple participants in one form or another....
So wait. You're saying that these people are going to have to go make FRIENDS with other REAL PEOPLE playing this MMO?.. To do that thing that SHOULD require multiple PEOPLE to do? HEAVENS! Don't get me wrong. I think freighters dying his hilarious. Do I think one dude should hit F1 and have 15 tornados fire? Hell no. If you want to kill people that badly, make a corp and meet people who like killing people too. Isn't that the point?
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2281
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:00:03 -
[1152] - Quote
Deimos Barret wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:[quote=Tyberius Franklin][quote=Destiny Corrupted]
... However, in the case of suicide-ganking, it's much more worrisome, because that means that CCP is targeting it as an activity in a way that's different from decreasing the server-wide mineral output. Unlike any other activity in the game, freighter-ganking is one that relies on multiple participants in one form or another.... So wait. You're saying that these people are going to have to go make FRIENDS with other REAL PEOPLE playing this MMO?.. To do that thing that SHOULD require multiple PEOPLE to do? HEAVENS! Don't get me wrong. I think freighters dying his hilarious. Do I think one dude should hit F1 and have 15 tornados fire? Hell no. If you want to kill people that badly, make a corp and meet people who like killing people too. Isn't that the point?
You didn't actually read what I wrote, did you?
What I said was that as far as suicide-ganking goes, the requirement to make friends in order to conduct this activity shouldn't be held to a double standard, since there's no requirement to make friends for any other activity in the game, due to the fact that using alts is as, or even more efficient than doing it with other players.
You don't need to have friends to cyno your capital ship around the universe, you don't need to have friends in order to run a mission and salvage at the same time, and you don't need to have friends to casually tab through multiple clients during the course of a strip miner cycle. But you [b]will[/b[ need friends to gank freighters. Double standard.
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
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25659
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:01:53 -
[1153] - Quote
there's 2 possibilities behind this.
the first is they want to let multiboxing continue at the cost of limited human input rates, and slowing down your rig.
the second is they want to improve on the way multiboxing happens in EVE.
the things that make me hopeful are: the prevalence of multiboxing, power of 2 promotions, and the trend of Seagull. I doubt this is just as simple as suddenly pulling the plug on multiboxers with nothing better in store.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
23509
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:04:11 -
[1154] - Quote
Carmen Electra wrote:...There must be some way to follow through with this excellent new direction for EVE without imposing what feels like a severe punishment on players who, though perhaps unpopular, have played by the rules.
Carmen, I can certainly feel for your situation today.
We have a guy in Alliance that is in a similar position to you. He maintains a 12 character incursion running fleet to run Vanguards. That's his source of income in the game and it's fed straight back into his Corporation to fund his ship replacement program. He recruits new players and provides them with fully fitted ships to go lose in lowsec pvp.
Far from doing anything wrong, he's encouraging everything good about the game at his own personal expense to train and maintain a fleet of characters that he ISBoxers.
I know you are similar, in terms of using the ISK to support other in game activities that are very much in line with what many in GD see as legitimate forms of play.
I hope CCP somehow amends their new policy before it's introduced so that people who use ISBoxer legitimately can continue to use it in the future.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Toxicblu3
The Scope
Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:05:12 -
[1155] - Quote
Fantastic change.
Now fix offgrid links please |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1276
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:05:30 -
[1156] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Deimos Barret wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:[quote=Tyberius Franklin][quote=Destiny Corrupted]
... However, in the case of suicide-ganking, it's much more worrisome, because that means that CCP is targeting it as an activity in a way that's different from decreasing the server-wide mineral output. Unlike any other activity in the game, freighter-ganking is one that relies on multiple participants in one form or another.... So wait. You're saying that these people are going to have to go make FRIENDS with other REAL PEOPLE playing this MMO?.. To do that thing that SHOULD require multiple PEOPLE to do? HEAVENS! Don't get me wrong. I think freighters dying his hilarious. Do I think one dude should hit F1 and have 15 tornados fire? Hell no. If you want to kill people that badly, make a corp and meet people who like killing people too. Isn't that the point? You didn't actually read what I wrote, did you? What I said was that as far as suicide-ganking goes, the requirement to make friends in order to conduct this activity shouldn't be held to a double standard, since there's no requirement to make friends for any other activity in the game, due to the fact that using alts is as, or even more efficient than doing it with other players. You don't need to have friends to cyno your capital ship around the universe, you don't need to have friends in order to run a mission and salvage at the same time, and you don't need to have friends to casually tab through multiple clients during the course of a strip miner cycle. But you [b]will[/b[ need friends to gank freighters. Double standard.
Incursions and WH site runners should be able to reasonably solo all of their content as well by this logic. We've had a double standard for a while, and while it wasn't linked to the number of people it WAS linked to the number of clients.
All of there activities that could be multiboxed will be losing efficiency, but if other activities have a bar set in a place where multiple people are needed to accomplish a task then that means there is room in the game for it and no reason to homogenize effort or player count requirements.
|
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
156
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:06:38 -
[1157] - Quote
Kajurei Delainen wrote:... to leverage their play experience with their wallet...
There's your problem. There's a name for games that let you experience better results with pumping in more RL-money. I don't think just this will fix everything but it's a good start.
Lots of respect for CCP to make the decision. This will probably be a noticeable drop for their income for the short term at least.
This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.
|
crazyamorgianos amorgianos
Tetraktys
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:09:15 -
[1158] - Quote
Good job CCP |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1276
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:10:36 -
[1159] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Just about all of what you have said holds true for anything but mining when it comes to tasks that hold a benefit for command broadcast multiboxing. 1 player bomber groups and incursions fleets come to mind in addition to gankers. In the former case it makes controlling a group of bombers unfeasible at best and in the latter case trashes efficiency while creating significant potential for losses. Mining and running incursions doesn't have the same time constraints that dealing with CONCORD does. You can have enough tank on an incursion ship to have enough time to cycle between your 3 Guardian alts and focus your RR; CONCORD, on the other hand, is a kill trigger. Time constraints are irrelevant, you either suffer loss in efficiency when doing it or you don't. And in an incursion if you aren't needing to cycle through engaging targets fast enough to run you ragged on top of running those logi you aren't making isk at any appreciable rate. You're just tanking rats. You may not lose a ship, but not losing a ship, to concord or anyone else isn't exactly the most honest measure of the total loss due to this change. Suggesting it is seems rather dishonest.
|
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
9
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:11:33 -
[1160] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Carmen Electra wrote:...There must be some way to follow through with this excellent new direction for EVE without imposing what feels like a severe punishment on players who, though perhaps unpopular, have played by the rules. Carmen, I can certainly feel for your situation today. We have a guy in Alliance that is in a similar position to you. He maintains a 12 character incursion running fleet to run Vanguards. That's his source of income in the game and it's fed straight back into his Corporation to fund his ship replacement program. He recruits new players and provides them with fully fitted ships to go lose in lowsec pvp. Far from doing anything wrong, he's encouraging everything good about the game at his own personal expense to train and maintain a fleet of characters that he ISBoxers. I know you are similar, in terms of using the ISK to support other in game activities that are very much in line with what many in GD see as legitimate forms of play. I hope CCP somehow amends their new policy before it's introduced so that people who use ISBoxer legitimately can continue to use it in the future.
CCP move the goal posts again. Many people multibox with ISboxer in VGs to support so much in game content, this is not something the whining hordes see, but they will when the trickle down effect disseminated form this. So many accounts gonna expire :) |
|
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2281
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:12:35 -
[1161] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Incursions and WH site runners should be able to reasonably solo all of their content as well by this logic. We've had a double standard for a while, and while it wasn't linked to the number of people it WAS linked to the number of clients.
All of there activities that could be multiboxed will be losing efficiency, but if other activities have a bar set in a place where multiple people are needed to accomplish a task then that means there is room in the game for it and no reason to homogenize effort or player count requirements.
Once again:
- Incursions and Sleepers are not kill triggers, and are already done solo by single players with alts.
- No other activity gains efficiency from multiboxing. The only thing that multiboxing does for other activities is decrease the effort of input required to conduct them. Meanwhile, suicide-ganking will suffer an [/i]actual[/i] efficiency loss, due to the necessity for more accounts.
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
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3117
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:14:00 -
[1162] - Quote
Marilyn Maulerant wrote:La Nariz wrote:Marilyn Maulerant wrote:La Nariz wrote:
No, no you're wrong you don't understand the nuance. I suppose I should be more considerate because you highsec people are woefully unaware and uneducated. You need to be more aware of your representatives doings and his logic applies here too.
ISBoxer and auto repeat being on mining equipment "doesn't make sense."
Oh wait, I know what's wrong now I guess I need to move out of null and live in high sec... my bad.... BTW? Assumptive much? no need to answer that either, I'm going to follow the other fellow's lead and ignore your absurdity. you should probably look up the definition of nuance too as I don't think your explanations met the requirement to differentiate between an empty vessel and nuance, at least they didn't to myself and some other folks. OF course you live in highsec, if you didn't then you wouldn't have claimed mike azariah as your representative. You also would be more aware and less uneducated. That means you admit defeat I've won the argument and am thus right, mining equipment should no longer have auto repeat. no, i didn't, I simply am not going to waste any more time with someone who has absolutely no clue and evidently no ability to read what was presented to them. and I wasn't the one who claimed Mike, you're the one who said he was my rep.. LOL o/
Now this here is highsec thinking, I brought well thought out reasonable conclusions from ccp's recent is boxer announcement and all this guy does is shout incoherently. I can't believe we expose newbies to people like this, they are down right horrible, no wonder the game has trouble retaining trial accounts with cyber bullies like this dude around. Why can't you be reasonable and put your partisan highsec logic away so we can have a discussion?
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25659
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:14:31 -
[1163] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:
CCP move the goal posts again. Many people multibox with ISboxer in VGs to support so much in game content, this is not something the whining hordes see, but they will when the trickle down effect disseminated form this. So many accounts gonna expire :)
Yeah, ISBoxer subscriptions, maybe.
Goalposts need to move sometimes, because not everything sits still while you do nothing to iterate.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Jibaja
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:15:00 -
[1164] - Quote
Carmen Electra wrote: I have 15 accounts, and after this new policy takes effect, I will have absolutely no use for 12 of them. Given that this amounts to what is effectively a permaban for 12 of my accounts, this feels severely punative. I'm sure you can understand how this would be frustrating given that I have always played by the rules. This puts me and others in a pretty tight spot. I've spent about a year carefully planning and tending to my ISBoxer fleet and it was nearly unbearable to log them in tonight knowing that my creation was about to be pretty much erased. "What you build has value" has been a marketing line in the past, and is what draws many people to EVE. What I've built is about to have no value There must be some way to follow through with this excellent new direction for EVE without imposing what feels like a severe punishment on players who, though perhaps unpopular, have played by the rules.
So where was it that they said you can't use ISBoxer? i believe you stlil can. you just can't use the broadcast feature unless, as they said is logging in and whatnot. |
soomon
Deathly without Tactics
Independent Stars Allied Forces
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:17:17 -
[1165] - Quote
THANKS CCP !!!
|
Steppa Musana
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:20:29 -
[1166] - Quote
bleh nevermind. |
Sheffsam
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:21:30 -
[1167] - Quote
Jeanette Leon wrote:Brutus Le'montac wrote:Kouga Pegasus wrote:Brutus Le'montac wrote:are logitech keyboards with macro keys now also prohibited ( if i use the 1 or more of the 18 macro keys)?
if so please send me the info i need to claim 150$ from ccp for a new keybord, or send me a gamer keyboard that does not have macro keys ccp, tyvm in advance. This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to: GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules SAME QUESTION HELLOO CCPP i am asking tooooo aslong as i use it for 1 client only, to activate all my hardners for example it isnt broadcasting to multiple clients so should be allowed? its so nice that ccp i so clear about this, instead off dropping 1 long list of should and shouldnts, and then withdraw in the dark, oow wait, they are doing just that aint they.... With a two strike permaban policy I'd surely appreciate some clarification on that aswell
Yeah, I know a bunch of people are saying it's OK, but it would be nice if we could get a response to this in clear terms from a CCP source. I don't really fancy risking a 30day ban because I used a programmable mouse button.
|
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7299
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:24:14 -
[1168] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:To those celebrating the death of the one-man mining fleets, I want you to know there isn't a single solo miner in my systems of operation that is happy about this.
As a token of appreciation to the regular miners in these systems (that don't F with my fleet), I offer them a chunk of my income when they are on-grid, to compensate for the lack of available mats.
I also offer the newer players SRP when they are ganked.
When gankers come my mining fleet turns into an ECM and RR fleet, and so there are no resident gankers in our area as as result.
When I pack up my bags these miners will lose income, be hurt harder by ganks, and have no one there to keep the gankers away if they choose to target our systems.
I want you to know there isn't a single solo miner in my systems of operation that is happy about that. So whatever CCP is trying to help, they aren't helping any of us over here! You're going to kill a big part of our community here, because it centers around me. Arrogant but true. Just like a great FC or alliance leader can make or break an entire group, the same it is for us.
Can I haz your stuffz?
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'.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2281
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:25:25 -
[1169] - Quote
There's literally no way for them to detect people using mouse/keyboard drivers to bind multiple key presses to one button. None.
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
|
Bloody Slave
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
175
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:25:53 -
[1170] - Quote
Systimus wrote:I use isboxer to mine with 4 accounts. Never have pvp'd with it. I don't use constantly but might use it to activate auto pilot or to dock. If I'm reading this correctly, this action with be banned . So no point in having 4 accounts so might as well cancel 3 of them.
Elite dangerous is out soon. Maybe cancel all 4 and have a go at that instead.
And you will go mine, auto pilot and never PvP in Elite Dangerous with 4 or more accounts as well?
EVE is not here for 12 years without a reason. Go watch "This is EVE" and try to understand why.
@CCP: This is the best Christmas gift I got in 9 years playing. I will spread the word with some of my old mates that left, thank you!
If your balls are hurt and bleeding don't sit in a pool full of piranhas (note to myself: don't complain in GD)
|
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2454
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:26:16 -
[1171] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:As much as I like the notoriety . . . duplication of keystrokes is not the same as autorepeat so using my catch phrase of 'it makes sense' is just out of context quoting. But at least you spelled my name right so that's nice.
Secondly, while I would LOVE to be considered the representative of all of highsec I am not so you cannot tar a highsec rep with the 'Mike Brush' (me).
Now onto the topic that is actually at hand.
Edge cases are just that but seriously, shooting someone at midnight on new years? Why don't you drag timezones in as well?
No, I don't think we should have grades of OK like it is OK in self defense. No, I don't think mining is OK as a person who uses stuff in game I look forward to mineral prices finding a new balance after entire belts are NOT eaten by one player.
Yes, I think every action in Eve can be considered a form of PvP if you want to stretch the definition. Yes, I want to see 30 players doing things where one guy and a program were before. I have been in a bomber wing, an incursion fleet, mining op. They were better because of the people around me and I want all the new player to experience that, not see some growler1 growler2 growler3 take all the targets out from under them.
Last point. There is, here, a warning of a rule change coming. I have yet to see any salient argument except for people warning of their leaving, which is to be expected. Multiboxing and simultaneity of commands has lessened our game, not made it better, and this change is long overdue. It may cause some to go and take their 'x' accounts with them. The PEOPLE will be missed but not what they were doing.
m
Not emptying quoting.
Fleet warping: Complete Bravo Sierra.
AFK Cloaking: Complete Bravo Sierra.
Modules auto cycling: Complete Bravo Sierra.
None of those "arguments" have a leg to stand on because none of them rely on a third party program that costs money. All of them are part of the client/game and everyone has them can benefit from them.
Hell, I have more respect for the "I'm taking my ball and going home", sub-group of ISBoxers. They are at least honest.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2454
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:28:49 -
[1172] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:I would like to request that CCP consider allowing Broadcasting to be used to update skillqueues, whether it be adding skills to the queue via broadcasting throughout, or only allowing one to hit "Accept" at the very end of manually-adding skills to the queue.
Well lets see, will it make it more efficient for players to acquire skill points...is it a third party software? Yes, and yes. Then no.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1276
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:31:43 -
[1173] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Incursions and WH site runners should be able to reasonably solo all of their content as well by this logic. We've had a double standard for a while, and while it wasn't linked to the number of people it WAS linked to the number of clients.
All of there activities that could be multiboxed will be losing efficiency, but if other activities have a bar set in a place where multiple people are needed to accomplish a task then that means there is room in the game for it and no reason to homogenize effort or player count requirements.
Once again: - Incursions and Sleepers are not kill triggers, and are already done solo by single players with alts. - No other activity gains efficiency from multiboxing. The only thing that multiboxing does for other activities is decrease the effort of input required to conduct them. Meanwhile, suicide-ganking will suffer an actual efficiency loss, due to the necessity for more accounts.
The broad claim that no other activities gain efficiency from multiboxing I have great issue believing. Mainly because of your failure to recognize that the reduction of inputs is an efficiency increase in that it eliminates any input lag accross clients and ensures that each client is fully contributing to whatever task is being done from the moment the player instructs the first client to engage.
Also, as stated the kill trigger is irrelevant in determining if an activity will suffer loss. It can either be done as fast as now or it can't and it's a hard sell that 10 clients in combat won't suffer slower completion times without imput broadcasting. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25659
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:33:06 -
[1174] - Quote
haters gonna hate
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2454
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:35:51 -
[1175] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:Last point. There is, here, a warning of a rule change coming. I have yet to see any salient argument except for people warning of their leaving, which is to be expected. Multiboxing and simultaneity of commands has lessened our game, not made it better, and this change is long overdue. It may cause some to go and take their 'x' accounts with them. The PEOPLE will be missed but not what they were doing. Counter-point: I have yet to see any salient argument as to why it should be banned besides "muh ice/minerals", "muh freighter afk piloting with 20b of stuff" and last but not least, "muh PLEX".
You keep ignoring the elephant in the room. You are using a 3rd party software to acquire more in game resources than a player not using said 3rd party software...even if they multibox.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2282
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:37:14 -
[1176] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:The broad claim that no other activities gain efficiency from multiboxing I have great issue believing. Mainly because of your failure to recognize that the reduction of inputs is an efficiency increase in that it eliminates any input lag accross clients and ensures that each client is fully contributing to whatever task is being done from the moment the player instructs the first client to engage.
Also, as stated the kill trigger is irrelevant in determining if an activity will suffer loss. It can either be done as fast as now or it can't and it's a hard sell that 10 clients in combat won't suffer slower completion times without imput broadcasting.
Let me rephrase that a little bit.
Yes, you do suffer an efficiency loss in other activities. But in comparison to having to deal with CONCORD during a suicide-gank, it's so minor that it's practically meaningless. Does the extra second it takes you to switch between accounts make a difference in how much money you make using 3-minute-duration strip miners, or when you're shooting an NPC that takes 3 minutes of focused firepower from a dozen ships to die? Yes, it does, to the tune of half a percentage point.
For a suicide-ganker, it would be the difference between using 10 ships, and 15.
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
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
Rim Worlds Protectorate
176
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:38:11 -
[1177] - Quote
Suffer short term losses of a Botting community er "Broadcasting" community.. to appease the Actual Playing community. Best Holiday present Ever. I will be glad to see the reduction of Bot-aspirant Behavior as CODE. would put it. Watch actual pilots moving ships more on their own instead of mass undocking 20 Miners or Cruisers at once. I much enjoyed the old days before ISboxer fully became a thing in EVE where you faught actual players not just clones upon clones. I have no problems with people using ISboxer to neaten up the monitors they use and for quick switching between screens. But I do hold issue with them piloting them all at once. Activating hardeners all at once, clearing out Belts all at once, or Destroying a fleet single handedly with their own private army.
Do not get me wrong, I am hella impressed with the skill it takes behind ISboxer armies fighting Lag and everything else to fully pull off some of those amazing kills. but I will not miss it |
sniperskitz
Claws Inc
Trouble In Little China
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:40:54 -
[1178] - Quote
Jita spam ban when?
Also to everyone saying impossible to detect hardware macros and all the else, they will be looking at commands sent to server, if they are too fast and consistent it will be monitored and reviewed.
Just wait for ISBoxer to have a delayed broadcast option |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2454
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:43:51 -
[1179] - Quote
Systimus wrote:I use isboxer to mine with 4 accounts. Never have pvp'd with it. I don't use constantly but might use it to activate auto pilot or to dock. If I'm reading this correctly, this action with be banned . So no point in having 4 accounts so might as well cancel 3 of them.
Elite dangerous is out soon. Maybe cancel all 4 and have a go at that instead.
My God...it is that hard to turn on your mining lasers across 4 accounts (or 3 is one is a hauler/booster/etc.)? Seriously? If so, then this really is the wrong game for you.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
La Doktoro
Blasphemous Intentions
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:44:14 -
[1180] - Quote
Shrug. Honestly in my opinionI don't see much changing.
I mostly use isboxer for the video FX features and windows layouts. so in theory i could easily switch to something like https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246157&find=unread if they did completely ban isboxer
It took me all of hour maybe to switch things tonight to be legit in two different ways one without isboxer and one with
First opinion you can use logitech or whatever software with a gaming pad or keyboard with programmable keys.
example I could of easily set it so 1st time i hit g3 button button on my logitech keyboard it sends as Command to switch to Window 1 + F1 next press switch to Window2 + F1 and on through the list. I could easily press the key 10 times in next to no time. 10 clients 10 key presses it's legal.
the command to switch the windows is happening on your machine not in game and not affecting the in game actions so its legal in my opinion but I can see some fighting the point.
Downsides This means setting up a ton of hot keys but still easy enough.
if you have one of your guys parked(afk cloaking) or not logged in you need to either modify the list or risk uncloaking or have wasted keystrokes.
Second option isboxer, I can make a round robin key with a action target group. each time I press the button it sends my desired key stroke to one character in the group until its sent it to all of them. 10 characters 10 key presses all legit
advantage if a character slot isn't actually running it won't try to send a keystroke to that character. if i want to park them (afk cloaking) somewhere changing the group membership takes next to no time.
Targeting I have always done manually too unreliable im my opinion to automate
I know in logitech you can set a button to ctrl + left MB click at a given screen coordinate so also setup your broadcast windows i the same paces. 10 button pushes 10 locked targets in what 1-2 seconds ?
I expect you can do the same with other vendors software also.
isboxer I can do this several different ways I would prolly go where do like before just add the Video Fx feature
just means it opens a little video fx(think video feed of a given size) around current mouse location so i can see where my mouse is on that character screen click and it sends a ctrl left click 10 key presses and 10 left clicks 10 locked targets
with broadcast windows again you can easily lock targets in a nominal amount of time.
it wouldn't be a pure 100% alpha strike like you can with broadcast targeting however the time difference will be for most part insignificant in my opinion.
Moving around I never move all my guys at once through jumps with broadcast it's stupid and asking for you to lose stuff something is always eventually going to go wrong. So whatever.
If I'm moving around in system use fleet warp and done.
So we've covered targeting, activating modules/weapons and basic movement in legit ways with only the barest of time increases but there is a slight delay
I just don't see how it's going to change very much at all other than to be a way to ban the stupid or lazy folks that don't time to set things up right and legit.
I'm actually more concerned about False positives.
if CCP is relying solely on time delays between clients showing a key press to detect broadcasts thats just not going to work.
I can press one key 10 times in a second easily. thats 0.1 seconds per key press or 100MS and as I showed above that will send the commands i need legitimately.
so I expect CCP is going to include other standards for detecting broadcasts than just time. I also know they'll never tell us what they are and I don't blame them for not telling us either.
because in both solution I listed above you can build in buffer time delays between the key presses of a variable amount
so its never the same amount which can be used to try defeat time detections
That's my only concern about this change is getting tagged as breaking the rules when I'm not.
I give CCP credit for trying to address what they perceive as a issue by the community.
It took courage knowing it was going to **** off a lot of folks and cost them subscriptions because the feeling is this is what the community wants.
But ultimately I don't think It's going to change a thing.
We are all a bunch of crazy inventive people when we choose to be and quit trolling each other.
I'm sure someone has already thought of even better and legit ways of doing things than I listed above too. Multiboxing in this game is worth the effort of thinking up legit solutions so it's not going anywhere. |
|
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2282
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:45:33 -
[1181] - Quote
sniperskitz wrote:Jita spam ban when?
Also to everyone saying impossible to detect hardware macros and all the else, they will be looking at commands sent to server, if they are too fast and consistent it will be monitored and reviewed.
Just wait for ISBoxer to have a delayed broadcast option
What is the difference between having mouse drivers input F1-F4 with a single button press (also keep in mind that pretty much all hardware macros now support the addition of delays between commands), or yours truly picking up a Tic Tac container from the desk and using it to uniformly press those same keys on the keyboard at once?
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
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:48:31 -
[1182] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Suffer short term losses of a Botting community er "Broadcasting" community.. to appease the Actual Playing community. Best Holiday present Ever. I will be glad to see the reduction of Bot-aspirant Behavior as CODE. would put it. Watch actual pilots moving ships more on their own instead of mass undocking 20 Miners or Cruisers at once. I much enjoyed the old days before ISboxer fully became a thing in EVE where you faught actual players not just clones upon clones. I have no problems with people using ISboxer to neaten up the monitors they use and for quick switching between screens. But I do hold issue with them piloting them all at once. Activating hardeners all at once, clearing out Belts all at once, or Destroying a fleet single handedly with their own private army.
Do not get me wrong, I am hella impressed with the skill it takes behind ISboxer armies fighting Lag and everything else to fully pull off some of those amazing kills. but I will not miss it
Miners wont stop mining, you dont have to use brodcasting to mine. Using the brodcasting while mining would only make bigger problem than not using it. its not like you going to all target the same stone. (unless you really have miss understood game mechanics) and we also got fleet Warp. so i see nothing changing about mining. Aand It's Not botting if players doing it. Botters are ai's who dont need human interferance for doing Things. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2454
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:49:04 -
[1183] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:sniperskitz wrote:Jita spam ban when?
Also to everyone saying impossible to detect hardware macros and all the else, they will be looking at commands sent to server, if they are too fast and consistent it will be monitored and reviewed.
Just wait for ISBoxer to have a delayed broadcast option What is the difference between having mouse drivers input F1-F4 with a single button press (also keep in mind that pretty much all hardware macros now support the addition of delays between commands), or yours truly picking up a Tic Tac container from the desk and using it to uniformly press those same keys on the keyboard at once?
Or using 4 fingers at once?
If CCP goes down this road CCP would be very stupid as the number of false positives would be very significant.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
266
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:49:48 -
[1184] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:Last point. There is, here, a warning of a rule change coming. I have yet to see any salient argument except for people warning of their leaving, which is to be expected. Multiboxing and simultaneity of commands has lessened our game, not made it better, and this change is long overdue. It may cause some to go and take their 'x' accounts with them. The PEOPLE will be missed but not what they were doing. Counter-point: I have yet to see any salient argument as to why it should be banned besides "muh ice/minerals", "muh freighter afk piloting with 20b of stuff" and last but not least, "muh PLEX". You keep ignoring the elephant in the room. You are using a 3rd party software to acquire more in game resources than a player not using said 3rd party software...even if they multibox.
CCP has time and again stated that the clause is on a PER CHARACTER basis. 1/10 made me reply.
Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:I would like to request that CCP consider allowing Broadcasting to be used to update skillqueues, whether it be adding skills to the queue via broadcasting throughout, or only allowing one to hit "Accept" at the very end of manually-adding skills to the queue. Well lets see, will it make it more efficient for players to acquire skill points...is it a third party software? Yes, and yes. Then no.
Again, per-toon basis. If CCP is going to let us log in our set at once using ISBoxer, then this is not that big of a deal. Please, think with the head on your shoulders. |
Sheffsam
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:51:42 -
[1185] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:sniperskitz wrote:Jita spam ban when?
Also to everyone saying impossible to detect hardware macros and all the else, they will be looking at commands sent to server, if they are too fast and consistent it will be monitored and reviewed.
Just wait for ISBoxer to have a delayed broadcast option What is the difference between having mouse drivers input F1-F4 with a single button press (also keep in mind that pretty much all hardware macros now support the addition of delays between commands), or yours truly picking up a Tic Tac container from the desk and using it to uniformly press those same keys on the keyboard at once?
I would hazard a guess that even using a tictac container will have minor differences in ms, while a macro will repeat a consistent pattern. One thing computers are good at is recognising patterns, if they are asked to do so. I'm not a developer though, so I have no idea if that's something that could practically be done within eve. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
23512
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:53:24 -
[1186] - Quote
Jibaja wrote:Carmen Electra wrote: I have 15 accounts, and after this new policy takes effect, I will have absolutely no use for 12 of them. Given that this amounts to what is effectively a permaban for 12 of my accounts, this feels severely punative. I'm sure you can understand how this would be frustrating given that I have always played by the rules. This puts me and others in a pretty tight spot. I've spent about a year carefully planning and tending to my ISBoxer fleet and it was nearly unbearable to log them in tonight knowing that my creation was about to be pretty much erased. "What you build has value" has been a marketing line in the past, and is what draws many people to EVE. What I've built is about to have no value There must be some way to follow through with this excellent new direction for EVE without imposing what feels like a severe punishment on players who, though perhaps unpopular, have played by the rules. So where was it that they said you can't use ISBoxer? i believe you stlil can. you just can't use the broadcast feature unless, as they said is logging in and whatnot.
Actually, where did Carmen say that ISBoxer can't be used?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2282
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:57:22 -
[1187] - Quote
Sheffsam wrote:I would hazard a guess that even using a tictac container will have minor differences in ms, while a macro will repeat a consistent pattern. One thing computers are good at is recognising patterns, if they are asked to do so. I'm not a developer though, so I have no idea if that's something that could practically be done within eve.
You can very easily randomize the delay using most software solutions.
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
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 06:59:05 -
[1188] - Quote
La Doktoro wrote:Shrug. Honestly in my opinionI don't see much changing. I mostly use isboxer for the video FX features and windows layouts. so in theory i could easily switch to something like https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246157&find=unread if they did completely ban isboxer It took me all of hour maybe to switch things tonight to be legit in two different ways one without isboxer and one with First opinion you can use logitech or whatever software with a gaming pad or keyboard with programmable keys. example I could of easily set it so 1st time i hit g3 button button on my logitech keyboard it sends as Command to switch to Window 1 + F1 next press switch to Window2 + F1 and on through the list. I could easily press the key 10 times in next to no time. 10 clients 10 key presses it's legal. the command to switch the windows is happening on your machine not in game and not affecting the in game actions so its legal in my opinion but I can see some fighting the point. Downsides This means setting up a ton of hot keys but still easy enough. if you have one of your guys parked(afk cloaking) or not logged in you need to either modify the list or risk uncloaking or have wasted keystrokes. Second option isboxer, I can make a round robin key with a action target group. each time I press the button it sends my desired key stroke to one character in the group until its sent it to all of them. 10 characters 10 key presses all legit advantage if a character slot isn't actually running it won't try to send a keystroke to that character. if i want to park them (afk cloaking) somewhere changing the group membership takes next to no time. Targeting I have always done manually too unreliable im my opinion to automate I know in logitech you can set a button to ctrl + left MB click at a given screen coordinate so also setup your broadcast windows i the same paces. 10 button pushes 10 locked targets in what 1-2 seconds ? I expect you can do the same with other vendors software also. isboxer I can do this several different ways I would prolly go where do like before just add the Video Fx feature just means it opens a little video fx(think video feed of a given size) around current mouse location so i can see where my mouse is on that character screen click and it sends a ctrl left click 10 key presses and 10 left clicks 10 locked targets with broadcast windows again you can easily lock targets in a nominal amount of time. it wouldn't be a pure 100% alpha strike like you can with broadcast targeting however the time difference will be for most part insignificant in my opinion. Moving around I never move all my guys at once through jumps with broadcast it's stupid and asking for you to lose stuff something is always eventually going to go wrong. So whatever. If I'm moving around in system use fleet warp and done. So we've covered targeting, activating modules/weapons and basic movement in legit ways with only the barest of time increases but there is a slight delay I just don't see how it's going to change very much at all other than to be a way to ban the stupid or lazy folks that don't time to set things up right and legit. I'm actually more concerned about False positives. if CCP is relying solely on time delays between clients showing a key press to detect broadcasts thats just not going to work. I can press one key 10 times in a second easily. thats 0.1 seconds per key press or 100MS and as I showed above that will send the commands i need legitimately. so I expect CCP is going to include other standards for detecting broadcasts than just time. I also know they'll never tell us what they are and I don't blame them for not telling us either. because in both solution I listed above you could build in buffer time delays between the key presses of a variable amount so its never the same amount which can be used to try defeat time detections but frankly im pressing the key 10 times i dont need to add in crazy time delays That's my only concern about this change is getting tagged as breaking the rules when I'm not. I give CCP credit for trying to address what they perceive as a issue by the community. It took courage knowing it was going to **** off a lot of folks and cost them subscriptions because the feeling is this is what the community wants. But ultimately I don't think It's going to change a thing. We are all a bunch of crazy inventive people when we choose to be and quit trolling each other. I'm sure someone has already thought of even better and legit ways of doing things than I listed above too. Multiboxing in this game is worth the effort of thinking up legit solutions so it's not going anywhere.
Yep. also People who think miners going to get stopped can dream :D
Also isb boxer is Nice to use anyway, even if you can use multi Control (Control multiple at 1 time)
And you dont even use it at mining. all you need is something you allready got'etc. fleet Warp.
By the way, thank for giving me the link :)
i going to look at it later :)
|
MrQuisno
Perkone
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:06:38 -
[1189] - Quote
Point clear isboxer is not BANNED!!!!
The parts of which you no longer can do with ixboxer is this....
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 Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing
Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game. |
Sailor Antimatter
Cat Stable
Brothers Of The Dark Sun
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:10:53 -
[1190] - Quote
Quote:actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇóWindow positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
Please implement custom UI layouts for multiboxers so that we can continue to retain interest in the game. I currently multibox with the VideoFX feature of ISBoxer, and it was an ISBoxer video that got me to download and register for EVE. |
|
|
MrQuisno
Perkone
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:12:13 -
[1191] - Quote
Part which I don't understand what is
What is it in eve that they say about ---> Input Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing
|
GeeBee
Paragon Fury
Tactical Narcotics Team
59
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:12:36 -
[1192] - Quote
My stand on ISBOXER's mirror ability has longtime been for *ease of use* or to excessively use a mechanic in the game that is inherently broken or overpowered. While I do support the removal of isboxer for BOMBing runs and maybe suicide ganking, overall the rest of the uses for it aren't too overpowered. I am worried about the economic inpact with the number of isboxing miners that will probably quit. Mining Sucks, if someone wants to use isboxer to mine it should be fair game. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25659
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:13:10 -
[1193] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Sheffsam wrote:I would hazard a guess that even using a tictac container will have minor differences in ms, while a macro will repeat a consistent pattern. One thing computers are good at is recognising patterns, if they are asked to do so. I'm not a developer though, so I have no idea if that's something that could practically be done within eve. You can very easily randomize the delay using most software solutions.
no comment. but this is what i was thinking. curious if ISBoxer author will pull the plug on EVE or decide to make ISBoxer smarter, cuz that's all it would take. If you know what ISBoxer is capable of, you'd know there's no way for EVE to detect ISBoxer.
a lot of people need to wake up and smell the coffee. Multiboxing is the best way to play EVE.
the cries about "a multiboxer killed me" are bullshit. when you undock you sign off on whatever you encounter in space.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Sheffsam
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:13:52 -
[1194] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Sheffsam wrote:I would hazard a guess that even using a tictac container will have minor differences in ms, while a macro will repeat a consistent pattern. One thing computers are good at is recognising patterns, if they are asked to do so. I'm not a developer though, so I have no idea if that's something that could practically be done within eve. You can very easily randomize the delay using most software solutions.
Indeed, which is why I think short multi-keystroke macros from mice and keyboards to a single client should not be an issue. I'd like CCP to actually clarify this point though, as it seems to be a recurring question in this thread that's not been answered. |
MrQuisno
Perkone
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:14:35 -
[1195] - Quote
Mining is very easy with isboxer even with out the Input Automation. just fleet warp away, just means more clicking... |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1276
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:15:58 -
[1196] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:The broad claim that no other activities gain efficiency from multiboxing I have great issue believing. Mainly because of your failure to recognize that the reduction of inputs is an efficiency increase in that it eliminates any input lag accross clients and ensures that each client is fully contributing to whatever task is being done from the moment the player instructs the first client to engage.
Also, as stated the kill trigger is irrelevant in determining if an activity will suffer loss. It can either be done as fast as now or it can't and it's a hard sell that 10 clients in combat won't suffer slower completion times without imput broadcasting. Let me rephrase that a little bit. Yes, you do suffer an efficiency loss in other activities. But in comparison to having to deal with CONCORD during a suicide-gank, it's so minor that it's practically meaningless. Does the extra second it takes you to switch between accounts make a difference in how much money you make using 3-minute-duration strip miners, or when you're shooting an NPC that takes 3 minutes of focused firepower from a dozen ships to die? Yes, it does, to the tune of half a percentage point. For a suicide-ganker, it would be the difference between using 10 ships, and 15. In mining specifically yes, the difference is minute, up to a reasonable number of clients. Though the more involved the activity the more potential loss. An incursion fleet taking 15 min to run a site instead of 10 is effectively in the same boat as a ganker. The only difference is that where for one time is a variable, the other uses additional accounts. Either way the variable condition represents a cost incurred by the loss of input broadcasting. Both can also be directly expressed in lost isk.
|
MrQuisno
Perkone
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:17:29 -
[1197] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Sheffsam wrote:I would hazard a guess that even using a tictac container will have minor differences in ms, while a macro will repeat a consistent pattern. One thing computers are good at is recognising patterns, if they are asked to do so. I'm not a developer though, so I have no idea if that's something that could practically be done within eve. You can very easily randomize the delay using most software solutions. no comment. but this is what i was thinking. curious if ISBoxer author will pull the plug on EVE or decide to make ISBoxer smarter, cuz that's all it would take. If you know what ISBoxer is capable of, you'd know there's no way for EVE to detect ISBoxer. a lot of people need to wake up and smell the coffee. Multiboxing is the best way to play EVE. the cries about "a multiboxer killed me" are bullshit. when you undock you sign off on whatever you encounter in space.
""They can easily check from one ISP of the same instances multiple clients of the game data being pulled.""" |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:20:00 -
[1198] - Quote
GeeBee wrote:My stand on ISBOXER's mirror ability has longtime been for *ease of use* or to excessively use a mechanic in the game that is inherently broken or overpowered. While I do support the removal of isboxer for BOMBing runs and maybe suicide ganking, overall the rest of the uses for it aren't too overpowered. I am worried about the economic inpact with the number of isboxing miners that will probably quit. Mining Sucks, if someone wants to use isboxer to mine it should be fair game.
Isb boxer not banned, Just copying inputs front 1 Client that og to all Clients going to be. Not Bannable yet. It going to change nothing about mining. |
Aengelina Abendroth
Valkyrie Logistical Support
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:20:40 -
[1199] - Quote
Excellent change for the health of EVE. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1276
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:23:01 -
[1200] - Quote
Sheffsam wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Sheffsam wrote:I would hazard a guess that even using a tictac container will have minor differences in ms, while a macro will repeat a consistent pattern. One thing computers are good at is recognising patterns, if they are asked to do so. I'm not a developer though, so I have no idea if that's something that could practically be done within eve. You can very easily randomize the delay using most software solutions. Indeed, which is why I think short multi-keystroke macros from mice and keyboards to a single client should not be an issue. I'd like CCP to actually clarify this point though, as it seems to be a recurring question in this thread that's not been answered. I'd question whether that ran against current rules about automation rather than anything that was announced here. Sounds like a good thing to ask in a petition. |
|
|
Restrict Lennelluc
The Scope
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:24:48 -
[1201] - Quote
I knew it would come down to this. So many butthurt EVE players whose endless rants and mindless chatter led to this. What do you expect from players who can't accomplish things on their own and resort to rage over others who do succeed. It goes to show that the havenots will always remain in their raging mindset and will stop at nothing to ruin other peoples fun.
With that being said, as of now all 15 accounts have been closed. Goodbye CCP, I will take myself elsewhere where a players time and currency spent ingame is appreciated.
P.S. I'm still LOLing due to the fact that us ISBoxers have had such a great impact on this game and so many players are butthurt due to us.
ISBoxers be proud and Box on!
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
Warp to Cyno.
4186
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:28:22 -
[1202] - Quote
this is good news |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25659
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:34:02 -
[1203] - Quote
MrQuisno wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Sheffsam wrote:I would hazard a guess that even using a tictac container will have minor differences in ms, while a macro will repeat a consistent pattern. One thing computers are good at is recognising patterns, if they are asked to do so. I'm not a developer though, so I have no idea if that's something that could practically be done within eve. You can very easily randomize the delay using most software solutions. no comment. but this is what i was thinking. curious if ISBoxer author will pull the plug on EVE or decide to make ISBoxer smarter, cuz that's all it would take. If you know what ISBoxer is capable of, you'd know there's no way for EVE to detect ISBoxer. a lot of people need to wake up and smell the coffee. Multiboxing is the best way to play EVE. the cries about "a multiboxer killed me" are bullshit. when you undock you sign off on whatever you encounter in space. ""They can easily check from one ISP of the same instances multiple clients of the game data being pulled."""
so force computers pass a single client check, like trial accounts? can be bypassed. also pretty funny to suggest that.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Kharamete
Royal Assent
112
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:37:20 -
[1204] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
no comment. but this is what i was thinking. curious if ISBoxer author will pull the plug on EVE or decide to make ISBoxer smarter, cuz that's all it would take. If you know what ISBoxer is capable of, you'd know there's no way for EVE to detect ISBoxer.
ISBox author will hardcode inability to multi-broadcast as default for Eve into next iteration of ISBoxer. Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2ndrl2/the_end_isboxers/cmcqw2g
In particular this follow-up to the above link where he directly adresses this: http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2ndrl2/the_end_isboxers/cmcrq9r
[quote=ISBoxer Author]I am considering things like that, yes. There will be an ISBoxer update before this takes effect in January, which will probably lock down broadcasting by default for anyone who has selected EVE Online as the game.
CCP FoxFour: "... the what button... oh god I didn't even know that existed. BRB."
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25659
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:44:24 -
[1205] - Quote
cool, I never ISBoxed.
thanks for posting the info.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
RUS Comannder
Tremor Recorded
Variable Enterprise Training Standards
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:46:44 -
[1206] - Quote
Actually i this is a email I sent to CCP Eterne earlier today about this very subject. I sent the note to him after he did a nice job of closing a forum which what degenerated into a lot misstatements and probab ly some down right intentional mistruths which just supported the person's position. This was happening on both sides of the issue, so it was certainly time to shut it down. I'm trying to get this in before that happens here, as many incorrect statements are being made already.
Hi,
I just read your statement at the end of a closed forum started by a guy who petitioned some use of IS Boxer.-á I thank you for your sanity and tact.
I believe one of the last posters hit the nail on the head and I want to reaffirm it and ask you to forward this to the ones who keep this topic under review.
Key cloning is simply allowing a single player to operate every account paid for by that single person with the same speed as if each account were being played by a-ásingle person.-á It allows a person to get full value for each of-átheir subscriptions; every subscription can perform the action desired by the player at the precise time the player desires that action to occur.
(edited in - there are no bots - none)
In a different view, five players paying five subscriptions playing one character each can mine faster than one player paying for five subscriptions can mine with five characters.-á The single player payinf for five accounts is at a disadvantage to the five single players.-á Key cloning levels the playing field for the player who pays for five subscriptions when competing with the five players paying for one subscriptions each.
If the skills, modules,-áimplants, links, and fleet boosts are all equal for a really oversized sized fleet (but used for comparison) of-á-á20 players paying for 20 subscriptions playing one character each are compared to-áone player another ridiculous possiblity and not anything I would ever trust doing) paying for 20 subscriptions for a fleet of 20 multiboxed-ácharacters-áand is able to play each character-áwith an equal use of each subscription, the two fleets will have a very similar yield after a given period of time. Multiboxing does not affect cycles times or warp speeds, In fact, if both-áfleets use the same method of hauling the ore to station and returning, the fleet with twenty persons will probably have the advantage.-á The haulers for the 20 person fleet will have 20 (presumably) brains to keep track of what needs to be hauled and when while the single player will have a single brain to keep track of the hauling as nothing is automated or on a timer, but operated by the direct input-áusing mouse/keyboard.
I think the real issue here is some players are butt hurt that some other players individual wallets get fatter quicker; but that is the basic tenet of Eve, ISK vs RISK.-á
A single player has a better chance of not having a loss if a ganker appears and kills one two ships from that fleet as the rest bug out to different celestials .-á The multiboxed fleet owner will always suffer losses to a ganker who appears in the fleet area as it is very difficult to align 20 multiboxed ships and then have them depart together to a single celestial without a lot of bumping and banging so a sufficiently large and swift-killing host of gankers using neuts or webs can take down the whole multiboxed fleet-ábefore concorde can intervene.-á Again, it is an unlikely example but one I fear many people see as happening all the time. It may be happening in some instances, but that possiblilty is way above my level.
I only have-á12 accounts and primarily use-áIS Boxer to log in and do things like clear the mail cache.-á I use fleet commands for travel movements and most other multiple character activities.-á Honestly, using four toons each with their overview having-ájust the ore for each miner's crystal, it is too much of a headache to multibox and keep up with changing filters, moving the ship with the-áfewer kern roids to mine and to keep-áin range.-á There are options on IS boxer I don't use, because I'm not a coder and the instructions are not non-coder friendly.-á So instead of setting up the fleet-áwith a unique to task overview for each ship with a different task, I just set up one overview with all items so I can hop from one character-áto another and pick what I want that one to do.-á Some players are more efficient with the construction of the framework so each character will do the task the player wants done when the player presses the key or clicks the mouse. Being on the cusp of turning 68, my bucket is not deep enough to add that to the list.
On the other side of this, I am at a disadvantage of getting my subscription worth of play, even though I plex, it is evident that many people don't know that is not playing for free and taking money out of Eve's pocket, but really someone else who sells me a plex they paid 20 bux for is used by me to pay my 15 buck subscription so Eve wins.
Thank you,
All the-áRandom Tremor Members or just-áme
-á-á-á-á
|
Raziel Walker
Lucifer's Hammer
A Band Apart.
21
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:48:43 -
[1207] - Quote
As they said, Christmas came early this year.
No multiplication of commands to different eve clients allowed. Not really difficult to read either for all those people trying to find loopholes or excuses.
It doesn't matter what tool is used, isboxer, custom keyboard, tictac box or a wooden stick. What matters is the effect achieved.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
1808
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:49:37 -
[1208] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:As I previously posted, I'm uncertain what "Input Broadcasting" and "Input Multiplexing" mean; are they the same thing?
I can't find any useful answer via Google either. EULA would be a good catergory
While 'Input Broadcasting' is a valid rule, the term 'Input Multiplexing' seems to disallow what I'm assuming should still be a valid use case; one (or more) input source demux'ed to one of multiple possible channels based on user input (aka multiboxing across several clients with input always restricted to a single client at the time)
Nyan
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
isd community communications liaisons
3491
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 07:50:42 -
[1209] - Quote
Closed for a quick cleaning.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
112
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 08:32:47 -
[1210] - Quote
HELL YEAH |
|
|
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
1457
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 08:34:49 -
[1211] - Quote
Holy cow.
After all this time and dodging the hot bullet CCP finally did it.
Father... father, the sleeper has awakened!
*\o/* |
Hulky Boy
From Our Cold Dead Hands
The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 08:37:26 -
[1212] - Quote
Yes I'm cut, people need to have a cry because they suck and need to ruin this game for people that have actually made it over the last 10 years. If you don't like people using is-boxer don't go into systems where there are 30 people with similar names, its a dead give away that something bad might happen. If you think its unfair that some people pay 30 billion ISK a month to plex their accounts to have this privilege well you also suck.
Is-Boxer is fair everybody can use it. If you don't it means you cant expect to solo people that do. Get some more friends and come back with a bigger fleet. I love how 1 person can pawn a whole fleet it makes you fell good. CCP stop killing the fun. |
RUS Comannder
Tremor Recorded
Variable Enterprise Training Standards
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 08:39:34 -
[1213] - Quote
A lot of hairs will be split even those who see only black and white, there is still a lot of gray. I think the people who see in two starkly contrasting lights just don't really understand how it works. Hell, I don't understand how most of it works, but I have a question
One of the uses I have besides logging in and being able to have the screens for each account arrayed in small boxes across the top of the screen and the one I am actually working in taking up the other 90% of my 30 inch screen, is when I do housekeeping chores, like turning on broadcasting, which is almost always off, then hitting escape in the main window, whcih brings it up in all the other windows which have the same aspect ratio, then clicking on my working screen to clear the mail cache and the mail cache in all the accounts is cleared. Will I really have an unfair advantage doing that and stifle all the rest of the players?
Thank you. |
Nidal Fervor
State War Academy
Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 08:40:06 -
[1214] - Quote
After making several past threads on the isboxing issue I am glad to see that CCP are finally doing the right thing.
It's akin to botting because the effects are the same and that isboxer supports argument is based only on a technicality. While we're bound to see a reduction in accounts from some heavy isboxer users, it can only be good for the game in the long run. The current situation was out of hand and was only worsening. |
Gregor Parud
762
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 08:44:24 -
[1215] - Quote
Finally, ISboxer faggotry is out. A bold move CCP but I DO like the "we're going to lose a whole bunch of ISboxer subs over this but it's better for the game". |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
824
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 08:45:56 -
[1216] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
You can very easily randomize the delay using most software solutions.
isbotter is obvious, randomized or not. You will be busted, for right.
GeeBee wrote:Mining Sucks, if someone wants to use isboxer to mine it should be fair game.
if mining sucks, dont do it and leave the field for people who enjoy doing it, instead of destroying their play by your 60 botted miners.
Rain6637 wrote:
no comment. but this is what i was thinking. curious if ISBoxer author will pull the plug on EVE or decide to make ISBoxer smarter, cuz that's all it would take. If you know what ISBoxer is capable of, you'd know there's no way for EVE to detect ISBoxer.
a lot of people need to wake up and smell the coffee. Multiboxing is the best way to play EVE.
the cries about "a multiboxer killed me" are bullshit. when you undock you sign off on whatever you encounter in space.
yo, if you feel smart, keep doing and enjoy your ban later. Eve doesnt have to recognize isbotter, players will. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Brave Collective
1434
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 08:48:26 -
[1217] - Quote
RUS Comannder wrote:
I only have-á12 accounts
That kind of quote makes me laugh
Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25659
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 08:48:36 -
[1218] - Quote
but... nevermind.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Agent Intrepid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 08:51:17 -
[1219] - Quote
Restrict Lennelluc wrote:I knew it would come down to this. So many butthurt EVE players whose endless rants and mindless chatter led to this. What do you expect from players who can't accomplish things on their own and resort to rage over others who do succeed. It goes to show that the havenots will always remain in their raging mindset and will stop at nothing to ruin other peoples fun.
With that being said, as of now all 15 accounts have been closed. Goodbye CCP, I will take myself elsewhere where a players time and currency spent ingame is appreciated.
P.S. I'm still LOLing due to the fact that us ISBoxers have had such a great impact on this game and so many players are butthurt due to us.
ISBoxers be proud and Box on!
If you require third party software to play EVE then you're a sad individual. Good riddance.
I laugh at people with 5 accounts who claim they will quit because of this. Why do you need software to multibox such a small number of accounts? I play more than that at once, manually, I don't require "special" help to play the game. |
La Doktoro
Blasphemous Intentions
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 08:52:23 -
[1220] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:Finally, ISboxer faggotry is out. A bold move CCP but I DO like the "we're going to lose a whole bunch of ISboxer subs over this but it's better for the game".
IsBoxer isn't banned just one feature of it. The broadcast feature. one keypress or mouse click to many clients
A feature that can be worked around very easily and still be following the rules with nominal impact. I've already switched over |
|
|
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
941
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:02:40 -
[1221] - Quote
CCP. I love you man. I love you. You had never really lost my respect to begin with but if you had, just your actions in the past 6 months would have regained it. You are on an amazing streak of awesomeness, please keep it up.
I assume we'll see the number of bans and warnings after january 1st presented on Fanfest in March, right? Because that's some info I would love to see while sitting in a quiet ice belt without multiboxers. And the impact of this change is something I am very interested in seeing, mostly PLEX prices and market prices for just about anything.
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
RUS Comannder
Tremor Recorded
Variable Enterprise Training Standards
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:02:58 -
[1222] - Quote
Altrue wrote:RUS Comannder wrote:
I only have-á12 accounts
That kind of quote makes me laugh
A long time ago when I started playing in 2004, no one knew this game would be around for long, so I specialized players to trade, to mine to pvp and to build. There was no Eve approved way to change one player to another person or even ot have three trained up to do three different jobs and just logon and logoff to whichever of them was needed you could not train more than one per account, and 15 buck for an account is nothing to me. If I had full use of the limbs I have, my monthly eve costs would not cover one green's fee where I used to play several time a week. Even though Ebay was then full of ships, characters and accounts, it was against the rules and I am a rule follower, not breaker.
So in the interest of time savings and meeting the tasks needed to be a well rounded player, I built a corp for myself, while having one player in a corp with 70 or so other friends.
Let me see if there is anything about you I can laugh about - oh wait, I don't do that. |
Hikemi Karrado
State War Academy
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:06:22 -
[1223] - Quote
Actually a good move from CCP to clarify that.
ISBoxer should now have a "comply to CCP rules" button so that users can decide if the want to risk a ban or not.
For me, I'm looking for an alternate product like ISBoxer. It's just too expensive (well, talking about the driver) for an "Eve display optimizer" with a concurrent logon feature. |
Comrade Blade
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:12:30 -
[1224] - Quote
1) Thank you CCP for a great change. Keep.up the awesome work.
2) Thank you whinging ISBoxers, your tears and threats to unsub have made the slow trip home from work so.much more enjoyable :) |
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:13:01 -
[1225] - Quote
Hulky Boy wrote:Yes I'm cut, people need to have a cry because they suck and need to ruin this game for people that have actually made it over the last 10 years. If you don't like people using is-boxer don't go into systems where there are 30 people with similar names. [...]If you think its unfair that some people pay 30 billion ISK a month to plex their accounts to have this privilege well you also suck.
Please cry louder. I don't understand the part where you accuse the regular players ruining the (your?) game with this change.
As someone who owns 2 active accounts (not 12, 14, 20 or even more) I appreciate that people like you finally have to become normal again. \o/
You shouldn't have the legal possibility to use a third party tool which enables you to greatly increases your income ( I posted a comment from YT where ISboxers state to get 1.4 billion /hour to 6 billion/day). Telling me "everyone can do it" (aka cheat) doesn't change anything. Not I am ruining the game, people like you ruin the game.
I am paying for my accounts because I cannot afford spending so much time on earning isk/month and I am way below 1.4 billion isk/hour (more in the region of 20-60 million/hour).
All you do with ISboxer is earn enough isk to keep the accounts active with plex bought from the market. You don't pay cash, you only consume. Kicking people like you doesn't hurt the game. Plex will become chaeper again. Prices are already dropping (1 billion -> under 875k) and maybe at some point a regular player like me is able to purchase a plex on the market again. I plan to do this, not to pay for one ac but to use dual training.
So long and if you now cancel all your accounts:
1) Please give me your stuff
2) Go to another game and isbox there, I hope you like it (I recommend WOW) |
Shivanthar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
125
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:21:37 -
[1226] - Quote
I've read some posts after "Tears incoming" post in the first page.
TL;DR of all of this thing:
-CCP Falcon: FussssSSsssSSSss-ROOOOOO-DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH on a subject.
-Some Playerbase: "TearTearTearTear but I can live with that"
-Some thinking they're special and this shouldn't be applied to them: "Gonna unsub EVEEERY one of my chars".
Result: Fair game. Now I know it. That ship staying there is manually controlled and focused by a single person. Finally...
_Half _the lies they tell about me **aren't **true.
|
Devious Johnson
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:21:51 -
[1227] - Quote
[Hulky Boy wrote:Yes I'm cut, people need to have a cry because they suck and need to ruin this game for people that have actually made it over the last 10 years. If you don't like people using is-boxer don't go into systems where there are 30 people with similar names, its a dead give away that something bad might happen. If you think its unfair that some people pay 30 billion ISK a month to plex their accounts to have this privilege well you also suck.
Is-Boxer is fair everybody can use it. If you don't it means you cant expect to solo people that do. Get some more friends and come back with a bigger fleet. I love how 1 person can pawn a whole fleet it makes you fell good. CCP stop killing the fun.
To all isboxers who are having a cry like the above botter.
- I am traveling around the universe visiting all the ice belts with a custom fitted epithal tear tanker. Please use the tanker provided and nearby barren planets will thank you.
Let the death of your playstyle green the earth. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2283
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:23:11 -
[1228] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
You can very easily randomize the delay using most software solutions.
isbotter is obvious, randomized or not. You will be busted, for right.
Too bad I'm talking strictly about hardware macros done with mouse and keyboard drivers. My Logitech mouse has a scripting feature which can be used to do exactly what I described, and no ISBoxer is involved. For CCP to be able to detect that sort of thing on a broad scale, they'd need to utilize levels of spyware dickery that would make Israel's military blush.
Suggestion: learn how to read.
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
|
Sturmwolke
595
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:23:31 -
[1229] - Quote
Well, this is the most significant thing that CCP has done for 2014, the question right now if they have the balls to stand firm on it. You can definitely expect proponents against this to go on a campaign/crusade/propaganda war to either nullify or attempt to bend it to maintain status quo.
Mutiplexed automation (i.e. ISBoxing) slowly killed the game, which then degenerated into very heavy metagaming. Not to say that EVE itself doesn't involve a certain amount of metagaming, the Age of ISBoxing screwed pretty much, most of the casuals/semi-casuals players*, squeezing them out from serious competition due to the economics of scale by the very few hardcore players. This parallels in RL where megacorps transforms into shadow governments after wielding too much influence through monopolies - an effective oligarchy. Common principle, concentrating powers into the hands of the few without checks and balance, will never end well, regardless of any justifications given.
Anyway, imo, this is a good move, belatedly 2-3 years late ... but better late than never.
* defined as normal avg players (at most 2-3 accounts). When you go to extremes by having 5-10 accounts, plus an ISKBoxer account, thats no longer average.
Infact, that treads into the hardcore category.
|
Lee Janssen
Zero Fun Allowed
25
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:23:38 -
[1230] - Quote
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, no tears, only dreams now. |
|
|
Chalithra Lathar
Rhongomiant Legion Industries
The Explicit Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:24:02 -
[1231] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:All you do with ISboxer is earn enough isk to keep the accounts active with plex bought from the market. You don't pay cash, you only consume.
WRONG
Players who use PLEX simply use in-game currency in exchange for someone else to pay their subscription. Why this escapes some people is beyond me. |
GeeBee
Paragon Fury
Tactical Narcotics Team
59
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:25:01 -
[1232] - Quote
I do have to say that if mirrored input broadcasting isn't detectible and dealt with quickly and automatically this is going to be a very rough and annoying process relying on players policing each other with a silly amount of witchhunt and accusations going on between players that shouldn't be happening. If you cannot stop it without players reporting each or micro scoping players manually to detect it then this entire policy change is a load of uselessness and exercise in futility. Since botting is still a problem and identifying bots and reporting them is still a problem I am doubtful, but please prove me wrong. |
Agent Intrepid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:25:32 -
[1233] - Quote
Hikemi Karrado wrote:Actually a good move from CCP to clarify that.
ISBoxer should now have a "comply to CCP rules" button so that users can decide if the want to risk a ban or not.
For me, I'm looking for an alternate product like ISBoxer. It's just too expensive (well, talking about the driver) for an "Eve display optimizer" with a concurrent logon feature.
You don't realise that you're wasting your time? Input mirroring is banned. It doesn't matter how you do it, it's not allowed. If you find some crazy work around but it has the same effect and looks the same to CCP then you will be banned. There's no point in trying to get around it. You can choose to adapt or leave. |
Vulfen
Snuff Box
Snuffed Out
155
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:26:51 -
[1234] - Quote
I have serious questions of how CCP are going to actually police this?
An ISboxer running around 5-10 accounts might be easy to spot but someone running just 2/3 might be able to avoid detection easier, i'm sure ISboxer will take no time in implementing some measures to make it's program harder to detect. i.e adding a delay to each remote user, so it does not appear as if the same user is performing the same action at the same time.
|
Agent Intrepid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:28:41 -
[1235] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
You can very easily randomize the delay using most software solutions.
isbotter is obvious, randomized or not. You will be busted, for right. Too bad I'm talking strictly about hardware macros done with mouse and keyboard drivers. My Logitech mouse has a scripting feature which can be used to do exactly what I described, and no ISBoxer is involved. For CCP to be able to detect that sort of thing on a broad scale, they'd need to utilize levels of spyware dickery that would make Israel's military blush. Suggestion: learn how to read.
You should learn to read. Isboxer is not banned, input broadcasting is. And you would be right to assume that if you find some way to achieve the effect of input broadcasting or something closely related through other means then CCP will enforce their rules and ban you anyway.
We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe. |
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
156
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:33:18 -
[1236] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Too bad I'm talking strictly about hardware macros done with mouse and keyboard drivers. My Logitech mouse has a scripting feature which can be used to do exactly what I described, and no ISBoxer is involved.
It's your account but I wouldn't try that as per the first post. At least ask the GMs first if you think your setup is valid before trying it out. Here's the relevant bit.
Quote:We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe.
This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.
|
Agent Intrepid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:33:57 -
[1237] - Quote
Vulfen wrote:I have serious questions of how CCP are going to actually police this?
An ISboxer running around 5-10 accounts might be easy to spot but someone running just 2/3 might be able to avoid detection easier, i'm sure ISboxer will take no time in implementing some measures to make it's program harder to detect. i.e adding a delay to each remote user, so it does not appear as if the same user is performing the same action at the same time.
Would it not be correct to assume that if the developers of isboxer try to circumvent the rules of EVE online that perhaps CCP will go ahead and outright ban isboxer use altogether? If they have way to detect isboxer being ran on a machine, that would solve many problems of detection. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
296
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:36:17 -
[1238] - Quote
Agent Intrepid wrote:Hikemi Karrado wrote:Actually a good move from CCP to clarify that.
ISBoxer should now have a "comply to CCP rules" button so that users can decide if the want to risk a ban or not.
For me, I'm looking for an alternate product like ISBoxer. It's just too expensive (well, talking about the driver) for an "Eve display optimizer" with a concurrent logon feature. You don't realise that you're wasting your time? Input mirroring is banned. It doesn't matter how you do it, it's not allowed. If you find some crazy work around but it has the same effect and looks the same to CCP then you will be banned. There's no point in trying to get around it. You can choose to adapt or leave. We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe.
Way to read. Post you quoted is looking for something to do the display optimization as freeware.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Agent Intrepid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:37:55 -
[1239] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Agent Intrepid wrote:Hikemi Karrado wrote:Actually a good move from CCP to clarify that.
ISBoxer should now have a "comply to CCP rules" button so that users can decide if the want to risk a ban or not.
For me, I'm looking for an alternate product like ISBoxer. It's just too expensive (well, talking about the driver) for an "Eve display optimizer" with a concurrent logon feature. You don't realise that you're wasting your time? Input mirroring is banned. It doesn't matter how you do it, it's not allowed. If you find some crazy work around but it has the same effect and looks the same to CCP then you will be banned. There's no point in trying to get around it. You can choose to adapt or leave. We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe. Way to read. Post you quoted is looking for something to do the display optimization as freeware.
But if that's all he wants to use it for, then why he is seeking an alternative? CCP only outlawed input broadcasting. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2283
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:39:29 -
[1240] - Quote
Agent Intrepid wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
You can very easily randomize the delay using most software solutions.
isbotter is obvious, randomized or not. You will be busted, for right. Too bad I'm talking strictly about hardware macros done with mouse and keyboard drivers. My Logitech mouse has a scripting feature which can be used to do exactly what I described, and no ISBoxer is involved. For CCP to be able to detect that sort of thing on a broad scale, they'd need to utilize levels of spyware dickery that would make Israel's military blush. Suggestion: learn how to read. You should learn to read. Isboxer is not banned, input broadcasting is. And you would be right to assume that if you find some way to achieve the effect of input broadcasting or something closely related through other means then CCP will enforce their rules and ban you anyway. We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe.
Another winner here.
Here's a tl;dr for you, since you won't take the valuable time out of your life to read the discussion that led up to this anyway: there's no way for CCP to detect these forms of input multiplication. Do you even begin to comprehend how absurdly invasive it would be to put software that can do this into their game?
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
|
|
|
corebloodbrothers
Volition Cult
The Volition Cult
682
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:39:53 -
[1241] - Quote
Agent Intrepid wrote:Vulfen wrote:I have serious questions of how CCP are going to actually police this?
An ISboxer running around 5-10 accounts might be easy to spot but someone running just 2/3 might be able to avoid detection easier, i'm sure ISboxer will take no time in implementing some measures to make it's program harder to detect. i.e adding a delay to each remote user, so it does not appear as if the same user is performing the same action at the same time.
Would it not be correct to assume that if the developers of isboxer try to circumvent the rules of EVE online that perhaps CCP will go ahead and outright ban isboxer use altogether? If they have a way to detect isboxer being ran on a machine, that would solve many problems of detection.
No u dont want to bann a program, as it means u allow others, u dont want to enter the slippery slope. U state what use amd actions are illegal, and that gives room too handle with new developments. Its about intent, not excact debate off words.
This is not about isboxer. Its about eve, and whats allowed and what not. I stand up and applaud this one. |
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:40:45 -
[1242] - Quote
Chalithra Lathar wrote:Dustpuppy wrote:All you do with ISboxer is earn enough isk to keep the accounts active with plex bought from the market. You don't pay cash, you only consume. WRONG Players who use PLEX simply use in-game currency in exchange for someone else to pay their subscription. Why this escapes some people is beyond me.
Well I will be glad to pay 350 mio isk to fund e.g. an additional account or to do dual training on a single account so I will buy it instead of you (or someone else). The amount of plex consumed won't change, only the price in isk paid for it on the market will change.
Removing these isboxer guys just will reduce the income faucet which can be used to keep the plex price on this high level, that's all. It will make regular players who do't want to run 10-20 clients at the same time more competitive.
And the wind of change is already blowing. Plex price around 875k on the market is a clear sign :)
If you don't like it, i can recommend to sing the song "This is the end" (Doors) while unsubscribing. \o/ |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
296
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:41:41 -
[1243] - Quote
Agent Intrepid wrote:Vulfen wrote:I have serious questions of how CCP are going to actually police this?
An ISboxer running around 5-10 accounts might be easy to spot but someone running just 2/3 might be able to avoid detection easier, i'm sure ISboxer will take no time in implementing some measures to make it's program harder to detect. i.e adding a delay to each remote user, so it does not appear as if the same user is performing the same action at the same time.
Would it not be correct to assume that if the developers of isboxer try to circumvent the rules of EVE online that perhaps CCP will go ahead and outright ban isboxer use altogether? If they have way to detect isboxer being ran on a machine, that would solve many problems of detection.
They don't without implementing security measures that don't play nice with many many sorts of connections. There is no process spy worked into them other than for concurrent usage of other eve clients, and changing that would lead to many more unsubs, for much better reason. I'm sure that it can be done, and that CCP has a reasonably competent programmer who knows how to write such a thing. I also know I'mma unsub and do my best to foul the economy if such a bletcherous change happens.
As it stands, they only get the input from the client and it has a non-reporting lockout of multiple clients that only trips for trial accounts, which is the only reason I haven't already unsubbed for it having installed something usable as limited spyware.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
corebloodbrothers
Volition Cult
The Volition Cult
682
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:42:30 -
[1244] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Agent Intrepid wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
You can very easily randomize the delay using most software solutions.
isbotter is obvious, randomized or not. You will be busted, for right. Too bad I'm talking strictly about hardware macros done with mouse and keyboard drivers. My Logitech mouse has a scripting feature which can be used to do exactly what I described, and no ISBoxer is involved. For CCP to be able to detect that sort of thing on a broad scale, they'd need to utilize levels of spyware dickery that would make Israel's military blush. Suggestion: learn how to read. You should learn to read. Isboxer is not banned, input broadcasting is. And you would be right to assume that if you find some way to achieve the effect of input broadcasting or something closely related through other means then CCP will enforce their rules and ban you anyway. We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe. Another winner here. Here's a tl;dr for you, since you won't take the valuable time out of your life to read the discussion that led up to this anyway: there's no way for CCP to detect these forms of input multiplication. Do you even begin to comprehend how absurdly invasive it would be to put software that can do this into their game?
I wouldnt be so sure there is no detection possible. I am sure it is. Actions are unique and logged, so is loggin accounts on ip, owner of accounts, combine it, see the actions and the patern. Tons of ways.
But try it and let us know how it worked out for you
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
5991
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:43:19 -
[1245] - Quote
RUS Comannder wrote:Altrue wrote:RUS Comannder wrote:
I only have-á12 accounts
That kind of quote makes me laugh A long time ago when I started playing in 2004, no one knew this game would be around for long, so I specialized players to trade, to mine to pvp and to build. There was no Eve approved way to change one player to another person or even ot have three trained up to do three different jobs and just logon and logoff to whichever of them was needed you could not train more than one per account, and 15 buck for an account is nothing to me. If I had full use of the limbs I have, my monthly eve costs would not cover one green's fee where I used to play several time a week. Even though Ebay was then full of ships, characters and accounts, it was against the rules and I am a rule follower, not breaker. So in the interest of time savings and meeting the tasks needed to be a well rounded player, I built a corp for myself, while having one player in a corp with 70 or so other friends. Let me see if there is anything about you I can laugh about - oh wait, I don't do that.
I literally laugh at anyone that thinks they need more than one account to be a 'well rounded player'. To me, they're basically scamming themselves. I've never enjoyed a game more than EVE Online and I've only needed one account 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
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
296
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:44:26 -
[1246] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:Chalithra Lathar wrote:Dustpuppy wrote:All you do with ISboxer is earn enough isk to keep the accounts active with plex bought from the market. You don't pay cash, you only consume. WRONG Players who use PLEX simply use in-game currency in exchange for someone else to pay their subscription. Why this escapes some people is beyond me. Well I will be glad to pay 350 mio isk to fund e.g. an additional account or to do dual training on a single account so I will buy it instead of you (or someone else). The amount of plex consumed won't change, only the price in isk paid for it on the market will change. Removing these isboxer guys just will reduce the income faucet which can be used to spend isk on buying plex, that's all. It will make regular players who do't want to run 10-20 clients at the same time more competitive. And the wind of change is already blowing. Plex price around 875k on the market is a clear sign :) If you don't like it, i can recommend to sing the song "This is the end" (Doors) while unsubscribing. \o/
It's more like IS boxers are trying to get in on the mad scramble to unload plex before it drops below what they paid for it, as they have no more use for 400+ plex, as they will probably drop to 5-7 accounts tops. I'm pretty good at twitch when required, and I can't effectively box more than 12 in anything but mining without software support.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
HypoConDreAct
Shits N Giggles
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:47:06 -
[1247] - Quote
Another Isboxer here.
first off lets straighten a few things out.
1: Your still going to get bomb by multiboxers. but now the bombs will be more staggered so you are probably going to lose your pod as well. (try not to fall into bubble traps)
2: Most people that mine with this 3rd party tools (Isboxer) use a dashboard set up so the repeater was really only used to warp to the Station//POS and dock.
3: Your still are going to get ganked by Multiboxers maybe not on the scale that they could do it before but i cant see it been an issue where you wont see it anymore.
4. People will still Mutlibox INCs as waiting for fleets sucks (there time to do sites will drop and you might only see VG mulitboxers)
With this been said I am on the fence a bit with this change.
I can see why they have done it and i agree that 30 man alt fleets do harm the game. It also was a point that did need to be black and white with the repeater.
But to be honest my time zone is very quite (AUS/NZ) we mainly fight with large groups like the Russians and are constantly out numbered with out alts we would struggle to hold onto the wormhole that or small corp has right now. the only time i really use the repeater was for targeting and anchoring on one toon. now i guess i will either have to just up gun or stay POSed (so not staying in a POS when there are things to shoot) so my kill board is going to get worse .... oh well guess thats fine.
I would like to address quickly tho that some things for the game may need to be changed so mistake banning don't happen.
Drone Assist logging may cause it to seam like F is been pressed on multiple accounts at the same time (not sure how its logged)
Also the "Regroup" command may seem to make every in the fleet look like the are approaching the FC at the same time. (Again not sure how this is logged)
Fly Deadly
HypoConDreAct |
Ssabat Thraxx
Dominion Tenebrarum
1031
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:47:23 -
[1248] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Here's a tl;dr for you, since you won't take the valuable time out of your life to read the discussion that led up to this anyway: there's no way for CCP to detect these forms of input multiplication. Do you even begin to comprehend how absurdly invasive it would be to put software that can do this into their game?
I don't, so why don't you spell it out for me? I know a good 15 yrs ago or so EQ implemented a method of detecting cheating programs that were being run. There wasn't a whole lot of hoopla over it by the playerbase, either.
So, how "absurdly invasive" would these measures have to be?
\m/ O.o \m/
"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
296
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:47:34 -
[1249] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Quote:
Here's a tl;dr for you, since you won't take the valuable time out of your life to read the discussion that led up to this anyway: there's no way for CCP to detect these forms of input multiplication. Do you even begin to comprehend how absurdly invasive it would be to put software that can do this into their game?
I wouldnt be so sure there is no detection possible. I am sure it is. Actions are unique and logged, so is loggin accounts on ip, owner of accounts, combine it, see the actions and the patern. Tons of ways. But try it and let us know how it worked out for you
I get <10ms lagtimes when manually alt-tabbing hard and using keybinds. It all comes down to the granularity of the logs in question as to whether it can be done or not.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
1904
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:47:50 -
[1250] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Agent Intrepid wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
You can very easily randomize the delay using most software solutions.
isbotter is obvious, randomized or not. You will be busted, for right. Too bad I'm talking strictly about hardware macros done with mouse and keyboard drivers. My Logitech mouse has a scripting feature which can be used to do exactly what I described, and no ISBoxer is involved. For CCP to be able to detect that sort of thing on a broad scale, they'd need to utilize levels of spyware dickery that would make Israel's military blush. Suggestion: learn how to read. You should learn to read. Isboxer is not banned, input broadcasting is. And you would be right to assume that if you find some way to achieve the effect of input broadcasting or something closely related through other means then CCP will enforce their rules and ban you anyway. We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe. Another winner here. Here's a tl;dr for you, since you won't take the valuable time out of your life to read the discussion that led up to this anyway: there's no way for CCP to detect these forms of input multiplication. Do you even begin to comprehend how absurdly invasive it would be to put software that can do this into their game?
Do you understand that this is trivial under any DirectX software because all share the same HAL of your operating system. So Any software in same user space using the same hal can be easily identified without installing ANY extras to your computer?
Or how do you think your NVIDIA control pannel know what game you are playing?
People have illusions of how isolated and secure their computer is....
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
|
|
Hulky Boy
From Our Cold Dead Hands
The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:48:40 -
[1251] - Quote
People complaining about others using programs like is-boxer are those that are too lazy to use scouts to check if there are 30 man gangs waiting to gank people to naive to check if the other side of that gate in a .5 system is clear. You deserved to loose your freighter and next time hopefully you will learn to get somebody to scout for you. Same goes with 0.0 bombing, your only complaints are due to your own epic fails |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2283
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:49:50 -
[1252] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Another winner here.
Here's a tl;dr for you, since you won't take the valuable time out of your life to read the discussion that led up to this anyway: there's no way for CCP to detect these forms of input multiplication. Do you even begin to comprehend how absurdly invasive it would be to put software that can do this into their game? I wouldnt be so sure there is no detection possible. I am sure it is. Actions are unique and logged, so is loggin accounts on ip, owner of accounts, combine it, see the actions and the patern. Tons of ways. But try it and let us know how it worked out for you
And now we again go back to the question that I asked three pages ago:
What is the difference between having mouse drivers input F1-F4 with a single button press (also keep in mind that pretty much all hardware macros now support the addition of delays between commands), or yours truly picking up a Tic Tac container from the desk and using it to uniformly press those same keys on the keyboard at once?
Kagura Nikon wrote:Do you understand that this is trivial under any DirectX software because all share the same HAL of your operating system. So Any software in same user space using the same hal can be easily identified without installing ANY extras to your computer?
Or how do you think your NVIDIA control pannel know what game you are playing?
People have illusions of how isolated and secure their computer is....
So what you're saying is that CCP will now blanket-ban every player who has keyboard and/or mouse drivers installed on their system? Because once again, there's no way for them to differentiate between a physical key press and one that was sent down through these drivers without hooking these processes somehow.
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
|
Shivanthar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
125
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:50:19 -
[1253] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
...there's no way for CCP to detect these forms of input multiplication. Do you even begin to comprehend how absurdly invasive it would be to put software that can do this into their game?
Just 5 seconds thinking with my developer mind, I can assure you it is as easy as drinking a soup from a spoon.
- An eve window checking more than one thread of itself running.
- An eve window checking if it is running on background.
- Both windows connected to server from same IP. (can be extended with more checks)
- A small margin hit counter.
Server receives this:
[Time] [IP] - Window Active receives input F1
[Time2] [IP] - Window Passive receives input F1
if Time2- Time <= impossible human response for multiple window switching margin
margin++
reAnalyze next inputs
if margin>=constant_BAN_margin (within specific timeframe)
banPlayer()
Done...
Just 5 seconds...
_Half _the lies they tell about me **aren't **true.
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
296
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:52:22 -
[1254] - Quote
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
I don't, so why don't you spell it out for me? I know a good 15 yrs ago or so EQ implemented a method of detecting cheating programs that were being run. There wasn't a whole lot of hoopla over it by the playerbase, either.
So, how "absurdly invasive" would these measures have to be?
To catch something designed to broadcast between X clients, with unique psuedo random delays between each client recieving the broadcast? Considering active programmers play this game and have much more powerful languages than the framework of eve, so anything they implement is either going to be a seperate process or have to be called from inside python? Fairly ridiculously intrusive, basically rooting your computer to find anyone willing to right their own hack rather than just being a w4r3zd00d. On the other hand, finding w4r3zd00ds is nearly trivial, but every false positive is a potential customer lost.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
296
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 09:55:40 -
[1255] - Quote
Shivanthar wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
...there's no way for CCP to detect these forms of input multiplication. Do you even begin to comprehend how absurdly invasive it would be to put software that can do this into their game?
Just 5 seconds thinking with my developer mind, I can assure you it is as easy as drinking a soup from a spoon. - An eve window checking more than one thread of itself running. - An eve window checking if it is running on background. - Both windows connected to server from same IP. (can be extended with more checks) - A small margin hit counter. Server receives this: [Time] [IP] - Window Active receives input F1 [Time2] [IP] - Window Passive receives input F1 if Time2- Time <= impossible human response for multiple window switching margin margin++ reAnalyze next inputs if margin>=constant_BAN_margin (within specific timeframe) banPlayer() Done... Just 5 seconds...
And how short is said window? Is it a fixed window? Is it sliding scale based on complexity of command? How granular are the logs? Is there an appeal process?
It ain't trivial, but its not insurmountable. It's also possible, to with practice, get reaction times that seem impossible, especially with combination commands, like keybinds with voice control and good ole-fashion keymashing
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Ssabat Thraxx
Dominion Tenebrarum
1031
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:02:12 -
[1256] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Your "developer mind" has completely skipped over the specific example that I have brought up, in which there is only ONE total window at play. One account, one character. We're talking about the difference between physically pressing 4 keys on the keyboard, and doing the same with the press of just one key, which standard, common keyboard/mouse drivers, such as those made by Logitech and Razer, can make happen.
mfw not a single person throwing blind support at this decision actually reads anything aside from "BANBANBAN *emoticons"
omg d00d, what if I pass out drunk here at my desk... and my face slams into the keyboard.. and it, like, activates all my mods at once??? oh shitzkees....
Seriously, do you realize how pathetic your arguments of minutia look to everyone else? You're not even arguing about what the rule is all about.
Here, have a Tic Tac.
\m/ O.o \m/
"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
|
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:03:39 -
[1257] - Quote
Side question:
Will this change have an impact on npc kills in null? There are systems which constantly have >5000 nc kills in 24hours, day in day out, every day, every week.
I strongly doubt someone can organize a corp with real players to focus on this for a longer time without getting bored. I assume these are corps run by few real players running multiple ratting clients for plexing and renting the space.
If my assumption is true then this change also might have some positive impact on the renting plague in the blue donut |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2283
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:04:54 -
[1258] - Quote
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:omg d00d, what if I pass out drunk here at my desk... and my face slams into the keyboard.. and it, like, activates all my mods at once??? oh shitzkees.... Seriously, do you realize how pathetic your arguments of minutia look to everyone else? You're not even arguing about what the rule is all about. Here, have a Tic Tac.
For someone who hasn't actually read my arguments, you sure are inclined to talk about them a lot.
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
|
Sp1iff
Northstar Cabal
Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:05:59 -
[1259] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote:Was the new trailer so successful in drawing new players that CCP think they can afford to lose all those multi accounts?
Well anyway, I support this. I don't think these auto-multiboxers contributed much to the game experience of anyone.
1 person > 6-30 accounts > CCP is winning
after they stop their tantrums, and un-sub most of those account they will be left with the average 2-4 accounts, so...
1 person > 2-4 accounts > CCP still winning (winning less but still winning)
We dont give a ****, neither does CCP that people are leaving the game because of this new policy. If you leave altogether its still not a problem, the new trailer just replaced you anyway. Please leave quietly |
Shivanthar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
128
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:07:25 -
[1260] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Your "developer mind" has completely skipped over the specific example that I have brought up, in which there is only ONE total window at play. One account, one character. We're talking about the difference between physically pressing 4 keys on the keyboard, and doing the same with the press of just one key, which standard, common keyboard/mouse drivers, such as those made by Logitech and Razer, can make happen.
mfw not a single person throwing blind support at this decision actually reads anything aside from "OMG YAY BANBANBAN *emoticons*"
What you're talking about is input serialization, not multiplication. Serializing multiple input patterns one after another.
Input multiplication, on the other hand, is giving parallel inputs to more than one client. If serialized quicky, yes, you can make input serialization to include alt-tabbing and multiplying over multiple windows. However, since there will always be a pattern while executing this, it would be even more easier to get into trap as with same detection algorithm.
Not to mention my single "developer mind" is thinking a small portion. There is a whole team working on it in CCP.
_Half _the lies they tell about me **aren't **true.
|
|
|
Ormand Audel
14th Legion
The Bloc
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:08:27 -
[1261] - Quote
Question: Are we allowed to broadcast, but not duplicate commands? So I could have F1 bound to slot1 on client 1, F2 bound to slot1 on client 2 and so on, without alt tabbing? Not sure if it's possible without duplication, but if it is, is it allowed?
E: For those that say "it doesn't allow broadcasting", my definitions may vary to CCPs. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
298
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:08:52 -
[1262] - Quote
Agent Intrepid wrote:James Baboli wrote:Agent Intrepid wrote:Hikemi Karrado wrote:Actually a good move from CCP to clarify that.
ISBoxer should now have a "comply to CCP rules" button so that users can decide if the want to risk a ban or not.
For me, I'm looking for an alternate product like ISBoxer. It's just too expensive (well, talking about the driver) for an "Eve display optimizer" with a concurrent logon feature. You don't realise that you're wasting your time? Input mirroring is banned. It doesn't matter how you do it, it's not allowed. If you find some crazy work around but it has the same effect and looks the same to CCP then you will be banned. There's no point in trying to get around it. You can choose to adapt or leave. We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe. Way to read. Post you quoted is looking for something to do the display optimization as freeware. But if that's all he wants to use it for, then why he is seeking an alternative? CCP only outlawed input broadcasting.
Freeware. ISboxer costs money in its official form. And while I may play a pirate from time to time (not on this toon, as any KB checking will show) I'm not gonna advocate pirating it.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Shivanthar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
128
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:12:09 -
[1263] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:
And how short is said window? Is it a fixed window? Is it sliding scale based on complexity of command? How granular are the logs? Is there an appeal process?
It ain't trivial, but its not insurmountable. It's also possible, to with practice, get reaction times that seem impossible, especially with combination commands, like keybinds with voice control and good ole-fashion keymashing
Please, don't get into thinking that I've written what CCP's coded. I just psuedo coded there. Think it like brainstorming.
On the other hand, there is a margin there. You've to repeat (fall into trap) more than several times in a specific timeframe in order to be caught.
_Half _the lies they tell about me **aren't **true.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2283
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:12:22 -
[1264] - Quote
Shivanthar wrote:What you're talking about is input serialization, not multiplication. Serializing multiple input patterns one after another.
Input multiplication, on the other hand, is giving parallel inputs to more than one client. If serialized quicky, yes, you can make input serialization to include alt-tabbing and multiplying over multiple windows. However, since there will always be a pattern while executing this, it would be even more easier to get into trap as with same detection algorithm.
Not to mention my single "developer mind" is thinking a small portion. There is a whole team working on it in CCP.
Anyone serious about multiboxing can easy get rid of anything that remotely resembles a pattern. Furthermore, anyone multiboxing already uses variable delays with their inputs. I doubt many are stupid enough to just send off commands to multiple clients without them (multiplication, as you call it).
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
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
298
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:14:32 -
[1265] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Do you understand that this is trivial under any DirectX software because all share the same HAL of your operating system. So Any software in same user space using the same hal can be easily identified without installing ANY extras to your computer?
Or how do you think your NVIDIA control pannel know what game you are playing?
People have illusions of how isolated and secure their computer is....
Against IS boxer, and other well known and/or commercially available software? sure. Someone willing to take the time to handhack a one off?
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
298
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:17:38 -
[1266] - Quote
Shivanthar wrote:James Baboli wrote:
And how short is said window? Is it a fixed window? Is it sliding scale based on complexity of command? How granular are the logs? Is there an appeal process?
It ain't trivial, but its not insurmountable. It's also possible, to with practice, get reaction times that seem impossible, especially with combination commands, like keybinds with voice control and good ole-fashion keymashing
Please, don't get into thinking that I've written what CCP's coded. I just psuedo coded there. Think it like brainstorming. On the other hand, there is a margin there. You've to repeat (fall into trap) more than several times in a specific timeframe in order to be caught.
Yep. which is why I am worried. I did local input logging after a medium amount of setup, and have a conistent 13ms delay between clients when calm and working deliberately to run through 8 toons, still hitting in the same tick most of the time.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Shivanthar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
128
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:18:08 -
[1267] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Shivanthar wrote:What you're talking about is input serialization, not multiplication. Serializing multiple input patterns one after another.
Input multiplication, on the other hand, is giving parallel inputs to more than one client. If serialized quicky, yes, you can make input serialization to include alt-tabbing and multiplying over multiple windows. However, since there will always be a pattern while executing this, it would be even more easier to get into trap as with same detection algorithm.
Not to mention my single "developer mind" is thinking a small portion. There is a whole team working on it in CCP. Anyone serious about multiboxing can easy get rid of anything that remotely resembles a pattern. Furthermore, anyone multiboxing already uses variable delays with their inputs. I doubt many are stupid enough to just send off commands to multiple clients without them (multiplication, as you call it).
So, why are people whining too much about ISBoxing in general and paid for it?
I can understand your point of view that none of the actions would be perfect. Yes. True.
It is same as what Mike's said before. It is like law and systems. It is there and can't be perfect. On the other hand, you would destroy most of it by start taking actions against law-breakers. Most of the multiBoxers are there because system allowed for it. Most of it won't be there because law will be prohibiting it. Other little escapers are for CCPs to catch.
Don't get it too seriously, I also worked with delayed input combinations. There is and will always be a way and an anti-way.
_Half _the lies they tell about me **aren't **true.
|
Agent Intrepid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:19:58 -
[1268] - Quote
Hulky Boy wrote:People complaining about others using programs like is-boxer are those that are too lazy to use scouts to check if there are 30 man gangs waiting to gank people to naive to check if the other side of that gate in a .5 system is clear. You deserved to loose your freighter and next time hopefully you will learn to get somebody to scout for you. Same goes with 0.0 bombing, your only complaints are due to your own epic fails
An isboxer user, third party software that is intended to make the game easier to play, for those too lazy to multibox manually, accusing non users of being lazy. |
The Ironfist
Nordbot Capitals
Northern Associates.
72
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:23:13 -
[1269] - Quote
Anyone using ISboxer with half a brain is simply gonna double down for the next month:) Bloodraider smart-bomb ratting is making me 2b per hour in isk and about 1b in loot and svalage after seeing the "news" all I did was resub 4 more accounts next 4 weeks I'm simply gonna smart-bomb 12h a day so that after the first of January I'll never have to do it again. If I can keep it up to 12h a day gonna make close to 2 tril isk the next 30 days.And really what does that change you can still use keybinds just not across clients and you can still use roaming keys you can still use videoFX. Isboxer still gives you an insane edge over the plebs who don't use it or don't know how to correctly use it. Broadcasting was just a easy-mode thing. |
Moraguth
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
126
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:23:31 -
[1270] - Quote
DragonHelm III wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. For god's sake CCP stop all the bluster and give a straight answer ISBOXER banned or not? It just needs a yes or no All this crap about terms like Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing mean squat to me as I have no idea what they are.
Well, if you read it, it says that ISBOXER is not banned. The way I understand the rest of it, if you do anything where you press 1 button and it does things on more than 1 client, that's not allowed.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
|
|
Devious Johnson
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:24:57 -
[1271] - Quote
to all u people talking about how ccp are not going to be able to track the isboxers attempting to circumvente the new rule..
your forgetting one important point.. alot of isboxers have their characters named
botter 1
botter 2
botter 3
botter 4
........
botter 20
replace botter with a random character name but they stll have the number after it lol...
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
298
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:28:21 -
[1272] - Quote
Devious Johnson wrote:to all you people talking about how ccp are not going to be able to track the isboxers attempting to circumvent the new rule..
your forgetting one important point.. alot of isboxers have their characters named
botter 1
botter 2
botter 3
botter 4
........
botter 20
replace botter with a random character name but they stll have the number after it lol...
Never really did like that trait, its almost as bad as the names which throw a sledgehammer at the already fairly shakey 4th wall.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
574
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:29:23 -
[1273] - Quote
Nemed Bererund wrote:So no more Eve-Central Market crawler then?
CREST provides that data already. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Suddenly Spaceships.
1683
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:30:09 -
[1274] - Quote
ISBoxer's input multiplication has the same effect on EVE's economy as botting but with the added sickness of distorting PVP on top of it.
I'm glad CCP finally close this loophole and made the game a little fairer for the actual humans who play it. The "This is EVE" newbros deserve nothing less.
"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."
-Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM
Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2284
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:31:12 -
[1275] - Quote
Devious Johnson wrote:to all you people talking about how ccp are not going to be able to track the isboxers attempting to circumvent the new rule..
your forgetting one important point.. alot of isboxers have their characters named
botter 1
botter 2
botter 3
botter 4
........
botter 20
replace botter with a random character name but they stll have the number after it lol...
As I said earlier, I have a feeling that this change is aimed purely at those using the tool to gank freighters.
I have a hard time believing that this is a miner/incursioner issue when so many of those players not only use ISBoxer, but use it to bot gameplay activities, instead of just bypassing the requirement to play with others. And no matter how obvious they are about this...*looks at the fleets of 10+ Macks with 01-10 naming schemes all across space*...Nothing has ever been done to punish them.
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
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
213
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:35:44 -
[1276] - Quote
I don't think detecting broadcasts from good logs will be hard. If it is done properly that is. And all the people i know that isbox have no intention of cheating. They love playing eve. And please don't start with the "but it is cheating", you probably think that anyone with more accounts than you is cheating, that anyone that has more isk that you is cheating etc......
As for extra local software to catch people. Well i run wine on linux, i have 2 account and thinking of a third. I don't use isboxer because i am on linux. In fact every instance of eve is run on a fresh instance of wine. So as far as eve the client can tell, it is on a windows machine with absolutely nothing else running on the machine.
There are quite a lot of us out there. And even some of the eve devs are on linux, running eve.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25659
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:36:54 -
[1277] - Quote
I'm not worried. I'm not that fast.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Agent Intrepid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:37:17 -
[1278] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:Anyone using ISboxer with half a brain is simply gonna double down for the next month:) Bloodraider smart-bomb ratting is making me 2b per hour in isk and about 1b in loot and svalage after seeing the "news" all I did was resub 4 more accounts next 4 weeks I'm simply gonna smart-bomb 12h a day so that after the first of January I'll never have to do it again. If I can keep it up to 12h a day gonna make close to 2 tril isk the next 30 days.And really what does that change you can still use keybinds just not across clients and you can still use roaming keys you can still use videoFX. Isboxer still gives you an insane edge over the plebs who don't use it or don't know how to correctly use it. Broadcasting was just a easy-mode thing.
You make 2 billion isk an hour smartbomb ratting, and expect to make a trillion isk over the next month? Sounds like something CCP would want to look into. |
Agent Intrepid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:40:43 -
[1279] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:I don't think detecting broadcasts from good logs will be hard. If it is done properly that is. And all the people i know that isbox have no intention of cheating. They love playing eve. And please don't start with the "but it is cheating", you probably think that anyone with more accounts than you is cheating, that anyone that has more isk that you is cheating etc......
As for extra local software to catch people. Well i run wine on linux, i have 2 account and thinking of a third. I don't use isboxer because i am on linux. In fact every instance of eve is run on a fresh instance of wine. So as far as eve the client can tell, it is on a windows machine with absolutely nothing else running on the machine.
There are quite a lot of us out there. And even some of the eve devs are on linux, running eve.
And yet several isboxer users have already posted about how they will circumvent input broadcasting detection using intentional delays, something which isboxer apparently has a built in option for.
Those people are making an admission of intention to break the eula. Isbotters is the correct term for them. |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
574
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:43:59 -
[1280] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:There's literally no way for them to detect people using mouse/keyboard drivers to bind multiple key presses to one button. None.
Eve Online EULA Section 7:
Quote:D. MONITORING
You agree that CCP may remotely monitor your Game hardware solely for the purpose of establishing whether in playing the Game and accessing the System you are using software created or approved by CCP, or whether you are using unauthorized software created by you or a third party in contravention of Section 6.
You should really read the EULA next time. |
|
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2284
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:44:10 -
[1281] - Quote
Agent Intrepid wrote:I hope CCP will have an effective means to detect and enforce their eula against such people.
Not without stuffing your computer full of malware.
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
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
298
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:45:06 -
[1282] - Quote
Agent Intrepid wrote:
And yet several isboxer users have already posted about how they will circumvent input broadcasting detection using intentional delays, something which isboxer apparently has a built in option for.
Those people are making an admission of intention to break the eula. Isbotters is the correct term for them. I hope CCP will have an effective means to detect and enforce their eula against such people.
For myself, I am pointing out that proper detection of such bad actors is hard without a fairly high false positive rate.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Ormand Audel
14th Legion
The Bloc
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:47:45 -
[1283] - Quote
Agent Intrepid wrote:The Ironfist wrote:Anyone using ISboxer with half a brain is simply gonna double down for the next month:) Bloodraider smart-bomb ratting is making me 2b per hour in isk and about 1b in loot and svalage after seeing the "news" all I did was resub 4 more accounts next 4 weeks I'm simply gonna smart-bomb 12h a day so that after the first of January I'll never have to do it again. If I can keep it up to 12h a day gonna make close to 2 tril isk the next 30 days.And really what does that change you can still use keybinds just not across clients and you can still use roaming keys you can still use videoFX. Isboxer still gives you an insane edge over the plebs who don't use it or don't know how to correctly use it. Broadcasting was just a easy-mode thing. You make 2 billion isk an hour smartbomb ratting, and expect to make a trillion isk over the next month? Sounds like something CCP would want to look into. Uh..
2b from bounties.
1b from loot/salvage.
That's 3b/hour.
3*12=36
36*30=1080.
Not sure how he's going to make close to 2tril since his math comes out to 1080b, but it's still over a tril.
Adrie Atticus wrote:Nemed Bererund wrote:So no more Eve-Central Market crawler then? CREST provides that data already. Isn't that a feature coming in december?
|
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1297
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:49:12 -
[1284] - Quote
Agent Intrepid wrote:The Ironfist wrote:Anyone using ISboxer with half a brain is simply gonna double down for the next month:) Bloodraider smart-bomb ratting is making me 2b per hour in isk and about 1b in loot and svalage after seeing the "news" all I did was resub 4 more accounts next 4 weeks I'm simply gonna smart-bomb 12h a day so that after the first of January I'll never have to do it again. If I can keep it up to 12h a day gonna make close to 2 tril isk the next 30 days.And really what does that change you can still use keybinds just not across clients and you can still use roaming keys you can still use videoFX. Isboxer still gives you an insane edge over the plebs who don't use it or don't know how to correctly use it. Broadcasting was just a easy-mode thing. You make 2 billion isk an hour smartbomb ratting, and expect to make a trillion isk over the next month? Sounds like something CCP would want to look into.
Let's humor his claims for a moment.
Claim 1: he can make 2b/hour isk, 1b/hour loot and salvage, so 3b/hour
Claim 2: he can rat uninterrupted for up to 12hr/day for the next 30 days
Claim 3: he can make close to 2 tril isk in that 30 day period
3bil/hour, 12 hours a day = 36bil/day. * 30 days = 1.08 trillion.
Never trust a man who can't do SIMPLE math, when he tells you how much isk he is making. I'm willing to bet the guy thinks isk server ticks are every 5-10 minutes, too. |
Leza MercenaryS
Common Sense Ltd
Nulli Secunda
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:51:37 -
[1285] - Quote
I really don't see how this is gonna make mining any more viable. Seems like a lot of people are confusing botting and isboxing, simply botting doesn't require a player and isboxing does, the repeater is hardly used in ore mining anyways. You still have to micro manage lasers as rocks pop differently for all your miners, most miners just use isboxer for the window setup.
This is like the 4th indirect nerf to mining that have happened in a very short amount. With the warp speed changes and moving mining sites into anomalys, miners pretty much lost the means to use rorqs or freighters to haul ore from the anomaly. And the ceptor changes made the risk / gain even less attractive, and its not like the ore prices are going up that much because the bots are pretty much unaffected and keep chugging out ore like nobodys business.
I stopped mining with the ceptor changes and never looked back. This change seems more like the final nail in the coffin for active mining then the rebirth of it. Wonder how many isboxing users that are just gonna turn to botting after this change, I mean if you risk getting banned either way... |
Josef Djugashvilis
2701
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:54:29 -
[1286] - Quote
It has become very fashionable for folk to threaten to rage quit with their zillion accounts with each change CCP make to the game.
I only have one account, am I doing it wrong?
This is not a signature.
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
574
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:54:50 -
[1287] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Agent Intrepid wrote:I hope CCP will have an effective means to detect and enforce their eula against such people. Not without stuffing your computer full of malware. Adrie Atticus wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:There's literally no way for them to detect people using mouse/keyboard drivers to bind multiple key presses to one button. None. Eve Online EULA Section 7:Quote:D. MONITORING
You agree that CCP may remotely monitor your Game hardware solely for the purpose of establishing whether in playing the Game and accessing the System you are using software created or approved by CCP, or whether you are using unauthorized software created by you or a third party in contravention of Section 6. You should really read the EULA next time. There's only so much they can do with monitoring alone. To actually be effective, we'd have to be talking about active modification. Is that in the EULA as well?
The scope of the software used to monitor the game is unknown, but we know it at least actively scans the memory space of the client and hooks to a few DLL's, but distinguishing someone who can press F1 to F8 in 100ms by hand or via automation is a different thing. Sure, they could detect what software is driving the keyboard but do they want to tackle every single keyboard driver?
I'm expecting it to be more along the lines "excessive usage == bad" where someone just creates macros to do everything instead of only activating the tank. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
826
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:55:50 -
[1288] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:You can very easily randomize the delay using most software solutions.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Too bad I'm talking strictly about hardware macros
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Suggestion: learn how to read.
|
Prince Kobol
2371
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:57:48 -
[1289] - Quote
Quick question, not sure if it has been answered but here I go.
What about keyboard / mouse key mapping?
For example I have a Logitech G710+ so I am able to map multiple keys just to 1.
I am sure that many Eve players do the same thing so is this still allowed?
For a very quick example, I can map all the keyboard shortcuts to overload certain modules to 1 key. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2284
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:58:19 -
[1290] - Quote
Not falling for it.
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
|
|
|
RUS Comannder
Tremor Recorded
Variable Enterprise Training Standards
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:59:19 -
[1291] - Quote
From strictly a business standpoint along with my view of the way IS boxer covets its reputation to not create anything which violates the rules of a game, I think everyone can be certain that a lot of discussion will take place between IS Boxer and Eve, so IS Boxer can be sure they are not doing anything to get their customers banned from Eve. That would be an extremely stupid move on their part.
I think they don't mind having thin margins between their content on the extreme coming fairly close to the outer edge cases of Eve's rules. They will be sure of making a product that will keep them a viable provider across many gaming platforms. Eve is a small part of their business and their basic package is modified into a product acceptable to every gaming platform rules committee.
Let's get something straight about third party products. First, try running Eve on a computer that does not have a third Operating System installed, or video card, sound card, mouse drivers, keyboard, DirectX and probably a few dozen or hundred more. I know, the really butthurt will say those programs aren't meant to run "botting" programs, well, neither is IS Boxer. IS Boxer cannot allow you to go to the movies and still have your scam appear every 22.185 seconds along with a cheerleader positng a wonderful thing about your scam in between every other scam post. Is boxer cannot mine for you or run a repetitive agent courier mission for you while you are afk. If you are going to use Is boxer, you must be present and nothing happens until you press a key or click a mouse. There are no timers, no macros, so scripts. You may become confused if you go to the IS Boxer site and see references to macros, because some games allow macros and IS Boxer was originally designed for WOW and I understand WOW has built in macros as part of the game. When IS Boxer writes instructions, there are so many clauses for different games it becomes very hard to follow and there is not enough business for them it seems to write a manual exclusively for Eve.
The author of IS Boxer was on Redditt early today or yesterday, and stated he would write in a stop for any game violating behavior and it would be applied when you choose the game you are going to play. And no, you cannot pick WOW and then play Eve. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
826
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:00:20 -
[1292] - Quote
GeeBee wrote:I do have to say that if mirrored input broadcasting isn't detectible and dealt with quickly and automatically this is going to be a very rough and annoying process relying on players policing each other with a silly amount of witchhunt and accusations going on between players that shouldn't be happening. If you cannot stop it without players reporting each or micro scoping players manually to detect it then this entire policy change is a load of uselessness and exercise in futility. Since botting is still a problem and identifying bots and reporting them is still a problem I am doubtful, but please prove me wrong.
isbotter are obvious. report, CCP will check logs and ban the player. |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
5991
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:02:47 -
[1293] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:It has become very fashionable for folk to threaten to rage quit with their zillion accounts with each change CCP make to the game.
I only have one account, am I doing it wrong?
Of course you're not. It just means you've already ragequit your zillion accounts and only have one left
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
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2284
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:04:00 -
[1294] - Quote
RUS Comannder wrote:The author of IS Boxer was on Redditt early today or yesterday, and stated he would write in a stop for any game violating behavior and it would be applied when you choose the game you are going to play. And no, you cannot pick WOW and then play Eve.
In my line of work unemployment, this is commonly know as an "externality."
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
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
421
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:08:25 -
[1295] - Quote
eiedu wrote:RIP incursions
RIP Ratting
RIP bombing
Time to go back to wow, where it makes no sense to have multiple accounts
How are you even going to "catch" people who are input-multiplexing hardware-wise
Event and input logging. In other words : much easier than you'd think.
Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
826
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:11:00 -
[1296] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:
I get <10ms lagtimes when manually alt-tabbing hard and using keybinds. It all comes down to the granularity of the logs in question as to whether it can be done or not.
the question is whether you want to risk your accounts and hope your tool isnt going to be detected, your business.
If you implement something like isbotter using other tools, which does same or nearly same thing and looks same as isbotter for other players, chances are you getting busted as good as real isbotters, there is no much difference then.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
826
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:13:23 -
[1297] - Quote
Hulky Boy wrote:People complaining about others using programs like is-boxer are those that are too lazy to use scouts to check if there are 30 man gangs
this is not the point. I dont WANT to have to deal with people isbottong fleet of 30. Thankfully, CCP dealt with it finally.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
826
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:15:56 -
[1298] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:
And how short is said window? Is it a fixed window? Is it sliding scale based on complexity of command? How granular are the logs? Is there an appeal process?
It ain't trivial, but its not insurmountable. It's also possible, to with practice, get reaction times that seem impossible, especially with combination commands, like keybinds with voice control and good ole-fashion keymashing
you try it out and tell us later how your scripting project ended (if you still have an account to post here :D). |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2284
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:16:05 -
[1299] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:James Baboli wrote:
I get <10ms lagtimes when manually alt-tabbing hard and using keybinds. It all comes down to the granularity of the logs in question as to whether it can be done or not.
the question is whether you want to risk your accounts and hope your tool isnt going to be detected, your business. If you implement something like isbotter using other tools, which does same or nearly same thing and looks same as isbotter for other players, chances are you getting busted as good as real isbotters, there is no much difference then.
So now legit players will have to fly around and muse to themselves: "gee, I sure hope I don't look like someone broadcasting inputs just because I'm pressing my F keys very consistently." Nice. Instituting blanket punishment on people who only seem like they're breaking the rules is always the enlightened solution.
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
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2701
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:16:35 -
[1300] - Quote
To all those who intend to 'bend' the rules regarding ISboxer
It is good to see that gambling has been taken to a new level: my ability to circumvent the rules, bets that CCP will not be able to tell and perma ban my zillion accounts.
High stakes indeed.
This is not a signature.
|
|
|
Thomas Mayaki
Perkone
Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:22:04 -
[1301] - Quote
Warr Akini wrote:I've had a good suicide ganking run, but the wave of nerfs against it don't seem to be stopping anytime soon.
Thanks. It's been fun.
This is not a nerf against ganking its a nerf on bot-aspirant behavior.
If you repent your former sins I'm sure there will be a place in the New Order for you.
You may read up on the CODE at http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
826
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:23:44 -
[1302] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
So now legit players will have to fly around and muse to themselves: "gee, I sure hope I don't look like someone broadcasting inputs just because I'm pressing my F keys very consistently." Nice. Instituting blanket punishment on people who only seem like they're breaking the rules is always the enlightened solution.
i'm sure, legit players dont have to think like that. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2284
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:25:05 -
[1303] - Quote
Thomas Mayaki wrote:Warr Akini wrote:I've had a good suicide ganking run, but the wave of nerfs against it don't seem to be stopping anytime soon.
Thanks. It's been fun. This is not a nerf against ganking its a nerf on bot-aspirant behavior. If you repent your former sins I'm sure there will be a place in the New Order for you. You may read up on the CODE at http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html
It is very much a nerf on freighter-ganking, seeing as how it's the only activity, when done solo, that necessitates outside software in order to reach the same level of efficiency that is reached in all other activities by employing alts the normal alt-tabbing way.
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
826
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:25:17 -
[1304] - Quote
Man, its funny how hordes of isbotters claiming here how they cant be caught.
Holy ****, go try it out after January, 1st if you're so smart and tell us how it went for you. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2285
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:26:29 -
[1305] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Man, its funny how hordes of isbotters claiming here how they cant be caught.
Holy ****, go try it out after January, 1st if you're so smart and tell us how it went for you.
The issue isn't that people breaking the rules will be caught; the issue is that innocent people will be caught for false positives. You have, just a few posts ago, admitted to that yourself.
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
|
|
CCP Random
C C P
C C P Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:27:13 -
[1306] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:To all those who intend to 'bend' the rules regarding ISboxer
It is good to see that gambling has been taken to a new level: my ability to circumvent the rules, bets that CCP will not be able to tell and perma ban my zillion accounts.
High stakes indeed.
I recommend to rethink this approach. It is detectable for us. |
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
827
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:28:25 -
[1307] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
The issue isn't that people breaking the rules will be caught; the issue is that innocent people will be caught for false positives. You have, just a few posts ago, admitted to that yourself.
you try to back up your pro-isbotter attitude by false positives? I dont care, because I'm sure threre wont be that many. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2285
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:29:19 -
[1308] - Quote
CCP Random wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:To all those who intend to 'bend' the rules regarding ISboxer
It is good to see that gambling has been taken to a new level: my ability to circumvent the rules, bets that CCP will not be able to tell and perma ban my zillion accounts.
High stakes indeed. I recommend to rethink this approach. It is detectable for us.
Can you also detect someone using mouse drivers to send multiple commands with one button? We've been asking this for many, many pages now.
Robert Caldera wrote:you try to back up your pro-isbotter attitude by false positives? I dont care, because I'm sure threre wont be that many.
Being "sure" about something isn't equivalent to science. Until CCP confirms that they can differentiate between legit key presses and software input of any type, it's just wishful thinking on your part.
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
|
Maneila Bekas
Capital Hot Rods
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:29:29 -
[1309] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote:Sentient Blade wrote:Does this apply to inventory management within the same station?
For example... I occasionally go on a ship giveaway binge where I'll fit up several dozen frigs / destroyers, fill their cargo with the skills needed to fly them, and then give them out in newbie systems.
Obviously click dragging a dozen items one by one is tedious in the extreme and any automation would be a godsend.
Is it acceptable to load up a bunch of accounts at once and use broadcasting to speed up this process? saved fittings dude. just saying.
***DONT TELL HIM ALL THE GOOD SECRETS OF EVE, damn you, now everybody knows that you can fit with ONE Click out of the Fitting Window*** :D :D :D
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2701
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:30:16 -
[1310] - Quote
CCP Random wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:To all those who intend to 'bend' the rules regarding ISboxer
It is good to see that gambling has been taken to a new level: my ability to circumvent the rules, bets that CCP will not be able to tell and perma ban my zillion accounts.
High stakes indeed. I recommend to rethink this approach. It is detectable for us.
Just for clarity, I would not recognize an ISboxer if I fell over one.
My post was aimed at the many folk who have posted saying that they intend to get around the new rules.
This is not a signature.
|
|
|
HypoConDreAct
Shits N Giggles
17
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:31:00 -
[1311] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Man, its funny how hordes of isbotters claiming here how they cant be caught.
Holy ****, go try it out after January, 1st if you're so smart and tell us how it went for you.
you do realize isboxer isn't band just the repeater in isboxer is been band. and the dev of isboxer has said he will remove it for the eve setup of isboxer so players that use it cant get band right? or are you just trolling? |
Hulasikali Walla
Never Mind the Bollocks
83
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:31:58 -
[1312] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Quick question, not sure if it has been answered but here I go.
What about keyboard / mouse key mapping?
For example I have a Logitech G710+ so I am able to map multiple keys just to 1.
I am sure that many Eve players do the same thing so is this still allowed?
For a very quick example, I can map all the keyboard shortcuts to overload certain modules to 1 key.
From what I understand it's ok to have keybinding has long has you don't broacast the command to multiple sessions of EvE
Correct me if I'm wrong
I personaly use a G15 + G5, with a few key-binding, doing a lot of Alt-tabbing. |
Cannibal Kane
Cannibal Empire
4437
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:34:19 -
[1313] - Quote
I, Cannibal Kane, Approve this change.
On a more serious note.
Never had an issue with gankers or miners using ISKboxer to automate functions. Did not effect me.
Still think it is a good change though since it forces people to work closely even more. Combine that with the proposed "no shooting corp mates" means people might actually be more willing to do thing together in their shiny ships.
All that means for me... I have more active wartargets in big ships.
"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
827
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:36:07 -
[1314] - Quote
HypoConDreAct wrote:
you do realize isboxer isn't band just the repeater in isboxer is been band. and the dev of isboxer has said he will remove it for the eve setup of isboxer so players that use it cant get band right? or are you just trolling?
did you even realize what I wrote?
I'm about people bitching how they can evade the rule by using other tools or methods, resembling isbotters input broadcast feature or similar stuff. Learn to read and understand. |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1297
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:36:45 -
[1315] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:RUS Comannder wrote:The author of IS Boxer was on Redditt early today or yesterday, and stated he would write in a stop for any game violating behavior and it would be applied when you choose the game you are going to play. And no, you cannot pick WOW and then play Eve. In my line of work unemployment, this is commonly known as an "externality."
This is why so many of us like Isboxer so much. Because the developer makes us feel comfortable that we are not violating the EULA by using it. I'll have to shoot him a tell later thanking him for the change. This should go a long way toward keeping users happy. |
Oraac Ensor
583
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:37:55 -
[1316] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:Querns wrote:Bethan Le Troix wrote:
Wouldn't it be clearer and better just to say all use of ISBoxer & similar software is against the EULA and have done with it ??
ISBoxer isn't the only software that allows input multiplexing. Banning ISBoxer outright as the sole action of the change would just make everyone move over to another brand of software that does the same thing. Well obviously all types of software that do the same activity would be banned. Don't split hairs.
He isn't splitting hairs - he just didn't bother to read your post properly. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2286
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:38:04 -
[1317] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:All that means for me... I have more active wartargets in big ships.
Who still won't undock for you to shoot them.
Hey, do you really think that if CCP's willing to get rid of awoxing and small-op freighter ganks in a single patch, that something like war isn't headed for the chopping block as well?
I thought you were smarter than that.
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
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
144
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:38:28 -
[1318] - Quote
I currently have two main ISBoxer/bot mining fleets I am trying to move on from a system. One comprises two corps with three members & and about a dozen respectively. The other one is a hardcore ISBoxer with eighteen accounts in NPC corps that all log on like a machine gun within milliseconds of each other.
They will both be getting a nasty shock come the new year. I can't wait...........
|
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1297
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:42:02 -
[1319] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Man, its funny how hordes of isbotters claiming here how they cant be caught.
Holy ****, go try it out after January, 1st if you're so smart and tell us how it went for you.
Robert Caldera wrote:HypoConDreAct wrote:
you do realize isboxer isn't band just the repeater in isboxer is been band. and the dev of isboxer has said he will remove it for the eve setup of isboxer so players that use it cant get band right? or are you just trolling?
did you even realize what I wrote? I'm about people bitching how they can evade the rule by using other tools or methods, resembling isbotters input broadcast feature or similar stuff. Learn to read and understand.
As someone who can read and understand English very well, no-one can understand what you are trying to say. |
Cannibal Kane
Cannibal Empire
4437
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:43:29 -
[1320] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:All that means for me... I have more active wartargets in big ships. Who still won't undock for you to shoot them. Hey, do you really think that if CCP's willing to get rid of awoxing and small-op freighter ganks in a single patch, that something like war isn't headed for the chopping block as well? I thought you were smarter than that.
It not about being smart... it is just that I do not care. EVE is not that high of a priority in my life that it matters enough for me to start throwing my toys out my cot.
It is a game I play, the minute the game becomes something I cannot play the way I would like or I cannot adapt to a change I move on. it really is that simple.
"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk
|
|
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
827
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:43:32 -
[1321] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:
As someone who can read and understand English very well, no-one can understand what you are trying to say.
really? You are speaking for everyone? |
|
CCP Random
C C P
C C P Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:47:19 -
[1322] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Can you also detect someone using mouse drivers to send multiple commands with one button? We've been asking this for many, many pages now.
Yes. To quote the initial post:
Quote:
We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe.
The scope of this is controlling multiple accounts at the same time (in a semi-automated fashion which uses your input actions multiple times) for actions with meaning to EVE. The means you apply to archive this do not matter at all. |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2286
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:49:03 -
[1323] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:It not about being smart... it is just that I do not care. EVE is not that high of a priority in my life that it matters enough for me to start throwing my toys out my cot.
It is a game I play, the minute the game becomes something I cannot play the way I would like or I cannot adapt to a change I move on. it really is that simple.
If I cannot wardec anymore, I will move to low. Something I am already considering.
If you didn't "care," you wouldn't be playing it to begin with. Your presence alone indicates the presence of some degree of caring. And the fact that you care conflicts with your expressed support for bad gameplay changes, at least from the perspective of a high-sec pvper.
So it's either you're lying, or you actually want the game to fail.
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
|
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1297
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:49:33 -
[1324] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Arronicus wrote:
As someone who can read and understand English very well, no-one can understand what you are trying to say.
really? You are speaking for everyone?
Yes. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2286
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:53:34 -
[1325] - Quote
CCP Random wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Can you also detect someone using mouse drivers to send multiple commands with one button? We've been asking this for many, many pages now.
Yes.
This is amazingly troubling. What do you have running on our systems, now? This, combined with the fact that I recently noticed that the standalone EVE client is asking permission to hook to the Steam client if it's running (and it literally won't start up without being given said permission), makes me think it's time to start running EVE in a VM with every spoofed to hell and back.
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
|
Femerov
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:53:39 -
[1326] - Quote
finally :) |
Cannibal Kane
Cannibal Empire
4437
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:56:13 -
[1327] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:It not about being smart... it is just that I do not care. EVE is not that high of a priority in my life that it matters enough for me to start throwing my toys out my cot.
It is a game I play, the minute the game becomes something I cannot play the way I would like or I cannot adapt to a change I move on. it really is that simple.
If I cannot wardec anymore, I will move to low. Something I am already considering. If you didn't "care," you wouldn't be playing it to begin with. Your presence alone indicates the presence of some degree of caring. And the fact that you care conflicts with your expressed support for bad gameplay changes, at least from the perspective of a high-sec pvper. So it's either you're lying, or you actually want the game to fail.
I think you put to much emphasis on the word care. Or you are to emotionally invested in EVE.
I play EVE to relax when I get back home from work. I chose EVE over other MMO's because I like space and I like shooting at stuff. No doubt I invested money in EVE to play it, but that is because I enjoy it. I spend money on things I enjoy and at that time, EVE was the only real contender for my money. More contenders are brewing though...
Change is inevitable, I will adapt or I will move to the next best thing.
"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2286
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:00:30 -
[1328] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:Change is inevitable, I will adapt or I will move to the next best thing.
So in your eyes, the only two options are adaptation or quitting, and not something like, say, trying to influence the product's direction in terms of development? That's pretty bleak.
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
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
62
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:09:32 -
[1329] - Quote
Just look at them speculating
As the one who's been watching market speculations for a while, I can tell this is just a few notches away from B-R5RB aftermath.
Though I'm half convinced this is just a "burn jita" variation born from the goon tears, which are flowing into this thread faster than I can read it, because, let's face it, it's not happened yet. You still have 5 weeks to go, and your blue donut cheat fleet is going to generate a trillion in the meantime, which would plex you (after miners unsub) for about 10 years once plex speculation dust settles.
So step on exploiting, not on tear-posting.
On a second thought, how is the plex price going to drop if goon bot fleet trillions keep it inflated?
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.
|
Deck Cadelanne
Exigent Circumstances
CAStabouts
71
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:12:02 -
[1330] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
It is very much a nerf on freighter-ganking, seeing as how it's the only activity, when done solo, that necessitates outside software in order to reach the same level of efficiency that is reached in all other activities by employing alts the normal alt-tabbing way.
As opposed to "solo" gatecamping with an ISBoxed Tornado blob and alpha-ing anything smaller than a BS...or "solo" stealth bomber ISBox fleets for the same effect?
You might have to play with friends when you want to go gank a freighter now. Why is that so tragic?
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
Lt Huunuras
Yard Industries
Kadeshians
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:17:26 -
[1331] - Quote
Only the function of "Input Broadcasting" and "Input Multiplexing" will be banned.
So the function to cut out pieces of your game and build up your own overlay is LEGAL to the given facts.
Cool, nothing changed... i like it. Good Move :)
|
Thomas Mayaki
Perkone
Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:17:56 -
[1332] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Thomas Mayaki wrote:Warr Akini wrote:I've had a good suicide ganking run, but the wave of nerfs against it don't seem to be stopping anytime soon.
Thanks. It's been fun. This is not a nerf against ganking its a nerf on bot-aspirant behavior. If you repent your former sins I'm sure there will be a place in the New Order for you. You may read up on the CODE at http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html It is very much a nerf on freighter-ganking, seeing as how it's the only activity, when done solo, that necessitates outside software in order to reach the same level of efficiency that is reached in all other activities by employing alts the normal alt-tabbing way.
'when done solo' - I think I see where you and I differ. I don't believe that one player should be able to take out a freighter using a program and would consider it more cheating than ganking. A group of players yes, a solo players no.
I suggest you look at CODE. killboard with regard proper freighter ganking.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2286
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:18:35 -
[1333] - Quote
Deck Cadelanne wrote:You might have to play with friends when you want to go gank a freighter now. Why is that so tragic?
Because if this is their intent with this change, they're not going to stop here. It means they view freighter ganking as the problem, and not ISBoxing.
Thomas Mayaki wrote:'when done solo' - I think I see where you and I differ. I don't believe that one player should be able to take out a freighter using a program and would consider it more cheating than ganking. A group of players yes, a solo players no.
I suggest you look at CODE. killboard with regard proper freighter ganking.
Why should freighter-ganking be different from any other alt-friendly activity (read: all of them) in the game?
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
|
Sacu Shi
Shadows of Telara
45
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:18:36 -
[1334] - Quote
All those people who are complaining about this change and who are saying such things as 'bye', 'I'm leaving and taking my alts with me...', 'Back to WoW'.
Can I please haz your stuffs? |
Dracorimus
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
10
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:19:14 -
[1335] - Quote
finally thank goodness
isboxer's tears = wonderful |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
827
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:27:42 -
[1336] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Because if this is their intent with this change, they're not going to stop here. It means they view freighter ganking as the problem, and not ISBoxing.
whats so hard to understand there?
They dont want 1 man to do these things like there were 20 men in automated manner.
Freighter ganking is no problem, freighter ganking by 20 catalysts from 1 dude isbotted fleet IS a problem! |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2286
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:33:51 -
[1337] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:whats so hard to understand there?
They dont want 1 man to do these things like there were 20 men in automated manner.
Freighter ganking is no problem, freighter ganking by 20 catalysts from 1 dude isbotted fleet IS a problem!
The costs and penalties associated with the act are the same, no matter how the act is performed. Twenty characters are going to suffer security status losses and get kill rights made on them, and twenty ships are going to be destroyed by CONCORD with no insurance payouts.
You're saying that it's a problem, but you're not aying why it's a problem, and that's the issue. So maybe you should tell us, and while you're at it, also tell us why one player using multiple accounts to gank someone is bad, but one player using multiple accounts to run pve content isn't.
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
|
Sacu Shi
Shadows of Telara
45
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:34:16 -
[1338] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:Anyone using ISboxer with half a brain is simply gonna double down for the next month:) Bloodraider smart-bomb ratting is making me 2b per hour in isk and about 1b in loot and svalage after seeing the "news" all I did was resub 4 more accounts next 4 weeks I'm simply gonna smart-bomb 12h a day so that after the first of January I'll never have to do it again. If I can keep it up to 12h a day gonna make close to 2 tril isk the next 30 days.And really what does that change you can still use keybinds just not across clients and you can still use roaming keys you can still use videoFX. Isboxer still gives you an insane edge over the plebs who don't use it or don't know how to correctly use it. Broadcasting was just a easy-mode thing.
Fits
Strategy
Technique
Site
Or it didn't happen.
Even if it did...share your methods :)
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:35:27 -
[1339] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Because if this is their intent with this change, they're not going to stop here. It means they view freighter ganking as the problem, and not ISBoxing.
whats so hard to understand there? They dont want 1 man to do these things like there were 20 men in automated manner. Freighter ganking is no problem, freighter ganking by 20 catalysts from 1 dude isbotted fleet IS a problem!
I have never seen that, And i have seen a lot. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:39:41 -
[1340] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Man, its funny how hordes of isbotters claiming here how they cant be caught.
Holy ****, go try it out after January, 1st if you're so smart and tell us how it went for you. Robert Caldera wrote:HypoConDreAct wrote:
you do realize isboxer isn't band just the repeater in isboxer is been band. and the dev of isboxer has said he will remove it for the eve setup of isboxer so players that use it cant get band right? or are you just trolling?
did you even realize what I wrote? I'm about people bitching how they can evade the rule by using other tools or methods, resembling isbotters input broadcast feature or similar stuff. Learn to read and understand. As someone who can read and understand English very well, no-one can understand what you are trying to say.
I understand what they're writing, so eather you troll, or you can't read English from non native americans/English men (etc' and also People who dont speak/Write it very well)
Reapeater or not, it wont change too mutch.
As for miners.
So who hope it going to effect isb boxer miners..
you can dream :)
(i dont mine) |
|
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
830
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:39:51 -
[1341] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
You're saying that it's a problem, but you're not aying why it's a problem, and that's the issue. So maybe you should tell us, and while you're at it, also tell us why one player using multiple accounts to gank someone is bad, but one player using multiple accounts to run pve content isn't.
it has been said lots of times already, not going to reiterate on details. You are acquiring too much advantage as solo player by automating x clients, which is prohibited for a good reason per EULA per SE. Move on its done. |
Lt Huunuras
Yard Industries
Kadeshians
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:40:15 -
[1342] - Quote
Example of legal usage of Isboxer.
How to use ISboxer, legally
|
Maneila Bekas
Capital Hot Rods
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:40:25 -
[1343] - Quote
Well, i know one Thing for sure...nearlly NO ISBOXER EVER EVER PAID REAL MONEY FOR THEIR 10/20 or 50 Accounts...they bought even the Toons and upgraded to even bigger whoring Isk generating fleets.
Incursion Runners with 10 Accounts ? Whored on Plex and stockpiled them
Incursion Runner with 50 Account ? Flying HQ Sites ? They have ALL Their 50Accounts plexxed in sometimes UNDER 10 HOURS !
Needed to cook, fap and call your Mom ? Ok, then it took you 15hours...
Just look at the Plex Market,...where do you think come all the 3000+Plexes thrown on the Market ?
i don-¦t want to start a discussion about PVP...there is nothing to discuss about it.
For me it is simple...
Maybe 50 or 100 People that really whored the **** out of New Eden, flying dozens accounts with some keystrokes and stockpiling Plex, and those ULTRA-MINERS...they will ALLLLL GO AWAY now. You need Ore ? Fleet up, do it for your Corp !
First of all, the guy that wrote "Incursions RIP" omfg....
Running Incursions with one of the BIG Shield/Armor Communities is a SOCIAL GROUP THING...whole fu******* EVE is a SOCIAL GROUP THING !
as i said...getting wrecked by 10 Bombers, all flown by ONE Guy...sorry,..sure this is not "acceptable". Solo PVP ? I doubt this was meant to be like this...It doesnt matter if you think "thats my style to play eve blablabla i pay for this with my gaming time my isk blablabla"...
What do you think would be left in 10years when not stopping this "antisocial gaming behaviour" ?
5 Guys - fighting - everyone with 200 Accounts under their One Button Strokes...
omg...you sure could UPGRADE your ISBoxer Tool with an Option called "Social Chat Behavior"...bots that talk about the weather, posting sexy Gifs oh yeah and of course complain about baaad fittings...you would even add those bots to your contact list under "good bro-¦s - bad bro-¦s".... :D
Come on,... don-¦t tell me you want this.
Another Good thing now,..if you are really capable to ALT-TAB oder Multiscreen more than 3 accounts effectively...you are real PRO now. Multitasking is now a Skill !
And lets be honest. You have so many ways earning ISK in Eve... who really really still pays 13Gé¼ or 13$ or what, for one or two or those 3 accounts he ownes ? Come on ? Who still does it ? Maybe some do it because of "yeah i want CCP to have some Money for this nice game..." but normally, you can plex the **** out of the game....even without "Isboxing 20Accounts".
Now imagine, there is no plex anymore ? Sure it is TIME you invest to get that isk and buy that plex...but i would love to see a restriction like "EVERY ACCOUNT HAS THE OPTION TO GAIN MAX. 11 MONTHS PER YEAR SUBSCRIPTION BY USING PLEX"
Which means, CCP gets ONCE a year, some EURO for every active account (sure with 3 toons running). Or even "smaller"...Every 5 Accounts with 15Toons max. NEED TO PAY A annual FEE of 20$/20Gé¼. The Rest can be paid by Plex. And yes, you get 5 PLEX (well 5 month sub.) for that 20Gé¼/$. So only need to plex 11months.
Why i am talking about "giving your real life Money to ccp ?"
Now IMAGINE please, and NO ( i dont work for CCP but i know how companies run and what CAN be done ), JUST IMAGINE...what CCP could OFFER us,...the Players, when having the Access to more REAL MONEY ?
They could launch TV Adverts, they could bring in more people into the company, for Supporttickets, for new SHIPS, new MISSIONS, creating NEW CONTENT and hell they could give the Game a fu****** awesome TUTORIAL with even freaking CUTSCENES and after 2 Weeks, flying around in your noobship with your noobskills and no clue of nothing....you, the NEW EVE Player Guy, would feel like.."THIS GAME IS AWESOME"...
And instead of trying to get ISK ISK ISK to NOT pay with real money...for one freaking account, you would ENJOY the Game, the World, the Options offered and of course group up in the game to achieve even bigger things.
A lot of players start EVE, and stay "alone" for a loooong loooong time...earning ISK...alone.
A freaking new superb Tutorial and Adverts and a "NEW PLAYER BASE"...brings fresh wind into the old and dusty Eve Base.
Nobody should be left alone in EVE....and well, the guys who want to play EVE only as a single player game,...now, they cant MultiUse 40Accounts at the same time, and wrecking the fun of thousands and stealing the options that should be available to better 40 individuals than only ONE Person.
No really,...who would say NO to 1$/1Gé¼ per MONTH for EVERY 3 TOONS/1Account ...WHEN WE WOULD GET SOOOO MUCH MOREEEE IN SOOO MUCHHH SHORTER TIME from CCp ?
I only say "LEGION 2015/16 -> imagine F2P for the first month and then 1Gé¼ only per Month i mean COME ONNNN....
Or do you want to see 40 Soldiers running around, isboxed by one guy ? :D ok, ok, at least we all know,...FPS Shooters work a little bit different....but hey,...before you all say "CCP GETS ENOUGH MONEY" or "BYE CCP DONT NEED MY 30Accounts anymore"...you really really should think about what HAPPENS when CCP needs to CLOSE EVE.
So stop complaining about nerfs and rules...they are good for 98% of us and for the future development of this awesome game...and for the connectivity with the other projects, for sure...
Please think about this.
World of Warcraft had over 12.000.000 Sub. PAYING to FIRST BUY the Game like a normal Game, then the ADD-Ons and the monthly Fee FOR YEARS.
And you only could look up into the stars in Azeroth.thats it. ;)
Everyone writing "i go play wow again bye ccp"...sorry, but there is no "logic" behind such a phrase.
I mean 2 different games, 2 different worlds wtf...ok we DONT HAVE DRAGONS in Eve..but hey,..who knows ?
CCP i want DRAGONS, big ones in new LV6 Burner Missions ! please scratch that down on the TO DO List for next year for me...thank you <3 and of course i want them to attack Alliance POS randomly with 1trillion Damage per Firestroke... :D |
Faye Ren
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:42:47 -
[1344] - Quote
Great job CCP!
It was about time the the 10000 toons - 1 man fleet stuff had an end.
Just a quick question, will it be allowed to macro one mouse key to lock on with 1 click? instead of ctrl+click. not broadcasting, only on 1 toon.
Thanks |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2286
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:42:48 -
[1345] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
You're saying that it's a problem, but you're not aying why it's a problem, and that's the issue. So maybe you should tell us, and while you're at it, also tell us why one player using multiple accounts to gank someone is bad, but one player using multiple accounts to run pve content isn't.
it has been said lots of times already, not going to reiterate on details. You are acquiring too much advantage as solo player by automating x clients, which is prohibited for a good reason per EULA per SE. Move on its done.
Nothing is being automated in a freighter gank.
Good job on avoiding the question like a pro, though.
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
|
Oraac Ensor
583
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:45:40 -
[1346] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:
If this were about behavior and not external influence using 3rd party apps it would also be verboten to run multiple clients on the same PC.
How, exactly? |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
831
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:47:01 -
[1347] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Nothing is being automated in a freighter gank.
Good job on avoiding the question like a pro, though.
we are talking about an isbotted freighter gank right? When you play 1 client and other 19 catalysts are automated in background, right??
Input broadcast is form of automation, this is why its explicitely illegal now (actually always was, see EULA, part 3c) and why we have this thread here. |
The Ironfist
Nordbot Capitals
Northern Associates.
72
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:50:05 -
[1348] - Quote
Ormand Audel wrote:Agent Intrepid wrote:The Ironfist wrote:Anyone using ISboxer with half a brain is simply gonna double down for the next month:) Bloodraider smart-bomb ratting is making me 2b per hour in isk and about 1b in loot and svalage after seeing the "news" all I did was resub 4 more accounts next 4 weeks I'm simply gonna smart-bomb 12h a day so that after the first of January I'll never have to do it again. If I can keep it up to 12h a day gonna make close to 2 tril isk the next 30 days.And really what does that change you can still use keybinds just not across clients and you can still use roaming keys you can still use videoFX. Isboxer still gives you an insane edge over the plebs who don't use it or don't know how to correctly use it. Broadcasting was just a easy-mode thing. You make 2 billion isk an hour smartbomb ratting, and expect to make a trillion isk over the next month? Sounds like something CCP would want to look into. Uh.. 2b from bounties. 1b from loot/salvage. That's 3b/hour. 3*12=36 36*30=1080. Not sure how he's going to make close to 2tril since his math comes out to 1080b, but it's still over a tril. Adrie Atticus wrote:Nemed Bererund wrote:So no more Eve-Central Market crawler then? CREST provides that data already. Isn't that a feature coming in december?
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:) |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2287
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:51:25 -
[1349] - Quote
There's no automation. Input broadcasting isn't automation. You don't even need software to do this (although it's much simpler with software). You can have separate computers for each EVE client, align everything nicely, and use a hardware solution to multiply your input across all of them. And yet nothing is being automated, because everything that happens on every client is the direct result of your interaction with your input device.
Man, you're really bad at this trolling thing.
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
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:53:16 -
[1350] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Nothing is being automated in a freighter gank.
Good job on avoiding the question like a pro, though.
we are talking about an isbotted freighter gank right? When you play 1 client and other 19 catalysts are automated in background, right?? Input broadcast is form of automation, this is why its explicitely illegal now (actually always was, see EULA, part 3c) and why we have this thread here.
this shows how little you know, you have proably never tryed Isb boxer. And to make this Clear. i have never ever seen an isb boxer catalyst fleet. So i dont know what this is about, propaganda to get it away? I dont know. But saying that its botting or totaly automated in background is just pure wrong. |
|
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
831
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:54:45 -
[1351] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
There's no automation. Input broadcasting isn't automation.
it is, I see it so, CCP sees it so, many other people see it same way. Discussed lots of times already, not gonna do it again.
You're done, move on.
kraken11 jensen wrote:
this shows how little you know, you have proably never tryed Isb boxer. And to make this Clear. i have never ever seen an isb boxer catalyst fleet. So i dont know what this is about, propaganda to get it away? I dont know. But saying that its botting or totaly automated in background is just pure wrong.
so just because you havent seen anything, it didnt happen? lol |
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:55:08 -
[1352] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:
For myself, I am pointing out that proper detection of such bad actors is hard without a fairly high false positive rate.
That's incorrect.
The Eula states you are not allowed any mechanism which replicates the input from a single source (keyboard, mouse,..) to multiple clients.
Identifying such a behavior is the simplest task. You only need to identify clients which run on the same computer at a given time and/or use the same external IP address and compare the keys/mouse clicks. If you have two clients showing the same characteristics ( e.g. on both clients with the identical entries "F1 F4 F2 mouse left click, mouse right click, T, ..." in the log file) you have found someone using a replicator. I don't know how many keyboard/mouse clicks would make this method almost 100% bullet proof, but I doubt you require more than 100 entries for such a finger print.
Additionally I can raise the question: who tells you that CCP hasn't already collected statistics about the usage of these replicator programs in the past weeks and they already know exactly who is considered to be suspicious? No one has been hiding the program so far, it was legal (or grey zone) making a data collection easy. |
Danalee
Somalian Coast Guard Authority
The Marmite Collective
978
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:56:17 -
[1353] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:Agent Intrepid wrote:The Ironfist wrote:Anyone using ISboxer with half a brain is simply gonna double down for the next month:) Bloodraider smart-bomb ratting is making me 2b per hour in isk and about 1b in loot and svalage after seeing the "news" all I did was resub 4 more accounts next 4 weeks I'm simply gonna smart-bomb 12h a day so that after the first of January I'll never have to do it again. If I can keep it up to 12h a day gonna make close to 2 tril isk the next 30 days.And really what does that change you can still use keybinds just not across clients and you can still use roaming keys you can still use videoFX. Isboxer still gives you an insane edge over the plebs who don't use it or don't know how to correctly use it. Broadcasting was just a easy-mode thing. You make 2 billion isk an hour smartbomb ratting, and expect to make a trillion isk over the next month? Sounds like something CCP would want to look into. Let's humor his claims for a moment. Claim 1: he can make 2b/hour isk, 1b/hour loot and salvage, so 3b/hour Claim 2: he can rat uninterrupted for up to 12hr/day for the next 30 days Claim 3: he can make close to 2 tril isk in that 30 day period 3bil/hour, 12 hours a day = 36bil/day. * 30 days = 1.08 trillion. Never trust a man who can't do SIMPLE math, when he tells you how much isk he is making. I'm willing to bet the guy thinks isk server ticks are every 5-10 minutes, too.
Indeed, never trust a man that can't do reading...
You forgot Claim 4, Einstein: Bloodraider smart-bomb ratting is making me 2b per hour in isk and about 1b in loot and svalage after seeing the "news" all I did was resub 4 more accounts
D.
Psychotic Monk:
I see nothing in a bonus room that hasn't been an accepted and celebrated part of eve online basically forever and I see no reason that we should fundamentally harm the uniqueness of this game for some people who seem to have forgotten that.
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 12:59:51 -
[1354] - Quote
Danalee wrote:Arronicus wrote:Agent Intrepid wrote:The Ironfist wrote:Anyone using ISboxer with half a brain is simply gonna double down for the next month:) Bloodraider smart-bomb ratting is making me 2b per hour in isk and about 1b in loot and svalage after seeing the "news" all I did was resub 4 more accounts next 4 weeks I'm simply gonna smart-bomb 12h a day so that after the first of January I'll never have to do it again. If I can keep it up to 12h a day gonna make close to 2 tril isk the next 30 days.And really what does that change you can still use keybinds just not across clients and you can still use roaming keys you can still use videoFX. Isboxer still gives you an insane edge over the plebs who don't use it or don't know how to correctly use it. Broadcasting was just a easy-mode thing. You make 2 billion isk an hour smartbomb ratting, and expect to make a trillion isk over the next month? Sounds like something CCP would want to look into. Let's humor his claims for a moment. Claim 1: he can make 2b/hour isk, 1b/hour loot and salvage, so 3b/hour Claim 2: he can rat uninterrupted for up to 12hr/day for the next 30 days Claim 3: he can make close to 2 tril isk in that 30 day period 3bil/hour, 12 hours a day = 36bil/day. * 30 days = 1.08 trillion. Never trust a man who can't do SIMPLE math, when he tells you how much isk he is making. I'm willing to bet the guy thinks isk server ticks are every 5-10 minutes, too. Indeed, never trust a man that can't do reading... You forgot Claim 4, Einstein: Bloodraider smart-bomb ratting is making me 2b per hour in isk and about 1b in loot and svalage after seeing the "news" all I did was resub 4 more accounts D.
neautral reppers i suppose ;) (Your resubbed accounts)
Oh, well. Smart bombs're quite smiple. so it wont even stop afther the update i suppose. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
832
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:03:39 -
[1355] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:neautral reppers i suppose ;) (Your resubbed accounts) Oh, well. Smart bombs're quite smiple. so it wont even stop afther the update i suppose.
keep doing, but as you cant warp all of them with 1 click, some will get caught while you're warping them 1 by 1,
and this is exactly why recent policy change is good and long overdue. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:03:58 -
[1356] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
There's no automation. Input broadcasting isn't automation.
it is, I see it so, CCP sees it so, many other people see it same way. Discussed lots of times already, not gonna do it again. You're done, move on. kraken11 jensen wrote:
this shows how little you know, you have proably never tryed Isb boxer. And to make this Clear. i have never ever seen an isb boxer catalyst fleet. So i dont know what this is about, propaganda to get it away? I dont know. But saying that its botting or totaly automated in background is just pure wrong.
so, just because you havent seen something, it didnt happen? lol, shows how little you know.
First off all, i would appriciate if you quoted all what she said instead off a little part off it.
And if you think its just automated in back ground With isb boxer. then you're wrong.
|
Krane Makanen
Dredge Nation
Northern Associates.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:04:21 -
[1357] - Quote
So will CCP be compensating me for my IS boxer subscription I purchased 2 months ago?
Answer of course not.
Fine they want to bring this rule in, I donGÇÖt agree with all aspects as ore prices will sky rocket due to the lack of minerals on the market for one.
I agree itGÇÖs misuse in some areas could be a problem, but why selecting and dragging from cargo holds is a problem god knows.
I would only ask that they give us fair time like a 6 month warning.
Yesterday I cancelled subs on 10 accounts as of January I know I am not the only one so it will be interesting to see their end of year earnings in 12 months ^^
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
832
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:07:26 -
[1358] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:
First off all, i would appriciate if you quoted all what she said instead off a little part off it.
nah I dropped irrelevant parts...
kraken11 jensen wrote:
And if you think its just automated in back ground With isb boxer. then you're wrong.
I dont think so it is, per definition of automation. but you might have your own opinion, I dont really care,
all I care about is CCP's attitude in this matter, which I highly appreciate. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:10:00 -
[1359] - Quote
Krane Makanen wrote:So will CCP be compensating me for my IS boxer subscription I purchased 2 months ago?
Answer of course not.
Fine they want to bring this rule in, I donGÇÖt agree with all aspects as ore prices will sky rocket due to the lack of minerals on the market for one.
I agree itGÇÖs misuse in some areas could be a problem, but why selecting and dragging from cargo holds is a problem god knows.
I would only ask that they give us fair time like a 6 month warning.
Yesterday I cancelled subs on 10 accounts as of January I know I am not the only one so it will be interesting to see their end of year earnings in 12 months ^^
hehe, so btw what ou do With you accounts if i can ask (just purely courius) And im sorry that you feel like this, i know it's (kinda sad) But i dont see mutch changing in mining sector, becous you can just fleet Warp still, and brodcast're pretty mutch uselss when mining. so i dont see any use off it in my eyes. Also, People going to keep complaining becous there still going to be ass big fleets mining. and what an suprise.. lol :) Anyway, i wish you all wall. And i hope it going to work out for you , aka us :) |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2287
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:10:56 -
[1360] - Quote
Krane Makanen wrote:Fine they want to bring this rule in, I donGÇÖt agree with all aspects as ore prices will sky rocket due to the lack of minerals on the market for one.
Mineral prices aren't going to be any different after this initial speculation settles down. They haven't been doing anything about bot miners or ratters since they became a thing pretty much when this game came out, and they're not going to start now, suddenly, just because input broadcasting becomes illegal. The only players affected by this will be suicide-gankers, whom this change is aimed at.
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
|
|
|
Greg Inglis
Storm Planet
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:12:28 -
[1361] - Quote
Does this mean that actual botters will be banned? I'm quite sick of seeing this in belts.
http://i.imgur.com/Oi3GynO.jpg?1
Report bot doesn't seem to do anything. |
Thomas Mayaki
Perkone
Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:12:34 -
[1362] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Nothing is being automated in a freighter gank.
Good job on avoiding the question like a pro, though.
we are talking about an isbotted freighter gank right? When you play 1 client and other 19 catalysts are automated in background, right?? Input broadcast is form of automation, this is why its explicitely illegal now (actually always was, see EULA, part 3c) and why we have this thread here. There's no automation. Input broadcasting isn't automation. You don't even need software to do this (although it's much simpler with software). You can have separate computers for each EVE client, align everything nicely, and use a hardware solution to multiply your input across all of them. And yet nothing is being automated, because everything that happens on every client is the direct result of your interaction with your input device. Man, you're really bad at this trolling thing.
I think I'll post that definition of automation I found.
Automation or automatic control, is the use of various control systems for operating equipment such as machinery, processes in factories, boilers and heat treating ovens, switching in telephone networks, steering and stabilization of ships, aircraft and other applications with minimal or reduced human intervention. |
Krane Makanen
Dredge Nation
Northern Associates.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:15:37 -
[1363] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Krane Makanen wrote:So will CCP be compensating me for my IS boxer subscription I purchased 2 months ago?
Answer of course not.
Fine they want to bring this rule in, I donGÇÖt agree with all aspects as ore prices will sky rocket due to the lack of minerals on the market for one.
I agree itGÇÖs misuse in some areas could be a problem, but why selecting and dragging from cargo holds is a problem god knows.
I would only ask that they give us fair time like a 6 month warning.
Yesterday I cancelled subs on 10 accounts as of January I know I am not the only one so it will be interesting to see their end of year earnings in 12 months ^^
hehe, so btw what ou do With you accounts if i can ask (just purely courius) And im sorry that you feel like this, i know it's (kinda sad) But i dont see mutch changing in mining sector, becous you can just fleet Warp still, and brodcast're pretty mutch uselss when mining. so i dont see any use off it in my eyes. Also, People going to keep complaining becous there still going to be ass big fleets mining. and what an suprise.. lol :) Anyway, i wish you all wall. And i hope it going to work out for you , aka us :)
Maybe ya right we will have to see its just means even more clicking. I will need to buy a new mouse every month :-)
Maybe CCP should invent one to cope with the increase. |
Krane Makanen
Dredge Nation
Northern Associates.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:17:51 -
[1364] - Quote
Greg Inglis wrote:Does this mean that actual botters will be banned? I'm quite sick of seeing this in belts. http://i.imgur.com/Oi3GynO.jpg?1
Report bot doesn't seem to do anything.
I once spoke with someone who used to BOT CCP cancled his accounts he appiled and they gave him them back just because he said he was not a BOT ing raise the question how will they police this. |
Oraac Ensor
583
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:18:21 -
[1365] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:
So what happens when CCP's connections is being DDoSed or doing it's usual lag at random late hours and all my commands arrive at the server at the same time? From the server's perspective it'd look like I'm using a repeater but in reality all I did was alt tab through a bunch of windows quickly.
Blue sky must mean the planet is surrounded by water (according to your logic)...
Eh? How is water relevant?
NASA wrote:Sunlight reaches Earth's atmosphere and is scattered in all directions by all the gases and particles in the air. Blue light is scattered in all directions by the tiny molecules of air in Earth's atmosphere. Blue is scattered more than other colors because it travels as shorter, smaller waves. This is why we see a blue sky most of the time. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:19:00 -
[1366] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:
First off all, i would appriciate if you quoted all what she said instead off a little part off it.
nah I dropped irrelevant parts... kraken11 jensen wrote:
And if you think its just automated in back ground With isb boxer. then you're wrong.
I dont think so it is, per definition of automation. but you might have your own opinion, I dont really care, all I care about is CCP's attitude in this matter, which I highly appreciate.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5217251#post5217251
Well, here you was spreading Your own opinion before this announcment was made.
So ''all i care about is CCP's attitude in this matter'' dont seem right? |
Prisoner11213
iMmortal Wings
Most Valuable Player
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:20:38 -
[1367] - Quote
Maneila Bekas wrote:
Now imagine, there is no plex anymore ? Sure it is TIME you invest to get that isk and buy that plex...but i would love to see a restriction like "EVERY ACCOUNT HAS THE OPTION TO GAIN MAX. 11 MONTHS PER YEAR SUBSCRIPTION BY USING PLEX"
Which means, CCP gets ONCE a year, some EURO for every active account (sure with 3 toons running). Or even "smaller"...Every 5 Accounts with 15Toons max. NEED TO PAY A annual FEE of 20$/20Gé¼. The Rest can be paid by Plex. And yes, you get 5 PLEX (well 5 month sub.) for that 20Gé¼/$. So only need to plex 11months.
Why i am talking about "giving your real life Money to ccp ?"
Now IMAGINE please, and NO ( i dont work for CCP but i know how companies run and what CAN be done ), JUST IMAGINE...what CCP could OFFER us,...the Players, when having the Access to more REAL MONEY ?
I did short the quote becuase u repeat yourself there a bit, dint wana post a long treath again XD
You do know that if u buy a PLEX from CCP to sell it ingame u pay 20 bucks ? A normal 1 moth subscription 15 bucks.
So ppl should buy more plex thats more money for CCP. Ok i dint count in the 3/6/12 month subscription where the price is lower. My point is that every PLEX in game costs more then a normal subscription.
Keep in mind every plex is money that
NOT YOU <---( btw thats how u use caps dont overturn it)
but someone else put money into the game.
CCP knows that and are risking some money. But i do support the change. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
832
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:22:40 -
[1368] - Quote
sure. and now I'm happy CCP is enforcing their EULA finally. |
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
57
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:23:11 -
[1369] - Quote
So much for the Full On SandBox' environment that CCP say they wanted, they are already placing boundaries on what players can and cannot do before we even get that far.
Problem here is that CCP have behaved in there usual Tardy and Vague manner regarding the EULA and it's ramifications to players in relation to Multi boxing methods.
As a result we have seen players make use of the tools available, ISBOXER being one of them, had they been more open regarding this aspect maybe this situation would not have warranted this blunt force reaction from CCP in the end to finally clarify the situation.
Overall however I cannot see that this change will affect multiboxing greatly, players are innovative and it will not be long before some enterprising buff release a full instruction set regarding core/client/keybinding assignments and the whole argument starts again.
Mean whlie on a lighter note, anyone interested in buying several fully skilled mining toons. |
Greg Inglis
Storm Planet
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:28:49 -
[1370] - Quote
Krane Makanen wrote:Greg Inglis wrote:Does this mean that actual botters will be banned? I'm quite sick of seeing this in belts. http://i.imgur.com/Oi3GynO.jpg?1
Report bot doesn't seem to do anything. I once spoke with someone who used to BOT CCP cancled his accounts he appiled and they gave him them back just because he said he was not a BOT ing raise the question how will they police this.
Lol so basically they don't ban bots and they want to ban ISboxers... sigh |
|
|
The Ironfist
Nordbot Capitals
Northern Associates.
72
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:29:28 -
[1371] - Quote
Sacu Shi wrote:The Ironfist wrote:Anyone using ISboxer with half a brain is simply gonna double down for the next month:) Bloodraider smart-bomb ratting is making me 2b per hour in isk and about 1b in loot and svalage after seeing the "news" all I did was resub 4 more accounts next 4 weeks I'm simply gonna smart-bomb 12h a day so that after the first of January I'll never have to do it again. If I can keep it up to 12h a day gonna make close to 2 tril isk the next 30 days.And really what does that change you can still use keybinds just not across clients and you can still use roaming keys you can still use videoFX. Isboxer still gives you an insane edge over the plebs who don't use it or don't know how to correctly use it. Broadcasting was just a easy-mode thing. Fits Strategy Technique Site Or it didn't happen. Even if it did...share your methods :)
Bloodraider or Sansha Space both work minimum truesec required is -0.75 ideal truesec is -0.95 to -1.0
You basically need to have at least 3 Small Heavens (Stargate in the middle).
Tactic is simple warp to the small heaven at zero (ignore the other anoms) make sure all clients have the Stargate structure added to overview sort overview by type so the Stargate is always in the same place in the overview on all clients. Start approaching the Stargate with afterburner on. Once you're within 500-1000m of the Stargate Structure start smart-bombing. For this ideally make a broadcast key to start all smart-bombs across all 4 clients but make sure you add delays so they start staggered with 1sec delay from client to client because if you start all smart-bombs at once there is a good chance you cause anomalies to bug out by insta volleying entire spawns it fucks up triggers.
Requirements
Bloodraider / Sansha Space with trusesec of at least -0.75 (will give you 3 Small Heavens) but I'd recommend nothing below -0.9 because if you go the officer route on smart-bombs which most people do eventually for several reasons... you are going to be too fast and 3 anomalies are not enough to keep it perma going.
4 NAPC pilots with maxed out smart-bomb/capacitor/Navigation skills
Fits:
[current]
Corpus X-Type Large Armor Repairer
Corpus X-Type Armor EM Hardener
Corpus X-Type Armor EM Hardener
Reactive Armor Hardener
Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I
Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I
Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I
Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I
Gist X-Type 100MN Afterburner
Large Micro Jump Drive
Cap Recharger II
Cap Recharger II
Ahremen's Modified Large EMP Smartbomb
Ahremen's Modified Large EMP Smartbomb
Ahremen's Modified Large EMP Smartbomb
Ahremen's Modified Large EMP Smartbomb
Ahremen's Modified Large EMP Smartbomb
Ahremen's Modified Large EMP Smartbomb
Ahremen's Modified Large EMP Smartbomb
Ahremen's Modified Large EMP Smartbomb
Large Capacitor Control Circuit II
Large Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II
Large Low Friction Nozzle Joints II
Implant_Active=Genolution Core Augmentation CA-1
Implant_Active=Genolution Core Augmentation CA-4
Implant_Active=Genolution Core Augmentation CA-3
Implant_Active=Genolution Core Augmentation CA-2
Implant_Active=Zainou 'Gypsy' CPU Management EE-606
Implant_Active=Inherent Implants 'Squire' Energy Pulse Weapons EP-706
Implant_Active=Inherent Implants 'Squire' Capacitor Management EM-80
To start with you can just substitute the smart-bombs for cheaper faction EM smart-bombs. I'd recommend keeping the MJD saved me a few times.. It took me a good 4 month to aquire enough meta 13 smart-bombs to get all ships fitted up so thats something that comes a long the road and is more of a lazy thing.. because the extra range these smarty offer allows for extra lazyness plus the extra damage is also quite nice. Though if put up on the risk vs reward meter its definitely not worth it. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2287
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:30:20 -
[1372] - Quote
Greg Inglis wrote:Lol so basically they don't ban bots and they want to ban ISboxers... sigh
That's the elephant in the room that very few of the people who are jumping for joy in this thread want to acknowledge.
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
832
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:33:13 -
[1373] - Quote
I guess the market is going to be flooded with officer smartbombs soon... looking forward to that :D |
Agent Intrepid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:44:26 -
[1374] - Quote
Krane Makanen wrote:So will CCP be compensating me for my IS boxer subscription I purchased 2 months ago?
Answer of course not.
Fine they want to bring this rule in, I donGÇÖt agree with all aspects as ore prices will sky rocket due to the lack of minerals on the market for one.
I agree itGÇÖs misuse in some areas could be a problem, but why selecting and dragging from cargo holds is a problem god knows.
I would only ask that they give us fair time like a 6 month warning.
Yesterday I cancelled subs on 10 accounts as of January I know I am not the only one so it will be interesting to see their end of year earnings in 12 months ^^
6 months, don't be ridiculous. They were overly generous to give 1 month as it is. They could have given much less.
And can I have your stuff? |
Jade Blackwind
Alexylva Paradox
Low-Class
208
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:45:27 -
[1375] - Quote
Burn, ISBoxer, burn.
It may even be not too late yet. Elite:Dangerous just made a big mistake of going online-only DRM, contrary to their kickstarter promise, *and* denied refunds to anyone who played alpha, beta and gamma; and Star Citizen still stays a bloated bubble of vaporware.
But even if it *is* too late, watching the team to frantically rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic is always fun. And the multiboxer tears are sweet to the last drop.
Burn! |
Agent Intrepid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:47:00 -
[1376] - Quote
Greg Inglis wrote:Krane Makanen wrote:Greg Inglis wrote:Does this mean that actual botters will be banned? I'm quite sick of seeing this in belts. http://i.imgur.com/Oi3GynO.jpg?1
Report bot doesn't seem to do anything. I once spoke with someone who used to BOT CCP cancled his accounts he appiled and they gave him them back just because he said he was not a BOT ing raise the question how will they police this. Lol so basically they don't ban bots and they want to ban ISboxers... sigh
OMG man you've stumbled onto a theory here. CCP is targetting isboxers unfairly, it's abuse! Oh noes!
Ahem. How about stop smoking whatever you're smoking because it's making you delusional.
All that has changed is input broadcasting has been rightfully defined as a eula violation, which means stop doing it. And stop being such a drama queen. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:49:20 -
[1377] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:neautral reppers i suppose ;) (Your resubbed accounts) Oh, well. Smart bombs're quite smiple. so it wont even stop afther the update i suppose. keep doing, but as you cant warp all of them with 1 click, some will get caught while you're warping them 1 by 1, and this is exactly why recent policy change is good and long overdue.
you can Warp them With 1 click ! fleet Warp, lol. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:53:01 -
[1378] - Quote
Agent Intrepid wrote:Krane Makanen wrote:So will CCP be compensating me for my IS boxer subscription I purchased 2 months ago?
Answer of course not.
Fine they want to bring this rule in, I donGÇÖt agree with all aspects as ore prices will sky rocket due to the lack of minerals on the market for one.
I agree itGÇÖs misuse in some areas could be a problem, but why selecting and dragging from cargo holds is a problem god knows.
I would only ask that they give us fair time like a 6 month warning.
Yesterday I cancelled subs on 10 accounts as of January I know I am not the only one so it will be interesting to see their end of year earnings in 12 months ^^
6 months, don't be ridiculous. They were overly generous to give 1 month as it is. They could have given much less. And can I have your stuff?
you really think he going to give it someone/something who act like this against him on forum, anyway.
It was an very short warning, indeed. Oh well, if we think on that eve have been for 10 years+'etc |
Agent Intrepid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:54:22 -
[1379] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Agent Intrepid wrote:Krane Makanen wrote:So will CCP be compensating me for my IS boxer subscription I purchased 2 months ago?
Answer of course not.
Fine they want to bring this rule in, I donGÇÖt agree with all aspects as ore prices will sky rocket due to the lack of minerals on the market for one.
I agree itGÇÖs misuse in some areas could be a problem, but why selecting and dragging from cargo holds is a problem god knows.
I would only ask that they give us fair time like a 6 month warning.
Yesterday I cancelled subs on 10 accounts as of January I know I am not the only one so it will be interesting to see their end of year earnings in 12 months ^^
6 months, don't be ridiculous. They were overly generous to give 1 month as it is. They could have given much less. And can I have your stuff? you really think he going to give it someone/something who act like this against him on forum, anyway. It was an very short warning, indeed. Oh well, if we think on that eve have been for 10 years+'etc
Why should the length of time the game has been out for have any impact on the grace period duration? People have a whole month to hear about the change and stop using the software in such a manner. That's more than enough. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
832
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:57:30 -
[1380] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:
you can Warp them With 1 click ! fleet Warp, lol.
oh yeah, right. well. Doesnt affect smartbombers much then, I guess. |
|
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:57:40 -
[1381] - Quote
Agent Intrepid wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:Agent Intrepid wrote:Krane Makanen wrote:So will CCP be compensating me for my IS boxer subscription I purchased 2 months ago?
Answer of course not.
Fine they want to bring this rule in, I donGÇÖt agree with all aspects as ore prices will sky rocket due to the lack of minerals on the market for one.
I agree itGÇÖs misuse in some areas could be a problem, but why selecting and dragging from cargo holds is a problem god knows.
I would only ask that they give us fair time like a 6 month warning.
Yesterday I cancelled subs on 10 accounts as of January I know I am not the only one so it will be interesting to see their end of year earnings in 12 months ^^
6 months, don't be ridiculous. They were overly generous to give 1 month as it is. They could have given much less. And can I have your stuff? you really think he going to give it someone/something who act like this against him on forum, anyway. It was an very short warning, indeed. Oh well, if we think on that eve have been for 10 years+'etc Why should the length of time the game has been out for have any impact on the grace period duration? People have a whole month to hear about the change and stop using the software in such a manner. That's more than enough.
There is no need for People to stop using isb boxer, but the brodcast thing is whats going to be an no,no.
Also, People going to find ways around it. and still People going to keep ''crying'' lol. some People allways do. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2287
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:00:11 -
[1382] - Quote
No wonder one of my ganker friends laughed at this.
I just tested with a few clients, and at lower settings and a few other small changes, you can cycle through them and activate modules pretty much as quickly as you can hit keys on the keyboard. And the best part is, alt+tab is a windows function, and can seamlessly be combined with any other singular input, such as a hotkey for the module slot that your weapon rack is located in. Works perfectly, too; all of the modules were in the ready state when going back through the clients to check if it worked. Can literally slide by finger across a set of keys, like the F keys, to make this work.
Caveat: windows can't be minimized (have to be active in the background, or side by side).
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.
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
832
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:01:27 -
[1383] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:
There is no need for People to stop using isb boxer, but the brodcast thing is whats going to be an no,no.
I'd blatantly state, input broadcast was the primary reason for people to use it.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:No wonder one of my ganker friends laughed at this.
did he laugh in that popular didnt-want-it-anyways fashion? |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:05:28 -
[1384] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:
There is no need for People to stop using isb boxer, but the brodcast thing is whats going to be an no,no.
I'd blatantly state, input broadcast was the primary reason for people to use it. Destiny Corrupted wrote:No wonder one of my ganker friends laughed at this. did he laugh in that popular didnt-want-it-anyways fashion?
Ooops, i forgot to add that i meant to talk about mining* |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2287
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:07:31 -
[1385] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:did he laugh in that popular didnt-want-it-anyways fashion?
Kind of, yeah. Like I said, there's going to be the hassle of positioning every character in the fleet manually now, but past that, there's very little practical difference if it's set up the way I described. Having to manually warp a bunch of characters to the target system isn't a realistic deterrent to the joys of suicide-ganking. Once in system, EVE's fleet controls accomplish much of the rest of the positioning work. All you have to do is fleet warp, then manually target on each client (once again, done with a single key stroke with a proper overview setup), and then perform the same process to shoot.
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
|
Seven Seas
F-I-N-K PROPERTY
Northern Associates.
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:09:41 -
[1386] - Quote
page 65 :) |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:10:33 -
[1387] - Quote
Ahh, you quoted only an small part off what i said, like you do a lot. damm. That comfused me :P hehe. |
Greg Inglis
Storm Planet
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:15:21 -
[1388] - Quote
Agent Intrepid wrote:Greg Inglis wrote:Krane Makanen wrote:Greg Inglis wrote:Does this mean that actual botters will be banned? I'm quite sick of seeing this in belts. http://i.imgur.com/Oi3GynO.jpg?1
Report bot doesn't seem to do anything. I once spoke with someone who used to BOT CCP cancled his accounts he appiled and they gave him them back just because he said he was not a BOT ing raise the question how will they police this. Lol so basically they don't ban bots and they want to ban ISboxers... sigh OMG man you've stumbled onto a theory here. CCP is targetting isboxers unfairly, it's abuse! Oh noes! Ahem. How about stop smoking whatever you're smoking because it's making you delusional. All that has changed is input broadcasting has been rightfully defined as a eula violation, which means stop doing it. And stop being such a drama queen.
To me, ISboxer = bot I see no difference. So apparently it's not a EULA violation to bot because BOTS STILL ROAM FREE after countless reporting.
The EULA only applies if it's enforced. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
833
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:26:33 -
[1389] - Quote
Greg Inglis wrote:Agent Intrepid wrote:Greg Inglis wrote:Krane Makanen wrote:Greg Inglis wrote:Does this mean that actual botters will be banned? I'm quite sick of seeing this in belts. http://i.imgur.com/Oi3GynO.jpg?1
Report bot doesn't seem to do anything. I once spoke with someone who used to BOT CCP cancled his accounts he appiled and they gave him them back just because he said he was not a BOT ing raise the question how will they police this. Lol so basically they don't ban bots and they want to ban ISboxers... sigh OMG man you've stumbled onto a theory here. CCP is targetting isboxers unfairly, it's abuse! Oh noes! Ahem. How about stop smoking whatever you're smoking because it's making you delusional. All that has changed is input broadcasting has been rightfully defined as a eula violation, which means stop doing it. And stop being such a drama queen. To me, ISboxer = bot I see no difference. So apparently it's not a EULA violation to bot because BOTS STILL ROAM FREE after countless reporting. The EULA only applies if it's enforced.
which roaming bots are you talking about?
|
Digger Nolm
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:26:45 -
[1390] - Quote
I see CCP is still doing its best to make small corps or groups even less useful. 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. I am sure I will not be the only one. I expect CCP to lose atleast 10 grand a month because afew people in giant alliances have friends in CCP.  |
|
|
ISD Decoy
isd community communications liaisons
260
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:36:00 -
[1391] - Quote
I have removed an off-topic and offensive post. Please be mindful of the forum rules before making replies. I have also edited some replies that were out of line or quoting rule infractions.
Please keep it civil.
ISD Decoy
Lieutenant Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7310
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:37:34 -
[1392] - Quote
Digger Nolm wrote:I see CCP is still doing its best to make small corps or groups even less useful. 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. I am sure I will not be the only one. I expect CCP to lose atleast 10 grand a month because afew people in giant alliances have friends in CCP.
And nothing of value was lost.
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'.
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
349
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:43:34 -
[1393] - Quote
Ormand Audel wrote:Question: Are we allowed to broadcast, but not duplicate commands? So I could have F1 bound to slot1 on client 1, F2 bound to slot1 on client 2 and so on, without alt tabbing? Not sure if it's possible without duplication, but if it is, is it allowed?
E: For those that say "it doesn't allow broadcasting", my definitions may vary to CCPs.
People, you are making this a lot harder than it needs to be.
If you press a key and one client responds, you are within the guidelines. If you press one key and more than one client responds, you are not.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
|
Jeanette Leon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:44:06 -
[1394] - Quote
I'd like to suggest that allowed uses of Input Broadcasting that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience could include skill queue management, clone updates and mail handling. |
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:46:01 -
[1395] - Quote
Digger Nolm wrote: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.
If you cancel your accounts he will still buy plex from CCP. He only might get less isk for the plex when he sells them on the market, that's all.
So as an outcome CCP doesn't loose any money, they only loose a player relying on a third party tool to generate enough isk to play for free.
CCP wins in the end because a game where people have to play by fair means and don't get advantages by piling up semi botted accounts to play for free is much more attractive.
So congrats for the tears and have a nice new year. I hope you find another game where you can use your tool so you don't waste the only money you really spend: the annual costs for isboxer o/ |
Justice Zeta
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:47:17 -
[1396] - Quote
Good |
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7311
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:47:17 -
[1397] - Quote
Anyone still confused or hung-up on what this means can reference this:
Am I violating the new rules?
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'.
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
349
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:50:40 -
[1398] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:I, Cannibal Kane, Approve this change.
/thread
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2287
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:53:15 -
[1399] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote: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.
If you cancel your accounts he will still buy plex from CCP. He only might get less isk for the plex when he sells them on the market, that's all.
So as an outcome CCP doesn't loose any money, they only loose a player relying on a third party tool to generate enough isk to play for free.
what.jpg
Do you like, not understand the most basic principles of economics or something?
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
|
Prince Kobol
2371
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 14:59:00 -
[1400] - Quote
Here is thing Doc, does
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.
Also apply to people using keyboards to map multiple keyboard short cuts to 1 key?
Technically you could argue that is automation of actions.
I have a feeling when CCP talked about these changes they either forget about the numerous keyboards / mice which have the facility to map multiple keys to 1 or just hoped nobody would bring it up.
Now CCP have always stated that this was fine however with these changes is this still the case?
A little clarification would be nice. |
|
|
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7311
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:07:11 -
[1401] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Here is thing Doc, does 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. Also apply to people using keyboards to map multiple keyboard short cuts to 1 key? Technically you could argue that is automation of actions.
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.
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'.
|
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:10:50 -
[1402] - Quote
double post, clicked the wrong button :( |
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:12:09 -
[1403] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Do you like, not understand the most basic principles of economics or something?
Sure I do, and the statement "I pay 100 USD/month" is wrong if I don't pay 100 USD/month but soemone else does. The true statement of this guy would have been: I play long enough to earn x billion isk/month which I exchange for plex - this is called free to play.
So where am I wrong in my assumptions?
Does this guy now cancel his accounts, identifies the real person who really paid the 100 bucks to CCP and the shoot him? If not, how should his reaction to cancel his accounts have any influence on this unknown buyer of plex?
Do you believe just because an unknown amount of people grinding isk stops grinding for isk has any influence on how many plexes are purchased with real money from CCP? If you believe this please tell me how this is possible. |
Good Apollo BS4
Valar Morghulis.
Goonswarm Federation
65
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:15:27 -
[1404] - Quote
If people who weren't buy plex on their own 10 accounts still aren't, CCP doesn't lose money. But if that same group decides to pay for 2 of those same accounts with cash, ccp is making more money. |
Black Ambulance
18
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:15:32 -
[1405] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Do you like, not understand the most basic principles of economics or something?
Sure I do, and the statement "I pay 100 USD/month" is wrong if I don't pay 100 USD/month but soemone else does. The true statement of this guy would have been: I play long enough to earn x billion isk/month which I exchange for plex - this is called free to play. So where am I wrong in my assumptions? Does this guy now cancel his accounts, identifies the real person who really paid the 100 bucks to CCP and the shoot him? If not, how should his reaction to cancel his accounts have any influence on this unknown buyer of plex? Do you believe just because an unknown amount of people grinding isk stops grinding for isk has any influence on how many plexes are purchased with real money from CCP? If you believe this please tell me how this is possible.
You are so bad in economics that my eyes bleeding reading your dumb statement |
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7312
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:17:36 -
[1406] - Quote
Internet economists are coming out now...
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'.
|
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
24
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:19:33 -
[1407] - Quote
Black Ambulance wrote:
You are so bad in economics that my eyes bleeding reading your dumb statement
Well then enlighten me with your knowledge.
Let me repeat my statements:
The one who says "CCP looses 100 USD/month because I cancel my 5 accounts" is wrong as long as he doesn't pay CCP 100 bucks/month.
His statement would be correct if he says: I play for free by grinding isk I use to purchase game time from the market.
To have an influence on the market his decision to cancel the accounts can only have an influence on CCP if his decision leads to less plex purchased from CCP.
So prove me that by reducing the people willing to pay high prices leads to less plex offered on the market. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2287
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:23:06 -
[1408] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:Do you believe just because an unknown amount of people grinding isk stops grinding for isk has any influence on how many plexes are purchased with real money from CCP? If you believe this please tell me how this is possible.
I...what? I don't even know what to say right now. For the first time ever on these forums, I'm actually speechless.
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
|
Square PI
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:25:04 -
[1409] - Quote
So, if i did count correct, there are more unsub multiboxer now as there were even active accounts.
So EVE will be the first game ever that has a negative number of players :). |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
835
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:27:16 -
[1410] - Quote
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 (read:less income for CCP) in order to acquire ingame money, because they are getting not enough ISK for the buck.
OR
3) prices wont drop all too low because enough of legit players start plexing their unsubbed alt-accounts again, who couldnt afford inflated PLEX prices anymore -> sellers receive less ISK for their PLEX and CCP wont notice anything at all. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2290
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:29:36 -
[1441] - Quote
The majority of people using ISBoxer for those things are automating the processes anyway. Implementing this new rule to punish the minority of ISBoxers who are actually there and manually controlling their input, while the botters go unpunished (as they always were), seems a bit moot to me.
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
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
266
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:30:29 -
[1442] - Quote
For everyone claiming "ISBoxing incursions" and "ISBoxing anoms" is dead..... nah it isn't. Since we can still use ISBoxer's VideoFX and DXNothing to rearrange our screens, it may take us a little longer to lock each target, but not by much. |
Bluespot85
Cherry Popper Mining Company
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:31:37 -
[1443] - Quote
Hi
Before everyone gets their fanfares out i'd like to point out that there is a huge difference between adding this to the EULA and actually enforcing it, especially where CCP is concerned.
Botting and RMT are against the EULA yet the game is rife with both of these activities and has been for a long time.
A quick seach on google and ebay prove that.
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=buy+eve+online+isk
http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2058507.m570.l1311.R1.TR5.TRC2.A0.H0.Xeve+onlin&_nkw=eve+online&_sacat=0
A quick search of far flung empire systems also prove that botting is rife. And before anyone states "how do you know someone is botting" thats easy, you blown their barge up and watch there pod warp back and forward between a station and belt for an hour or two.
A quick search of a botters contracts proves that isk is laundered and CCP does nothing about it. Or someone is stupid enough to buy 1 bullet for 1 billion isk dozens of times.
Reporting these players achieves nothing.
As far as isboxer is concerned, how is CCP going to enforce this? How can you tell the difference between a player that has two screens with two characters doing the same thing and someone using isboxer?
The truth is you cant.
If I can operate two accounts without isboxer and have less than half a second between clients then im sure someone younger and more nimble fingered than me can do so quicker.
TLDR: Just read it.
|
Elisha Habah
Shattered Stars Holding
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:32:12 -
[1444] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:For everyone claiming "ISBoxing incursions" and "ISBoxing anoms" is dead..... nah it isn't. Since we can still use ISBoxer's VideoFX and DXNothing to rearrange our screens, it may take us a little longer to lock each target, but not by much.
Totally agree..... People have no clue. As stated previously we only use mouse repeat for about 10% of the time.....
in the process of thinking of a witty signature, get back to me
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
836
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:32:28 -
[1445] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:The majority of people using ISBoxer for those things are automating the processes anyway. Implementing this new rule to punish the minority of ISBoxers who are actually there and manually controlling their input, while the botters go unpunished (as they always were), seems a bit moot to me.
again, can you back up you claims somehow?
All isbotters I know arent running ratting bots with it, they are actively ganking people or bombing the **** out of the enemy as one man army.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2290
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:40:50 -
[1446] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:again, can you back up you claims somehow?
All isbotters I know arent running ratting bots with it, they are actively ganking people or bombing the **** out of the enemy as one man army.
Go to a null-sec system with lots of NPC kills, and observe the behavior of the locals. Or go to pretty much any system within 5 jumps of a hub, and observe the miners in the belts. Feel free to ask them what they use.
Or you know, just Google up a botting forum and read their discussions. I can safely say there's a three-to-one figure ratio of people using ISBoxer to bot to those using it to gank or bomb.
Nolak Ataru wrote:Congratulations, you realized intentions of this policy.
The intentions of this policy are to punish anyone who uses ISBoxer for pvp activities, since as we've just established those using it for pve are already breaking the rules by botting, but go unpunished.
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
|
Ser Ganglion
SG Investigation Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:42:06 -
[1447] - Quote
Wow, 68 pages
Yesterday i celebrate my birthday, today i feel getting gifted again - wonderful, reading about the clarification. Finally CCP did the job right, i always was in trust they will do. |
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
288
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:43:50 -
[1448] - Quote
For those hoping that this will stop multiboxing, the more people like myself and those smarter look at this, all it will do is force us to spend an hour or 2 more on our setup.
Using other features in isboxer we could create a "hotkey" that on every press sends "f1", "jump", "target" etc to the client, then move to the next client. How fast could you press a hotkey in you keyboard? That's how fast you could do this setup.
There's already videos on how round Robin works, heres one I found almost immediately.
http://youtu.be/UX6gsNLMsVI
Here's what I wrote this morning on dual-boxing.com
Quote:
You know the more I think about the solutions or look at other peoples idea how to get around this newly imposed limitation I think the end result is your going to have a tremendously hard time differentiating between people who are using input duplication vs those people using hot keys, clickbars / menu bars or round robin.
In fact if someone had time to make a quick video or link something already done I think we have a good chance in the next month + to get ccp to change their mind.
If I setup a round Robin keymap that on every press hits "f1" I could smash that key extremely quickly, sending the f1 command to 20 clients in no time. People with logitech or similar keyboards will probably end up setting up an auto repeat in the logitech software to save them the hassle.
Using click bars, menus or vfx could accomplish the same task, yes you have to click a button each time but that's pretty fast if you line all the buttons up close together.
Now all that aside, I have a hard time believing that in every single case people are going to stop using broadcasting all together. The honest ones will do their best to create workarounds and in most cases it will be very easy to do, the only time it will be tougher is targeting or jumping through gates and I'm pretty sure that using round Robin key maps we can do that in a second flat for dozens of clients.
All you've accomplished is less then an hour of setup to get around this really ignorant rule.
.
I'm hitting the media circuit pretty heavy these few weeks to discuss how incredibly short sighted ccp is being with all this.
Save the sandbox! Multiboxing is a great part of EVE, dont kill it!
|
icarus1166
CT Industries LLC
I'd Rather Be Roaming
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:44:40 -
[1449] - Quote
Is Good that ccp takes care of all its users. Old and New.
Only with this announcement ccp is probably making an mistake.
Let me line up a couple of things to think about.
1. Ccp, s A.I.
In high sec all players are so called protected by concord that's coming to help for the once that prefer to stay in high sec.
This is a good thing. But multiple players working in a fleet to gank someone because of high value is dead because the A.I. focuses fire also on 1 player. If there are multiple players involved in these kinds of activities concord just add the amount of A.I. multiplied to the amount of players involved. Fair? Don't know after this announcement.
Rat sites and mission areas the same. If one player jumps into a pve site the A.I. automatically focus fire on that specific target.
Now if a fleet of multiple players jumps into the same mission areas the rat A.I. calculates who is the strongest and the weakest. On this base of Intel the rat A.I. focuses het fire on 1 target. explain to me what the difference is between a multiboxer player and the game A.I. mechanic's.
Also emagine these A.I. In low / null / wormhole space.
2. Mining operations
Multiboxers are mostly active on mining operations. This is what think at least. With these guys msrket prices are manipulated to low rate costs. Now lets take out the fast ability of mining and let each individual mine the hell out of everything. Think the overall prices on the market will rise on raw materials. Good or bad? Time will tell.
3. Multiboxers not able to agress/defend his / her assets.
Multiboxers are cut down in there option to lock and load to attack or defend there assets. Now my question is why is a multiboxer
Not able to defend himself on broadcast? And a combined fleet of players is? Don't forget the assets a multiboxer put at steak is worth more then a individual player puts in the field. So with this rule multiboxer can only watch and see how there assets are being destroyed without being able to do anything. Simple the micro management is just to large to oversee. Simply sayd, this is just the best news killboard hunters where waiting for. Being protected by so called ccp rules. If multiboxer player egnore these rules? punishment of being thrown out for 30 days. And after being caught a2nd time no access to the game at all
At least it will make the game less crowded. If this is the final rule. Also the plex market will be less active and ccp will see less money flows. Don't get me wrong, 1 individual player spending 15,- euro / dollar? Or a multiboxer using between 1 up till 10 or more? Rather this is injected on eve game isk or real life money. Ccp will notice a drop somewhere. Good luck with pushing up subscription prices.
Maybe looking for different solutions?
Instead of pushing players away out of the game, push them into low/null/wormhole space. I believe this was the hole idea anyway because of the massive numbers of small updates launched lately.
From here high sec can be a heaven again for new players and players that can't handle the stress of being outnumbered by multiboxer s? Low/null/wh are the places that makes the game harder to survive anyway. Also what is the difference about a Catecamp with multiple players or isboxer in these areas? a solo pilot will see the same result anyway. His/her revival in anpc station. So outcome stays the same.
Wonder what the reactions will be. Fire away guys !!!!!
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
836
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:45:51 -
[1450] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Go to a null-sec system with lots of NPC kills, and observe the behavior of the locals. Or go to pretty much any system within 5 jumps of a hub, and observe the miners in the belts. Feel free to ask them what they use.
so you're basically saying because isbotter is abused as ratting bot, we should keep it allowed.
for me personally, its enough to see 1-man bombing fleets vanish to appreciate this policy.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
The intentions of this policy are to punish anyone who uses ISBoxer for pvp activities
yes, and there is nothing wrong with that - if you multibox, you should do all the work, not isbotter.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:, since as we've just established those using it for pve are already breaking the rules by botting, but go unpunished.
no, its still a mere unproven statement from you. |
|
|
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
52
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:52:36 -
[1451] - Quote
WhatHappensInJita Jitas wrote:68 pages of botter tears, excuses, predicting the death of a 10 year old game, playing dumb like CCP is banning keyboards and OSs that have scripting built in lol <3 The botter rage has kept me warm all morning and it's raining ice outside.
I can't believe I read every comment, but it was just so engaging. Did you botters log in all your accounts and post all at once or did you whine individually from each account? I guess the latter will be good practice for when you actually have to play the game like everyone else.
I don't see any botters complaining in this thread.
RIP Richard A. Butt
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2703
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:52:50 -
[1452] - Quote
Elisha Habah wrote:[quote=Nolak Ataru]For everyone claiming "ISBoxing incursions" and "ISBoxing anoms" is dead..... nah it isn't. Since we can still use ISBoxer's VideoFX and DXNothing to rearrange our screens, it may take us a little longer to lock each target, but not by much.
Totally agree..... People have no clue. As stated previously we only use mouse repeat for about 10% of the time.....[/quote
In which case, the ISboxers seem to have no grounds for complaining about the new CCP rules?
This is not a signature.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2291
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:53:43 -
[1453] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:so you're basically saying because isbotter is abused as ratting bot, we should keep it allowed.
There are other software solutions that can accomplish the same thing. CCP can't "ban" software, so they ban the act. The problem is that the act they're banning now is much less severe than the one that's been banned since day 1, and that they've done nothing about.
Robert Caldera wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
The intentions of this policy are to punish anyone who uses ISBoxer for pvp activities
for me personally, its enough to see 1-man bombing fleets vanish to appreciate this policy. + yes, and there is nothing wrong with that - if you multibox, you should do all the work, not isbotter.
This is no surprise. Your stance against the presence of various "disagreeable" forms pvp in this game is widely known.
Robert Caldera wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:, since as we've just established those using it for pve are already breaking the rules by botting, but go unpunished. no, its still a mere unproven statement from you.
You think I keep a Rolodex of all the bots I've encountered or something? All I know is that any I've ever reported have never been banned. Even those that outwardly admitted to me that yes, they were botting.
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
|
Sentenced 1989
Quantum Anomaly Corporation
128
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:56:51 -
[1454] - Quote
Elisha Habah wrote:
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.....
I have 3, and I can use them at same time, with only alt+tab assigned to my 3rd mouse button... Nothing else.
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
836
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:58:06 -
[1455] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:In which case, the ISboxers seem to have no grounds for complaining about the new CCP rules?
^ this |
DaReaper
Net 7
1373
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:02:54 -
[1456] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Dear CCP, Multiboxing is a huge challenge and time investment, taken on by those who love your game. Don't hurt the dedicated players who have poured countless hours into EVE by banning multiboxing.
Input duplication vs multiboxing
Edit: a clarification for those trying to walk the line between multiboxing and input duplication. I realize ccp is banning input duplication, but I think that the other capabilities of isboxer and similar software, as soon as the mob gets worked up over it, will ensure that owning 2 accounts is "unfair". The main purpose of isboxer is input duplication, allowing you to control multiple accounts as if one person. Removing that feature is a huge blow and on the path to a complete removal of management of alts with any efficiency.
Side Question, is all this about CCP trying to stop ganking???
1st let me say that I have multiboxed in EVE for as long as I can remember, probably it's one of the main reasons I've stayed interested in the same game outside of the increasing diminishing larger scale PVP fights.
Please read the probably too long letter below. I love Eve and all its challenges. There are many dedicated people like myself who love the game and that's why we have multiple accounts and have spent countless hours trying to become competent in multiboxing.
To me, Multiboxing is an end game level content. I spend hours.. weeks learning about the various task I'm going to undertake (recently it's been incursions or bombing), designing and testing fits, dying in horrible fire's while adapting to try and overcome the challenge.
Unlike some, I choose to pay for my accounts with cash. Yes, all my alts I pay for with cash and have never plexed my accounts. Eve is a hobby of mine, like RC planes, model training sets, golfing or any other hobby. I've designed, built and continue to upgrade 2 very high end computers so that my multi boxing experience is smoother and faster, especially as Eve's clients get better graphics or I engage in content with more and more people.
This policy doesn't just hurt the people with dozens of miners, the guy with 50 proteus accounts in wormhole space, the multi boxing haulers or any specific niche. It hurts everyone in EVE.
If this policy is enforced to appease the vocal minority, it's end result will hurt everyone. If you wanted an alt to help you salvage or run missions faster, if you wanted a 2nd hauler to get your minerals moved around the ever larger New Eden... The example are nearly endless.
Mineral pricing, ship and module costs, invention success all will get more expensive, hurting the already fragile industry.
Yes, I am sure to the average player seeing someone with 10 mining accounts when you can barely afford one hulk is annoying and frustrating. However that is part of the same reason that the person your being angry at starred another account and learned how to run 2 accounts at once, then learned how to afford that account. They saw someone else with "more" and instead of pounding on the desk declaring how unfair the world is, they decided to adapt and become better, faster and more efficient themselves.
You see I can't help but detect some level of "it's not fair" attitude among some here who are against multi boxing. I see a thread of complaints bordering on "if I can't do it because of x, y or z you can't do it either."
Star Citizen is an example. I'm not going to spend thousands of dollars in that game, for many reasons, but I appreciate those who do. They are paying the company for better ships and items, helping that company and in turn improving their game experience. Except like Eve and multiboxing it's a fair playing field. Anyone could start a 2nd or 10 alts, all that's stopping them is money and learning the skill to control them effectively.
I feel this policy is extremely short sited. It will cost the players a tremendous amount, it will hurt the bottom line of CCP needlessly and instead placates a group of people who will surely move on to the next pitch fork issue like how unfair of an advantage officer modules are because they can't afford them.
But all that aside, your hurting the dedicated players like myself who aim to be better and more challenged in EVE. We are all extremely dedicated and loyal players, who have stayed in EVE because we love the challenge of the game and want to be ever improving in it. We've spent way more time invested into EVE partly because of our ability to multi box, have spent an enormous amount of money on our hobby which we didn't spend with another game (even the people with only 1 or 2 mining alts or ratters are vital to your game).
The call for people to remove "input duplication" (soon multiboxing all together im sure) is a case of mob mentality from people who don't understand the benefits they are gaining from it, the effort and time people put into it or how much it has helped keep CCP afloat all these years.
Edit: regarding work arounds we are already finding solutions with even adding any features to isboxer or similar software.
See this post I madehttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5245761#post5245761
Multi boxing won't be killed, slippery slope argument Is a logical fallacy. This is like saying that by banning bottign scripts no one will mine. Any work arounds that duplicatce clicks are eula violations. but ill leave that up to ccp.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Seven Seas
F-I-N-K PROPERTY
Northern Associates.
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:03:29 -
[1457] - Quote
page 69 :) |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
266
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:03:51 -
[1458] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:For everyone claiming "ISBoxing incursions" and "ISBoxing anoms" is dead..... nah it isn't. Since we can still use ISBoxer's VideoFX and DXNothing to rearrange our screens, it may take us a little longer to lock each target, but not by much. thats the whole point. To unload all work of multiboxing up on you, not some input multiplying tool. Congratulations, you realized intentions of this policy. Once you have to click through your 15 incursion clients and click guns one by one, activate hardeners one by one etc. I'm fine with you multiboxing, because I know how big the chances for failure are in all that clicking and how exhausting that is, then I'm good with it. What I'm not good with is when you fly a fleet of machariels with same effort as you'd do it with 1.
CCP is rather indirectly removing the ability to gank with ISBoxer and rapidly deploy a fleet for ISBoxer PVP while allowing us to continue to PVE (albeit it makes 0.0 anom ratting the current choice of where-to-earn-isk with the jump changes) to our hearts content. Most, if not all, of the ISBoxers were willing to accept a blanket ban on ISBox PVP, or repeaters with PVP, because there's too many ways around this repeater ban to even consider that this was anything other than a direct ban on PVP because some idiot was hauling 20b in a freighter and got ganked, or because some fleet got bombed, all the while CCP ignores the raw facts that if you're hauling 20b in a freighter in highsec, you will get ganked. And if you're sitting AFK on a gate or anywhere in space in nullsec for any measurable period of time, you will get bombed. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
836
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:04:26 -
[1459] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
There are other software solutions that can accomplish the same thing. CCP can't "ban" software, so they ban the act.
sure they can, but they dont, because its ineffective. However as last resort they could even consider that, the market of those tools isnt as big as you'd like, you can count them all on 5 fingers.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:The problem is that the act they're banning now is much less severe than the one that's been banned since day 1, and that they've done nothing about.
yet again, 1 wrong doesnt negate the other wrong.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
This is no surprise. Your stance against the presence of various "disagreeable" forms pvp in this game is widely known.
yeah, my stance is pretty easy in this point, if you multibox, do all the work.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:You think I keep a Rolodex of all the bots I've encountered or something? All I know is that any I've ever reported have never been banned. Even those that outwardly admitted to me that yes, they were botting.
so what? You'd like to make botting legal? Ratting bots is a disjoint issue, stop derailing isboxer discussion what's this thread is about. Here again, one wrong doesnt negate the other wrong, you cant spin it that way. |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:05:15 -
[1460] - Quote
WhatHappensInJita Jitas wrote:68 pages of botter tears, excuses, predicting the death of a 10 year old game, playing dumb like CCP is banning keyboards and OSs that have scripting built in lol <3 The botter rage has kept me warm all morning and it's raining ice outside.
I can't believe I read every comment, but it was just so engaging. Did you botters log in all your accounts and post all at once or did you whine individually from each account? I guess the latter will be good practice for when you actually have to play the game like everyone else.
The funny part is come january and we are still doing what we do the roles will be reversed yet again and it will be your tears all over our killboards. The isboxers on here complaining are the minority. Those of us with a grasp on mechanics and intelligent use of the tools we have at hand are not so offended by this change. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
266
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:05:38 -
[1461] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Elisha Habah wrote:[quote=Nolak Ataru]For everyone claiming "ISBoxing incursions" and "ISBoxing anoms" is dead..... nah it isn't. Since we can still use ISBoxer's VideoFX and DXNothing to rearrange our screens, it may take us a little longer to lock each target, but not by much. Totally agree..... People have no clue. As stated previously we only use mouse repeat for about 10% of the time.....[/quote In which case, the ISboxers seem to have no grounds for complaining about the new CCP rules?
Ignoring the broken quotes aside, this is a direct attack on PVP using ISBoxer while trying to frame it in a way that causes the best PR for them for the playerbase. |
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
288
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:07:51 -
[1462] - Quote
DaReape wrote:
Multi boxing won't be killed, slippery slope argument Is a logical fallacy. This is like saying that by banning bottign scripts no one will mine. Any work arounds that duplicatce clicks are eula violations. but ill leave that up to ccp.
That's the beauty of the work arounds we are coming up with, one button press = one click or button press to each client. We will be spending an extra few seconds max after its setup to do everything we are doing now, this new limitation is pointless and isn't going to change anything for the multiboxers who follow our guides to setup round robins, key maps, click bars and videofx...
This maneuver by CCP is pointless
Save the sandbox! Multiboxing is a great part of EVE, dont kill it!
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
838
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:10:29 -
[1463] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:CCP is rather indirectly removing the ability to gank with ISBoxer and rapidly deploy a fleet for ISBoxer PVP while allowing us to continue to PVE (albeit it makes 0.0 anom ratting the current choice of where-to-earn-isk with the jump changes) to our hearts content.
how is pve different from pve in regards of isbotter involvement? I cant see this in policy update.
Nolak Ataru wrote:Most, if not all, of the ISBoxers were willing to accept a blanket ban on ISBox PVP, or repeaters with PVP, because there's too many ways around this repeater ban
so you have no reason to complain then, right?
Nolak Ataru wrote:because some idiot was hauling 20b in a freighter and got ganked
not the point. gank whatever you want, but not in easy mode controlling 20 clients with 1 click.
Nolak Ataru wrote:, or because some fleet got bombed
same here |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
838
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:11:29 -
[1464] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:all the while CCP ignores the raw facts that if you're hauling 20b in a freighter in highsec, you will get ganked.
not the point. CCP's attitude towards suicide ganking is clear, they never despised that as strategy. Question is how you do it, in a gang of 20 real people or just 20 automated accounts, latter is wrong and one of t he targets of this policy - for good.
Nolak Ataru wrote:And if you're sitting AFK on a gate or anywhere in space in nullsec for any measurable period of time, you will get bombed. same here. bombing itself is not the point, point is how its done and by whom.
|
Good Posting Reloaded
My Real Mind
25
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:12:46 -
[1465] - Quote
All these isboxer tears because they have to control their clients manually like everyone else speak for themselves. Entitled cheaters is what they are. Well, take your bots/replicants/borgs/whatever and go away or play legit. Or go to the chinese server, that would be good. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
838
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:13:41 -
[1466] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:This maneuver by CCP is pointless
then click and be happy, no reason to complain here, right? Go on. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
267
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:19:22 -
[1467] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:CCP is rather indirectly removing the ability to gank with ISBoxer and rapidly deploy a fleet for ISBoxer PVP while allowing us to continue to PVE (albeit it makes 0.0 anom ratting the current choice of where-to-earn-isk with the jump changes) to our hearts content. how is pve different from pve in regards of isbotter involvement? I cant see this in policy update. Nolak Ataru wrote:Most, if not all, of the ISBoxers were willing to accept a blanket ban on ISBox PVP, or repeaters with PVP, because there's too many ways around this repeater ban so you have no reason to complain then, right? Nolak Ataru wrote:because some idiot was hauling 20b in a freighter and got ganked not the point. gank whatever you want, but not in easy mode controlling 20 clients with 1 click. Nolak Ataru wrote:, or because some fleet got bombed same here
Point 1: I think you typed "PVE" instead of "PVP" on one of these, so I'll ignore it for now.
Point 2: We do have a reason to complain as removing broadcasting was a very useful part on moving a fleet through multiple systems, or switching ships, or fixing skill queues or any other number of things. Please try to think before posting.
Point 3: Once again, lots of VideoFX means that I can F1 on all my clients within a single server tick. Is CCP willing to make the distinction there?
Point 4: This is a harder hit at bombers because of the coordination required to use a fleet of bombers, whether it be torps or bombs. |
RudinV
Hard Knocks Inc.
458
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:23:07 -
[1468] - Quote
the amount of haters chasing for imaginary tears is too damn high in this thread |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2291
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:27:59 -
[1469] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:This maneuver by CCP is pointless then click and be happy, no reason to complain here, right? Go on.
There is a reason to complain here, because if this rule was aimed at various forms of pvp, and it ends up being entirely circumvented by resourceful players, then CCP will have a precedent to further nerf these forms of pvp. They've done it in the past, many times. The insufficiency of one change has always led to another, and another, and another. The thing is, while players have found ways to deal with these changes, the universe has always shrunk and become less open as a result.
This is not how I want to see EVE play out its course.
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
|
Sentenced 1989
Quantum Anomaly Corporation
128
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:29:14 -
[1470] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Point 4: This is a harder hit at bombers because of the coordination required to use a fleet of bombers, whether it be torps or bombs.
yes and this is why its good. No easy bombing anymore.
Not just that this is good, but this won't hit bombers harder at all, this won't even affect bombers, since hey, for most bomber pilots nothing changes with this since we don't use 3rd party software... :D
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
|
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
838
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:33:45 -
[1471] - Quote
Sentenced 1989 wrote:
Not just that this is good, but this won't hit bombers harder at all, this won't even affect bombers, since hey, for most bomber pilots nothing changes with this since we don't use 3rd party software... :D
with easy bombing I mean 1 dude controlling a bomber fleet alone.. Removal of this is good. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2291
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:33:51 -
[1472] - Quote
Sentenced 1989 wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Point 3: Once again, lots of VideoFX means that I can F1 on all my clients within a single server tick. Is CCP willing to make the distinction there?
Lets assume we are speaking about 10 toons, you can do 10 clicks in one second with VideoFX positining? And each time make it in the same tick, so not 4 in one tick and next 6 in another tick?
You can bind alt+tab, followed by a set of commands to one button. How fast can you mash a single button? I can definitely do it more than 10 time in a second. Of course, like you mentioned, the commands might get split up between two ticks, but that's just the kind of thing that will have to be lived with.
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
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14020
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:37:04 -
[1473] - Quote
RudinV wrote:the amount of haters chasing for imaginary tears is too damn high in this thread
They have ruined the word with their misuse.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2291
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:41:16 -
[1474] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Sentenced 1989 wrote:
Not just that this is good, but this won't hit bombers harder at all, this won't even affect bombers, since hey, for most bomber pilots nothing changes with this since we don't use 3rd party software... :D
with easy bombing I mean 1 dude controlling a bomber fleet alone.. Removal of this is good.
Assuming we're talking about the act of bombing itself:
Step 1: warp the fleet with the fleet leader
Step 2: hit F1, which is bound to alt+tab + a double click (after aiming your mouse in the direction you want to go), 8 times
Step 3: hit F2, which is bound to alt+tab + cloak module, 8 times (might not need this step with recent cloaking changes)
Step 4: hit F3, which is bound to alt+tab + bomb module, 8 times
Step 5: warp out the fleet with the fleet leader
It's even easier if you're engaging manually with your primary weapons, since EVE has shortcuts for pretty much everything, and broadcasting targets on the overview makes targeting easy.
You don't need ISBoxer for this; ISBoxer just makes it a bit more convenient.
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
838
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:41:25 -
[1475] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
You can bind alt+tab, followed by a set of commands to one button.
and this is covered by EULA already (prohibited). so enjoy your ban. |
Agent Intrepid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:48:06 -
[1476] - 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 (read:less income for CCP) in order to acquire ingame money, because they are getting not enough ISK for the buck.
OR
3) prices wont drop all too low because enough of legit players start plexing their unsubbed alt-accounts again, who couldnt afford inflated PLEX prices anymore -> sellers receive less ISK for their PLEX and CCP wont notice anything at all.
I predict a mix of 2) and 3), less income for CCP but that will be compensated for a big part by non-isbotted players using more PLEX again at affordable prices, a pretty good deal CCP probably is willing to accept, for an improved publicity of their product not being totally infested by isbotters. Stuff like that seriously damages image of the game, presence of isbotters in turn does not improve it in any way.
Or
4. People who buy plex to sell for isk will still do it, they just have to buy more plex to get the same amount of isk = More income for CCP. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2291
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:49:20 -
[1477] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
You can bind alt+tab, followed by a set of commands to one button.
and this is covered by EULA already (prohibited). so enjoy your ban.
Apparently it's not, as long as each shortcut controls input to only one client.
But even if it's made to be illegal, it can still be circumvented by using more binds. For example:
- Keypad_0 is bound to alt+tab (this is completely legit, and CCP can't do anything about this at all, ever)
- F1 is bound to double-click
- F2 is bound to cloak
- F3 is bound to bomb
Now all one has to do is hit Keypad_0 + F1 8 times, Keypad_0 + F2 8 times, etc etc. Completely legit, since all you'd be doing is rebinding your input device keys for comfort. A person should be able to hit 8 successions of 2 keys with 2 hands about as fast as 1 with 1 hand.
Updated solution: you can bind things as continuous input (hold the key to continuously send commands). Then you just need to hold down one key while pressing the other.
Robert Caldera wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:You don't need ISBoxer for this; ISBoxer just makes it a bit more convenient. so then, we're gucci, arent we? You're doing it without isbotter and everyone is happy.
Incorrect. I've mentioned precedent multiple times, and for some reason, you've chosen to ignore it each time.
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
2291
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:50:38 -
[1478] - Quote
Agent Intrepid wrote:People who buy plex to sell for isk will still do it, they just have to buy more plex to get the same amount of isk = More income for CCP.
Wow, I really haven't realized what to do with all of my lottery winnings until now. Thanks!
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
|
Sentenced 1989
Quantum Anomaly Corporation
128
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:54:02 -
[1479] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Sentenced 1989 wrote:
Not just that this is good, but this won't hit bombers harder at all, this won't even affect bombers, since hey, for most bomber pilots nothing changes with this since we don't use 3rd party software... :D
with easy bombing I mean 1 dude controlling a bomber fleet alone.. Removal of this is good. Assuming we're talking about the act of bombing itself: Step 1: warp the fleet with the fleet leader Step 2: hit F1, which is bound to alt+tab + a double click (after aiming your mouse in the direction you want to go), 8 times Step 3: hit F2, which is bound to alt+tab + cloak module, 8 times (might not need this step with recent cloaking changes) Step 4: hit F3, which is bound to alt+tab + bomb module, 8 times Step 5: warp out the fleet with the fleet leader It's even easier if you're engaging manually with your primary weapons, since EVE has shortcuts for pretty much everything, and broadcasting targets on the overview makes targeting easy. You don't need ISBoxer for this; ISBoxer just makes it a bit more convenient.
You are missing a point here.
Bind alt+tab to (mouse/keyboard) key is ok, since it's sending command to the OS.
Bind shift+r to return drones to key should be ok, since you can remap pull drones to a single key anyways in game and then assign that key to your mouse key (for example, my mouse has key that activates comms, other for drones, one is ctrl for lock, one is alt+tab)
Bind set of commands like alt+tab+f1+f2+f3+f4+f5 to a single key is considered macro, which is banable offence on its own. It might not be enforced for now, but it will be enforced if overabused prolly. Alt+something, shift+something, ctrl+something is not macro since its just an alternate functionality of same button, but combining them into commands and triggering them all at one key press is macro.
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
Agent Intrepid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:58:41 -
[1480] - Quote
WhatHappensInJita Jitas wrote:68 pages of botter tears, excuses, predicting the death of a 10 year old game, playing dumb like CCP is banning keyboards and OSs that have scripting built in lol <3 The botter rage has kept me warm all morning and it's raining ice outside.
I can't believe I read every comment, but it was just so engaging. Did you botters log in all your accounts and post all at once or did you whine individually from each account? I guess the latter will be good practice for when you actually have to play the game like everyone else.
I enjoy reading the most recent excuses/reasons as to why it's a bad change. Some are now claiming that they can easily circumvent any detection and hence continue using input broadcasting.
I presume that they are hoping CCP will turn around and say "Oh crap never thought of that, let's just allow it again!".
LOL. Hilarious. |
|
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
351
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:59:16 -
[1481] - 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 plural of anecdote is not evidence.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
839
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 17:59:57 -
[1482] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Apparently it's not, as long as each shortcut controls input to only one client.
Quote:6 CONDUCT
A. Specifically Restricted Conduct
Your continued access to the System and license to play the Game is subject to proper conduct. Without limiting CCP's rights to control the Game environment, and the conduct of the players within that environment, CCP prohibits the following practices that CCP has determined detract from the overall user experience of the users playing the Game.
You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.
You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play.
bolded important parts for you.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
But even if it's made to be illegal, it can still be circumvented by using more binds. For example:
- Keypad_0 is bound to alt+tab (this is completely legit, and CCP can't do anything about this at all, ever)
- F1 is bound to double-click
- F2 is bound to cloak
- F3 is bound to bomb
yeah you actually can circumvent macroed gameplay by actually clicking/pressing buttons by yourself, as you're supposed to do, that's fine, yet you are still violating EULA by remapping keybinds as long as you accelerate gameplay compared to regular manner of play.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Now all one has to do is hit Keypad_0 + F1 8 times, Keypad_0 + F2 8 times, etc etc. Completely legit, since all you'd be doing is rebinding your input device keys for comfort. A person should be able to hit 8 successions of 2 keys with 2 hands about as fast as 1 with 1 hand.
Updated solution: you can bind things as continuous input (hold the key to continuously send commands). Then you just need to hold down one key while pressing the other.
do whatever you want, its not me getting his account banned for macros.
Robert Caldera wrote:
Incorrect. I've mentioned precedent multiple times, and for some reason, you've chosen to ignore it each time.
no, you presented me with some inconsistent hurfblurf you think would be an argument for something. |
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 18:00:04 -
[1483] - Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbIR51_J_qY
your cheater tears are alll ssoooo
sooo
soooo
soooooooooooooooooooooooo delicious...
PLEASE GIVE ME MORE NUM NUMS!!!!!!!!!!!!! MMMMMMM NUM NUM NUM NUM NUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you do realize you were cheating using this **** right?
you were doing the work of one person but reaping the rewards of however many you actually had... that's basic definition of cheating...
soooo if you caught your wife having sex with the neighbor thats okay?
your tears are delicious... give them to me...
cheaters... |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2292
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 18:02:21 -
[1484] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:you are still violating EULA by remapping keybinds as long as you accelerate gameplay compared to regular manner of play.
lol, what?
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
839
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 18:04:38 -
[1485] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:you are still violating EULA by remapping keybinds as long as you accelerate gameplay compared to regular manner of play. lol, what?
check the EULA quote I bolded.
Using keystrokes for accelerated gameplay is violation of EULA on its own. |
icarus1166
CT Industries LLC
I'd Rather Be Roaming
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 18:05:53 -
[1486] - Quote
Ccp is playrd over by the big names in sov anyway. I just contentious proceed with what I'm doing. If they ban me I'll find another game.
|
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
288
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 18:06:13 -
[1487] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:you are still violating EULA by remapping keybinds as long as you accelerate gameplay compared to regular manner of play. lol, what? check the EULA quote I bolded. Using keystrokes for accelerated gameplay is violation of EULA on its own.
It's not accelerated, it's doing the same thing from a more convenient place.
Save the sandbox! Multiboxing is a great part of EVE, dont kill it!
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2292
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 18:06:31 -
[1488] - Quote
You heard it here first, guys. Rebinding your keys is now a punishable offense.
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
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2456
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 18:11:06 -
[1489] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
CCP has time and again stated that the clause is on a PER CHARACTER basis. 1/10 made me reply.
[snip]
Again, per-toon basis. If CCP is going to let us log in our set at once using ISBoxer, then this is not that big of a deal. Please, think with the head on your shoulders.
Yes and I meant it per character. A guy multi-boxing 10 accounts NOT using software like ISBoxer would acquire less as he'd be less efficient. So on a per-character basis he gets less StuffGäó.
Logging in, per se, does not get you anything. Doing stuff in game very often does. Let me be quite clear here. Logging in is a NECESSARY condition for acquiring StuffGäó. Logging in is not a sufficient condition--i.e. you don't log in and suddenly find your wallet fatter simply because you logged in. You don't have more ships, modules or minerals.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
white male privilege
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
101
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 18:18:55 -
[1490] - Quote
Multicasting allows veterans to have exponential growth. The biggest value a player can have is multiple accounts and the ability fight or PvE with all of them at the same time. Mining with 10 hulks takes the exact same time to plex all of your accounts as it does for a regular guy mining with one character to plex his one account. So after the multicaster has made his plex for the month he can then continue mining making ten times what a regular player can, or he star pvping, doing bombing runs by himself which is again an unfair multiplier of the veteran's time spent in eve.
The skill system in eve is designed so that you get diminishing returns on skillpoints. getting the last 5% of your damage takes longer than the first 20%. When that SP is instead spent on alts, that is no longer true. the veteran's PvE and combat ability grows exponentially
|
|
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 18:25:44 -
[1491] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
You can bind alt+tab, followed by a set of commands to one button.
and this is covered by EULA already (prohibited). so enjoy your ban. Destiny Corrupted wrote:
You don't need ISBoxer for this; ISBoxer just makes it a bit more convenient.
so then, we're gucci, arent we? You're doing it without isbotter and everyone is happy.
^ This guy is my favorite isboxer hater.
Accelerates gameplay would be doing something faster than you could normally do it. By this standard the speed would be measured as the amount of time it takes one account. Without broadcasts nothing we can do in isboxer will be at the speed of normal gameplay, and nothing we could do was ever faster than that anyway. Macros are not allowed but keybinds are. This is not such a huge thing to most isboxers and if the new rules make you happy then it's as you said we are gucci my friend. |
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 18:39:12 -
[1492] - Quote
white male privilege wrote:Mining with 10 hulks takes the exact same time to plex all of your accounts as it does for a regular guy mining with one character to plex his one account.
white male privilege wrote: So after the multicaster has made his plex for the month he can then continue mining making ten times what a regular player can, or he star pvping, doing bombing runs by himself which is again an unfair multiplier of the veteran's time spent in eve.
Ok you've just contradicted yourself and or simply can't add numbers.
If it takes me 10 days in 1 hulk to earn a plex.. 10 accounts would take me... 10 days if all said and done were equal.
While the "miltiboxer" (not multicaster.. save that for the fantasy games) will have another 20 days to do what ever, so would the solo player.
ISboxer has very little to do with that. I can take all my toons and launch them in fleet and take out a belt. I might be able to take that belt 10 times faster than a solo player but my costs are 10 x as large.
So NO multiboxing with ISboxer with the same ships in the same situation is NOT more profitable at least when it comes to mining.
I can't speak for incursions or missioning because I haven't tried ISboxer in that situation.
|
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 18:39:14 -
[1493] - Quote
prime example of why it's considered cheating:
the starcraft league's back in the day, where people had build orders, hot keys, ways to micro manage their build orders and what not..
they still do. that's skill.
what you are doing is akin to the old diablo2 lod trainers and bots that would farm for gold or any other games that would farm for you on multiple machines based on colors on the screen.
completely without skill
feed me your tears please!!!!!!!!!!
you are only showing how low you had to stoop to beat people with skill, because you have none.
its like professional athletes that have to use performance enhancing drugs to beat the players that can do it because they just are that good and they train hard, and are professionals, people WITH SKILL.
to recap, micro managing used to win people money back in the star craft tournaments, still do today... a hot key not a script, but i dont think you know what im talking about because you act like you have skills and are a gamer, any tool can go do what you have done. i could teach my gramma how to do what you do.
i could probably teach a dog how to do it, im sure a monkey could.. if you could teach a monkey how to point at the dot on the screen and told it to press a key, it could make bombing runs for you...
but okay.. enough. im done.. i seriously dont think you even understand what im getting at, either you are attempting to troll even harder because you have been trolling this whole time using this type of program, or you are just not seeing what's going on here...
it's like putting peyton manning in little league basically..
are you serious guys? your going to complain?
just .. yes please do complain, this is the best, the best fun ive had in a week or two.. maybe.. lolz!!!!!!!! |
dave fromheadoffice
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 18:40:27 -
[1494] - Quote
Want to buy tech 2 bucket for all these tears, my tech 1 bucket has overflown |
Tappits
north eastern swat
Pandemic Legion
70
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 18:49:22 -
[1495] - Quote
Alruan Shadowborn wrote:
I have engineered what I hope will prove to be a vaccine against the virus, and with the current production cycle planned, it should commence distribution from 1 January YC117. Given the concern around this virus and the power it could grant to one person if harnessed, vaccination will be compulsory, and conducted in top secret. It should not be too hard to have our agents install Aerosol units on every ship in the cluster when they dock.
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RPing Loop hole for isboxing supers :) Bring it on.
:)
:)
:)
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
841
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 18:56:19 -
[1496] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:It's not accelerated, it's doing the same thing from a more convenient place.
if its not accelerated, you woundnt want doing it. |
Eryn Velasquez
75
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 18:57:53 -
[1497] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:white male privilege wrote:Mining with 10 hulks takes the exact same time to plex all of your accounts as it does for a regular guy mining with one character to plex his one account. white male privilege wrote: So after the multicaster has made his plex for the month he can then continue mining making ten times what a regular player can, or he star pvping, doing bombing runs by himself which is again an unfair multiplier of the veteran's time spent in eve. Ok you've just contradicted yourself and or simply can't add numbers. If it takes me 10 days in 1 hulk to earn a plex.. 10 accounts would take me... 10 days if all said and done were equal. While the "miltiboxer" (not multicaster.. save that for the fantasy games) will have another 20 days to do what ever, so would the solo player. ISboxer has very little to do with that. I can take all my toons and launch them in fleet and take out a belt. I might be able to take that belt 10 times faster than a solo player but my costs are 10 x as large. So NO multiboxing with ISboxer with the same ships in the same situation is NOT more profitable at least when it comes to mining. I can't speak for incursions or missioning because I haven't tried ISboxer in that situation.
If a single person with a single account needs 10 days to plex his account, he than has 20 days to mine/pve or whatever to gain ISK worth 2 additional plexes.
the single person with 10 accounts makes ISK worth 20 additional plexes in the same time. As he doesn't need those ISK to plex his account, he can buy a super/titan 10 times faster than the single player.
_GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á_
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 18:58:28 -
[1498] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:prime example of why it's considered cheating:
the starcraft league's back in the day, where people had build orders, hot keys, ways to micro manage their build orders and what not..
they still do. that's skill.
what you are doing is akin to the old diablo2 lod trainers and bots that would farm for gold or any other games that would farm for you on multiple machines based on colors on the screen.
completely without skill
feed me your tears please!!!!!!!!!!
you are only showing how low you had to stoop to beat people with skill, because you have none.
its like professional athletes that have to use performance enhancing drugs to beat the players that can do it because they just are that good and they train hard, and are professionals, people WITH SKILL.
to recap, micro managing used to win people money back in the star craft tournaments, still do today... a hot key not a script, but i dont think you know what im talking about because you act like you have skills and are a gamer, any tool can go do what you have done. i could teach my gramma how to do what you do.
i could probably teach a dog how to do it, im sure a monkey could.. if you could teach a monkey how to point at the dot on the screen and told it to press a key, it could make bombing runs for you...
but okay.. enough. im done.. i seriously dont think you even understand what im getting at, either you are attempting to troll even harder because you have been trolling this whole time using this type of program, or you are just not seeing what's going on here...
it's like putting peyton manning in little league basically..
are you serious guys? your going to complain?
just .. yes please do complain, this is the best, the best fun ive had in a week or two.. maybe.. lolz!!!!!!!!
Eve is nothing like starcraft or diablo or wow.
You hate multiboxing because you lack the motor skills to do it? You can't afford it so it's not fair?
Peyton manning in little league? EVE is akin to little league how? Because you are in it everyone else who does something differently or better than you needs a nerf bat?
Some isboxers are complaining. Most of us though are sitting back enjoying the hate show you are putting on. You guys hate it so much and so blindly while at the same time not understanding the mechanics of it in the least. You just assume it makes our 10 man fleet as good or better than yours. Unless you are complete scrubs our 10 man isboxer fleet is not better than your 10 man human fleet in terms of character management.... not even close.
I'm gonna want a t2 tearbucket for January 2nd.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
841
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 19:05:13 -
[1499] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:You hate multiboxing because you lack the motor skills to do it? You can't afford it so it's not fair?
because you lack motor skills to do it by yourself, you use 3rd party software for automation your sh*t - this is why we dont like it.
KC Kamikaze wrote:
You just assume it makes our 10 man fleet as good or better than yours. Unless you are complete scrubs our 10 man isboxer fleet is not better than your 10 man human fleet in terms of character management.... not even close.
you know why you use isbotter, dont you? Otherwise you wouldnt.
KC Kamikaze wrote:
I'm gonna want a t2 tearbucket for January 2nd.
me too |
Apo Lamperouge
35
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 19:05:55 -
[1500] - Quote
dave fromheadoffice wrote:Want to buy tech 2 bucket for all these tears, my tech 1 bucket has overflown
No, this is Draclira's Modified Bucket o' Tears. Unlimited capacity, +100% to deliciousness per level.
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
|
|
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 19:12:18 -
[1501] - Quote
Eryn Velasquez wrote:
If a single person with a single account needs 10 days to plex his account, he than has 20 days to mine/pve or whatever to gain ISK worth 2 additional plexes.
the single person with 10 accounts makes ISK worth 20 additional plexes in the same time. As he doesn't need those ISK to plex his account, he can buy a super/titan 10 times faster than the single player.
In theory yes, that is possible if all the funds were channeled to the main character. In practice that may have happened but usually skill costs, ammo costs and general main costs prohibit that. As stated keeping 10 toons is 10 times more expensive than keeping 1 toon. When you're talking an end game ship (you can't go any further), it is actually easier to fast track it on a single character and plex that toon.
We're not talking theory here.. that are no "what if s" or "he COULD do that" . CCP has made a decision and many (too many) have a misconception of what is really happening on our side. Our side is the exact same as yours... we just have more toons doing it.
If it costs you xxx to replace a ship... it costs us the same. Skill books and time are the same only compounded. No biggie.
|
Llama Cantari
The Waldos
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 19:16:44 -
[1502] - Quote
11/10 To all ISBoxers rage unsubbing, don't let the door hit you, contract me your **** before you log. ( Just don't multiplex to do it please. ) KThxBaiNao!
Long overdue, well done CCP. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
841
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 19:19:45 -
[1503] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:Eryn Velasquez wrote:
If a single person with a single account needs 10 days to plex his account, he than has 20 days to mine/pve or whatever to gain ISK worth 2 additional plexes.
the single person with 10 accounts makes ISK worth 20 additional plexes in the same time. As he doesn't need those ISK to plex his account, he can buy a super/titan 10 times faster than the single player.
In theory yes, that is possible if all the funds were channeled to the main character. In practice that may have happened but usually skill costs, ammo costs and general main costs prohibit that. As stated keeping 10 toons is 10 times more expensive than keeping 1 toon. When you're talking an end game ship (you can't go any further), it is actually easier to fast track it on a single character and plex that toon. We're not talking theory here.. there are no "what if s" or "he COULD do that" . CCP has made a decision and many (too many) have a misconception of what is really happening on our side. Our side is the exact same as yours... we just have more toons doing it. If it costs you xxx to replace a ship... it costs us the same. Skill books and time are the same only compounded. No biggie.
accelerated gameplay lies in the higher efficiency of broadcasted input.
While you would loose a lot of time cycling through your clients, locking targets at each single one of them manually, firing weapons manually, you name it, isbotter removes most of this human interaction overhead (->accelerated gameplay) and gain massive advantage oversomeone not using such automation tools - this is exactly the reason why people isbotted primarily, why they want to keep it in some way or another or seeking for workarounds around now changed policy. |
Rovinia
Exotic Dancers Union
SONS of BANE
335
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 19:23:06 -
[1504] - Quote
Surprising, but good move CCP |
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 19:29:07 -
[1505] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:Eryn Velasquez wrote:
If a single person with a single account needs 10 days to plex his account, he than has 20 days to mine/pve or whatever to gain ISK worth 2 additional plexes.
the single person with 10 accounts makes ISK worth 20 additional plexes in the same time. As he doesn't need those ISK to plex his account, he can buy a super/titan 10 times faster than the single player.
In theory yes, that is possible if all the funds were channeled to the main character. In practice that may have happened but usually skill costs, ammo costs and general main costs prohibit that. As stated keeping 10 toons is 10 times more expensive than keeping 1 toon. When you're talking an end game ship (you can't go any further), it is actually easier to fast track it on a single character and plex that toon. We're not talking theory here.. there are no "what if s" or "he COULD do that" . CCP has made a decision and many (too many) have a misconception of what is really happening on our side. Our side is the exact same as yours... we just have more toons doing it. If it costs you xxx to replace a ship... it costs us the same. Skill books and time are the same only compounded. No biggie.
did u just try to break cheating down into stock broker terms? like you were trading this? telling us that it's 10x more expensive while ultimately being able to make at least 2 times what one of those characters makes.. did you seriously just give us a risk assessment to justify your cheating because you have no skills? i really.. yeah you are trolling.. straight up.. trolling..
for that other person stating im comparing eve as a whole to anything else, no... i used a metaphor, but okay, like i said, you dont understand basic english and apparently can't think creatively, no imagination.
don't need a tear bucket, thats all getting licked off their faces, now im huffing on the smoke coming out of their ears as they try to think up ways of being insulting.. the rage is burning bright within them...
thinking up ways justify and troll at the same time, i think they are overheating... time to apply mustard, it helps draw out the burn better, cold water only makes the burn hurt more.. but umm, BURN.. no more cheats for you... |
white male privilege
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
101
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 19:31:04 -
[1506] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:white male privilege wrote:Mining with 10 hulks takes the exact same time to plex all of your accounts as it does for a regular guy mining with one character to plex his one account. white male privilege wrote: So after the multicaster has made his plex for the month he can then continue mining making ten times what a regular player can, or he star pvping, doing bombing runs by himself which is again an unfair multiplier of the veteran's time spent in eve. Ok you've just contradicted yourself and or simply can't add numbers. If it takes me 10 days in 1 hulk to earn a plex.. 10 accounts would take me... 10 days if all said and done were equal. While the "miltiboxer" (not multicaster.. save that for the fantasy games) will have another 20 days to do what ever, so would the solo player. ISboxer has very little to do with that. I can take all my toons and launch them in fleet and take out a belt. I might be able to take that belt 10 times faster than a solo player but my costs are 10 x as large. So NO multiboxing with ISboxer with the same ships in the same situation is NOT more profitable at least when it comes to mining. I can't speak for incursions or missioning because I haven't tried ISboxer in that situation.
if the multiboxer continues mining after the plex requirement is met, he starts making ten times what someone in a solo miner will |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 19:33:38 -
[1507] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:You hate multiboxing because you lack the motor skills to do it? You can't afford it so it's not fair? because you lack motor skills to do it by yourself, you use 3rd party software for automation your sh*t - this is why we dont like it. KC Kamikaze wrote:
You just assume it makes our 10 man fleet as good or better than yours. Unless you are complete scrubs our 10 man isboxer fleet is not better than your 10 man human fleet in terms of character management.... not even close.
you know why you use isbotter, dont you? Otherwise you wouldnt. KC Kamikaze wrote:
I'm gonna want a t2 tearbucket for January 2nd.
me too
What does that 3rd party software automate for me? Does it check dscan for me? Does it auto-target for me? Does it automatically pilot my ships for me in ways that eve doesn't already do? You don't like it because it's not something you want to do and because you don't want to do it in your mind that means it's not to be done.
I've multiboxed for who knows how long and only started using isboxer in the last 8 months or so... Why I do it is for the flexibility. It's also quite liberating to be your own everything. Having characters to fill all the roles you need filled to get things done is nice, and I enjoy the game more because of it. I also like helping other people and all my alts make helping other people easier as well.
If you want to talk pvp lets decide who gets the tear bucket by the size of replicators killboard at the end of jan 1st. For PVE we can compare wallets. More work, more investment, more risk, more reward. |
Trogdor Losshelin
Everlasting Vendetta.
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 19:34:58 -
[1508] - Quote
white male privilege wrote:
if the multiboxer continues mining after the plex requirement is met, he starts making ten times what someone in a solo miner will
Nope, bad math. Each of his toons will make the same or less (mainly due to targeting and other delays) |
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 19:35:42 -
[1509] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:
accelerated gameplay lies in the higher efficiency of broadcasted input.
While you would loose a lot of time cycling through your clients, locking targets at each single one of them manually, firing weapons manually, you name it, isbotter removes most of this human interaction overhead (->accelerated gameplay) and gain massive advantage oversomeone not using such automation tools - this is exactly the reason why people isbotted primarily, why they want to keep it in some way or another or seeking for workarounds around now changed policy.
actually not really. I have been running 5 toons for quite a while mining in fleet. cycling through all five of them is less than a few seconds. This changes the game slightly but not by much.
Example: 10 toons mining. ISboxer's broadcast feature is prohibitive because who whats 10 toon hitting the same rock at the same time?
10 toons in pvp vs a larger ship... yes you want all 10 to target the same ship at the same time. Thus CCP rules.
There is an advantage to ISboxer .. yes. That's why it was designed O_o. This advantage WAS open to all players. Those that didn't use it shouldn't cry. Those that did.. also should have seen this coming.
|
Kaliba Mort
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 19:39:06 -
[1510] - Quote
Brutus Le'montac wrote:are logitech keyboards with macro keys now also prohibited ( if i use the 1 or more of the 18 macro keys)?
if so please send me the info i need to claim 150$ from ccp for a new keybord, or send me a gamer keyboard that does not have macro keys ccp, tyvm in advance.
You are already prohibited from using macros! If you can't constrain yourself from using macros in a game, perhaps your account should be banned sooner rather than later. And no, this has nothing to do with any keyboard.
This thread is actually quite unbelievable. Like a bunch of 12 years old are now playing Eve and their reading comprehension skills are no better than that of a 5 year old.
|
|
|
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
38
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 19:39:16 -
[1511] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:You heard it here first, guys. Rebinding your keys is now a punishable offense.
i can still group my weapons right? We demand clarification :D |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2292
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 19:40:05 -
[1512] - Quote
white male privilege wrote:if the multiboxer continues mining after the plex requirement is met, he starts making ten times what someone in a solo miner will
You're saying that as if ISBoxer is some kind of special privilege that's only available to the select few Chosen Ones or something. As much as I think that alt play should have never been a thing from the beginning, the matter of the fact is that it is, and always has been, available to everyone. It's a potential that everyone is able to unlock, but few choose to do so, much in the same way that making much more money via scamming and trading is possible when compared to mining and mission-running. By your logic, we should penalize the scammers and traders because they make the same money as miners or missioners in a fraction of the time, and can use the remainder of their time to make more.
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
|
Almethea
Trans Stellar Express
187
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 19:44:33 -
[1513] - Quote
even if agree with isboxer was out of control.
i will just keep in mind that the only answer from ccp to probelm are nerf and quickly change policy.
few weeks ago isboxer was again confirmed by falcon, a ****-ton of thread about plex and and isboxer and ccp changed their minds.
for me it just seem like "the last captain's maneuvers before the ship sink".
Keeping active account just to shitpost
there's so many thing to fix in eve.... and they fix forum ! GJ! but ok i like it !
CCP Fozzie : AFK cloaking, however, is an entirely social form of power
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2292
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 19:45:20 -
[1514] - Quote
Kaliba Mort wrote:You are already prohibited from using macros! If you can't constrain yourself from using macros in a game, perhaps your account should be banned sooner rather than later. And no, this has nothing to do with any keyboard.
In that case, I'd like to report myself for immediate removal from the game. Apparently, I've been breaking the law for the past ten years by binding the F1-F8 keys to a pair of thumb buttons on my mouse in order to save myself from the pain of my carpal tunnel claw hand by reaching for the buttons on my keyboard.
It's been a good run, guys. See you in Star Citizen.
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
|
Revman Zim
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
262
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 19:46:38 -
[1515] - Quote
I applaud what CCP is doing. This change is part of a larger plan that started back when the decision was made to drop WOD and focus on EVE Online.
Instead of trying to do a half-assed job on several products, they are focusing their talents and attention on making ONE product the best it can be. (Sorry DUST). You may not agree with their changes but you cannot fault them for their attempt.
If you take a step back and look at what has been implemented and what is coming, CCP is trying to fix a lot of the imbalances in the game so it is more attractive to a larger pool of players. ISboxer programs, botting, RMT, are bad for any game. It takes away from the average player experience.
In addition, the force projection changes and upcoming SOV changes will hopefully make nullsec more diverse. All the other smaller changes are to make the game more balanced, immersive and prettier to look at. All good things.
I also believe the change in the way CCP rolls out updates was designed to accelerate this evolution.
Overall, i like where they are headed. It would be incredible if a couple years from now I log on and there are 50k players online which actually represents 50k people behind their keyboards mining, building, fighting, scamming, and most importantly, ENJOYING EVE.
tl; dr - This is a small step in a grand plan on making EVE Online attractive to a wider player base. |
Kaliba Mort
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 19:54:01 -
[1516] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:
ISboxer has very little to do with that. I can take all my toons and launch them in fleet and take out a belt. I might be able to take that belt 10 times faster than a solo player but my costs are 10 x as large.
So NO multiboxing with ISboxer with the same ships in the same situation is NOT more profitable at least when it comes to mining.
You pay for ISboxer and you don't know that advantages? Shame on you to think the rest are that naive.
1. you have 10 chars, so you mine for 10 plexes, takes you 10 days
2. you want 10 plexes for your PvP alt for next month - you mine for 10 days.
3. you want to replace a dread - mine for 4 days.
Now, if you are solo,
1. you want a PLEX, you mine for 10 days
2. you want 10 plexes for your PvP alt for next month. You mine for 100 days? oops
3. you want to replace a dread. mine for 40 days?
The PLEX cost is a fixed cost. But the profit above those fixed costs is multiplied by number of characters. It's the same for mining, as missioning, as ratting as Incursions. This is also why majority (all?) of PvE ISboxers pay with PLEXes for their alts.
There is a saying - don't **** on someone and say it's raining.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
841
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:04:39 -
[1517] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:
What does that 3rd party software automate for me?
it controls your isbotted clients by input broadcast, why you use it actually.
KC Kamikaze wrote:
Does it auto-target for me?
yes, on your isbotted clients it targets things for you, you are targetting on your main client, its one of the reasons you use it.
KC Kamikaze wrote:
Does it automatically pilot my ships for me
yes it pilots your ships for you, following commands if your main client.
KC Kamikaze wrote:in ways that eve doesn't already do?
this is a stupid argument.
An ratting bot does things in ways eve player would do them too.
An aimbot in a shooter would do things human player would do.
But better, quicker or more automated.
KC Kamikaze wrote:
You don't like it because it's not something you want to do and because you don't want to do it in your mind that means it's not to be done.
no, I dont like it because you save work using automation tools to achieve things against EULA.
I hate aimbots in shooters in same way I hate isbotter in eve, wouldnt you?
stripped irrelevant rest of the post |
Apo Lamperouge
35
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:05:21 -
[1518] - Quote
Kaliba Mort wrote:Cervix Thumper wrote:
ISboxer has very little to do with that. I can take all my toons and launch them in fleet and take out a belt. I might be able to take that belt 10 times faster than a solo player but my costs are 10 x as large.
So NO multiboxing with ISboxer with the same ships in the same situation is NOT more profitable at least when it comes to mining.
You pay for ISboxer and you don't know that advantages? Shame on you to think the rest are that naive. 1. you have 10 chars, so you mine for 10 plexes, takes you 10 days 2. you want 10 plexes for your PvP alt for next month - you mine for 10 days. 3. you want to replace a dread - mine for 4 days. Now, if you are solo, 1. you want a PLEX, you mine for 10 days 2. you want 10 plexes for your PvP alt for next month. You mine for 100 days? oops 3. you want to replace a dread. mine for 40 days? The PLEX cost is a fixed cost. But the profit above those fixed costs is multiplied by number of characters. It's the same for mining, as missioning, as ratting as Incursions. This is also why majority (all?) of PvE ISboxers pay with PLEXes for their alts. There is a saying - don't **** on someone and say it's raining.
Here is where the argument gets really rage-y.
We had a threadnaught on skype about this too, and the isboxers say that they are paying for their accounts in plex, so losing them will take money out of ccp's hands. How so? Just because one person with 14 accounts rage quits because he cant click once for 14 toons now, CCP is losing out on all that MONEY. Sure, someone paid for that PLEX is his hard earned USD, or Euro or CDN or whatever goat trading they do in other parts of the world. But his money is already in CCP's hands. You as the ISBotter didn't pay one hairy butt nugget dime for that right to whine about money... Sure there will be market fluctuations, PLEX prices will fall (this time last year they were what? 650m?) but Empires will not fall. The sky will not fall.
Chicken Little ensues.
I pay for my accounts with game time purchased on my credit card, from money I make from having a real job, working 12-14 hours a day 5 days a week.
You ISbotters.... don't. I mean come on. Do the math, seriously, do it.
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
841
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:08:52 -
[1519] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:
actually not really. I have been running 5 toons for quite a while mining in fleet. cycling through all five of them is less than a few seconds. This changes the game slightly but not by much.
not really? how is saving time not really saving time?
In your case of 5 clients its maybe 5 seconds, where isbotter performs instantly on all simultanuously.
How is this not really saving interaction overhead? Explain please.
Cervix Thumper wrote:
Example: 10 toons mining. ISboxer's broadcast feature is prohibitive because who whats 10 toon hitting the same rock at the same time?
if you havent used isbotter input broadcast for mining, arent you posting in a wrong thread then?
Cervix Thumper wrote:
10 toons in pvp vs a larger ship... yes you want all 10 to target the same ship at the same time. Thus CCP rules.
sure, but not all in an automated way like supported by a tool discussed in this thread.
Nope.
Cervix Thumper wrote:
There is an advantage to ISboxer .. yes. That's why it was designed O_o. This advantage WAS open to all players. Those that didn't use it shouldn't cry. Those that did.. also should have seen this coming.
so, what kind of a ******** argument is this?
Gun is designed to kill, should I go on street shooting people, pointing out to its designed purpose?
Should I use open to all aimbots in FPS games? I would get banned, rightfully. Exactly as CCP doesnt want you to use said tools or methods of automation. |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
2236
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:09:25 -
[1520] - Quote
Kaliba Mort wrote:Brutus Le'montac wrote:are logitech keyboards with macro keys now also prohibited ( if i use the 1 or more of the 18 macro keys)?
if so please send me the info i need to claim 150$ from ccp for a new keybord, or send me a gamer keyboard that does not have macro keys ccp, tyvm in advance. You are already prohibited from using macros! If you can't constrain yourself from using macros in a game, perhaps your account should be banned sooner rather than later. And no, this has nothing to do with any keyboard. This thread is actually quite unbelievable. Like a bunch of 12 years old are now playing Eve and their reading comprehension skills are no better than that of a 5 year old.
Macros are not banned. Speaking of 5 year olds, way to make your point.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
|
|
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
841
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:09:57 -
[1521] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
It's been a good run, guys. See you in Star Citizen.
bye..
and lawl,.... no, probably not.
Sentamon wrote:Macros are not banned. Speaking of 5 year olds, way to make your point.
macros violate EULA, learn to read. |
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:14:27 -
[1522] - Quote
Kaliba Mort wrote:Cervix Thumper wrote:
ISboxer has very little to do with that. I can take all my toons and launch them in fleet and take out a belt. I might be able to take that belt 10 times faster than a solo player but my costs are 10 x as large.
So NO multiboxing with ISboxer with the same ships in the same situation is NOT more profitable at least when it comes to mining.
You pay for ISboxer and you don't know that advantages? Shame on you to think the rest are that naive. 1. you have 10 chars, so you mine for 10 plexes, takes you 10 days 2. you want 10 plexes for your PvP alt for next month - you mine for 10 days. 3. you want to replace a dread - mine for 4 days. Now, if you are solo, 1. you want a PLEX, you mine for 10 days 2. you want 10 plexes for your PvP alt for next month. You mine for 100 days? oops 3. you want to replace a dread. mine for 40 days? The PLEX cost is a fixed cost. But the profit above those fixed costs is multiplied by number of characters. It's the same for mining, as missioning, as ratting as Incursions. This is also why majority (all?) of PvE ISboxers pay with PLEXes for their alts. There is a saying - don't **** on someone and say it's raining.
Not exactly true but closely accurate.
If you are solo and have to replace a dread yes it is going to take you a long time a VERY long time. Having 10 toons do the job for you will speed up that process but I have to pay 10 plex not 1.
If you need 10 plex for a pvp alt then you are not solo are you? you have 2 accts and it would take you 5 days (per month).. thus the mining grind to break even monthly (dedicating all those resources to 1 acct). I've done that.. it is not pretty.
In the even that you're not wardec'd.. you're not ganked, everything is peachy creamy in your eve life.. then in THEORY yes. It is possible.
I'm speaking from first hand experience with the program. Are you? If not.. than pls get off the hate bandwagon.
To think we make more ISK than others is not untrue but we also have to spend more. It is a simple fact of the game. |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:18:17 -
[1523] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:
What does that 3rd party software automate for me?
it controls your isbotted clients by input broadcast, why you use it actually. KC Kamikaze wrote:
Does it auto-target for me?
yes, on your isbotted clients it targets things for you, you are targetting on your main client, its one of the reasons you use it. KC Kamikaze wrote:
Does it automatically pilot my ships for me
yes it pilots your ships for you, following commands if your main client. KC Kamikaze wrote:in ways that eve doesn't already do? this is a stupid argument. An ratting bot does things in ways eve player would do them too. An aimbot in a shooter would do things human player would do. But better, quicker or more automated. no, I dont like it because you save work using automation tools to achieve things against EULA. I hate aimbots in shooters in same way I hate isbotter in eve, wouldnt you? stripped irrelevant rest of the post
LMAO see you have no clue how it works for me.
Broadcasts are no more so just take them out of the mix. This means moving forward i won't be:
1. broadcasting dock/jump/enter wormhole
2. broadcasting launch drones
Oh my!
No it doesn't pilot my ships for me ... squad warp and fleet regroup do that for me both of which are not isboxer features.
So my alts target faster than my main? No actually. Right now I have a fleet with HMLs and a drone fleet. My drones I assign to my main (right clicking each to assist because broadcasts don't work for this anyway). And my HML fleet i've always ctrl clicked them all because in most cases i split dps due to the size of my fleet.
Comparing aimbots to isboxer is another ******** comparison. I'm sorry I like to use multiple accounts to achieve better results. Nothing in the EULA against that. And while some of your blanket statements may apply to others and they may heavily rely on broadcasts I never have so the impact to me is minimal and it's a change I can live with. The cheers in this thread are entertaining because I would think the majority of good isboxers are probably thinking along the same lines as me. You use what works within the confines of the game and is in line with the EULA. They changed the rules and I'll adapt. I'm just pointing out that a lot of what you guys who don't use isboxers think you know is incorrect.
I'm trying to save the GM's from thousands of pointless petitions from the masses of isboxer haters by spreading a little knowledge on its use.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
267
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:18:41 -
[1524] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Point 2: We do have a reason to complain as removing broadcasting was a very useful part on moving a fleet through multiple systems, or switching ships, or fixing skill queues or any other number of things. Please try to think before posting.
in other words you complain because you cant uload all the work from multiboxing to some 3rd party tool anymore, and in same time you think you should rightfully be able to do that? EULA explicitely forbidding this. Nolak Ataru wrote:
Point 3: Once again, lots of VideoFX means that I can F1 on all my clients within a single server tick. Is CCP willing to make the distinction there?
I guess so. You could as good, keep input broadcast because, who cares? Its your account being banned in the end... I would be the one petitioning you for 3rd party aids. Nolak Ataru wrote:
Point 4: This is a harder hit at bombers because of the coordination required to use a fleet of bombers, whether it be torps or bombs.
yes and this is why its good. No easy bombing anymore.
You have demonstrated your clear ignorance on what I was talking about.
If CCP were to introduce a text-based minigame that you must play in order to dock in a station, people would complain. Sure, it adds to the "realism" and whatnot, but in the end it isn't necessary. The automated docking system makes life simple for you. Same thing with broadcasting keys and and mouse strokes. It's nice that we were able to use them, but removing them just adds a little minigame that we must play.
Mass reporting of people who are not breaking any rules is a easy way to get banned yourself. Keep that in mind.
I can't say much about bombing as I've only participated in 2 bombing runs with Bombers Bar. But from what I learned about those massive bombing runs that removed an entire fleet was that they were AFK on a station/gate or stuck in a drag bubble 50km off a gate, not that they were somehow unable to react because of the bomber pilot himself. While I don't bomb myself, I would have understood CCP's reasons against multibox bombing. |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
2236
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:19:04 -
[1525] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:
macros violate EULA, learn to read.
Macros do no violate the EULA. Macros that loop and automate your gameplay so you don't have to be at the keyboard do.
Now that we've cleared that up find something else to spread misinformation about.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
267
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:21:44 -
[1526] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Sentamon wrote:Macros are not banned. Speaking of 5 year olds, way to make your point. macros violate EULA, learn to read.
Assuming "macro key" is something like rebinding the G keys on a Logitech keyboard, then:
Macros with if-then statements or macros that rely on receiving data from the EVE client are banned.
Chaining F1-F8 with a single macro key is not, since there are no 'branches' or if-then statements. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
841
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:28:31 -
[1527] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:LMAO see you have no clue how it works for me. Broadcasts are no more so just take them out of the mix. This means moving forward i won't be: 1. broadcasting dock/jump/enter wormhole 2. broadcasting launch drones Oh my! No it doesn't pilot my ships for me ... squad warp and fleet regroup do that for me both of which are not isboxer features.
if you arent here to complain about isbotters core features you're wrong here, this thread is exactly about that.
KC Kamikaze wrote:
Comparing aimbots to isboxer is another ******** comparison.
no, because its exactly what it does. It does things faster than you would be doing without it, like aimbot targets faster than you ever would be.
KC Kamikaze wrote:
I'm sorry I like to use multiple accounts to achieve better results. Nothing in the EULA against that.
once again, this thread is about isbotters input broadcast. If you dont use any of those features, whatsoever,
you are wasting your energy in a wrong thread.
|
Xython
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
1137
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:32:24 -
[1528] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Kaliba Mort wrote:You are already prohibited from using macros! If you can't constrain yourself from using macros in a game, perhaps your account should be banned sooner rather than later. And no, this has nothing to do with any keyboard. In that case, I'd like to report myself for immediate removal from the game. Apparently, I've been breaking the law for the past ten years by binding the F1-F8 keys to a pair of thumb buttons on my mouse in order to save myself from the pain of my carpal tunnel claw hand by reaching for the buttons on my keyboard. It's been a good run, guys. See you in Star Citizen.
Can I have your stuff? |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
841
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:36:21 -
[1529] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
If CCP were to introduce a text-based minigame that you must play in order to dock in a station, people would complain. Sure, it adds to the "realism" and whatnot, but in the end it isn't necessary. The automated docking system makes life simple for you. Same thing with broadcasting keys and and mouse strokes. It's nice that we were able to use them, but removing them just adds a little minigame that we must play.
how is this related to topic, idgi.
If you dont like how the game is played, using tools violating EULA is a safe way to get you removed from the game.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Mass reporting of people who are not breaking any rules is a easy way to get banned yourself. Keep that in mind.
noone is talking about mass petitioning, just in cases where use of isbot or similar tool is obvious.
Nolak Ataru wrote:I can't say much about bombing as I've only participated in 2 bombing runs with Bombers Bar. But from what I learned about those massive bombing runs that removed an entire fleet was that they were AFK on a station/gate or stuck in a drag bubble 50km off a gate, not that they were somehow unable to react because of the bomber pilot himself. While I don't bomb myself, I would have understood CCP's reasons against multibox bombing.
problem with bombers they can wipe out entire fleets. Being able to achieve something like that, which would otherwise require coordination of a decent group of people, by a single person, is way too OP and because of this I welcome this policy change effectively removing those isbotting bomber guys. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
267
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:38:24 -
[1530] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:LMAO see you have no clue how it works for me. Broadcasts are no more so just take them out of the mix. This means moving forward i won't be: 1. broadcasting dock/jump/enter wormhole 2. broadcasting launch drones Oh my! No it doesn't pilot my ships for me ... squad warp and fleet regroup do that for me both of which are not isboxer features. if you arent here to complain about isbotters core features you're wrong here, this thread is exactly about that. KC Kamikaze wrote:
Comparing aimbots to isboxer is another ******** comparison.
no, because its exactly what it does. It does things faster than you would be doing without it, like aimbot targets faster than you ever would be. KC Kamikaze wrote:
I'm sorry I like to use multiple accounts to achieve better results. Nothing in the EULA against that.
once again, this thread is about isbotters input broadcast. If you dont use any of those features, whatsoever, you are wasting your energy in a wrong thread.
Every time you use "ISBotter" you further prove your ignorance as to what ISBoxer is, and the difference between an ISBoxer and a bot. It's two different things that both use a similar mechanism. To put it in layman's terms, you're calling a Hummer an Italian luxury car simply because they both have wheels and an engine.
Aimbots use the program's code as a weapon, automatically centering your crosshairs on the designated part of your enemy, most popular being the head, when the aimbot program calculates that you have line-of-sight on the target. ISBoxer does nothing of the sort. |
|
|
Xython
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
1137
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:38:40 -
[1531] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Chaining F1-F8 with a single macro key is not, since there are no 'branches' or if-then statements.
That is macroing (using software to pass inputs) and input multiplexing (using one key for multiple inputs), both of which are explicitly banned now.
Having said that I'm pretty sure they don't enforce that kind of macroing as a violation. Which is part of the problem here -- this policy seems to be vague enough that it will only be an issue when the GMs get too many petitions against someone. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25668
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:43:49 -
[1532] - Quote
Damn I gotta unfollow this thread. It's blowing up my notifications
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Radkiel
Everlasting Vendetta.
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:45:46 -
[1533] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:prime example of why it's considered cheating:
the starcraft league's back in the day, where people had build orders, hot keys, ways to micro manage their build orders and what not..
they still do. that's skill.
what you are doing is akin to the old diablo2 lod trainers and bots that would farm for gold or any other games that would farm for you on multiple machines based on colors on the screen.
completely without skill
feed me your tears please!!!!!!!!!!
you are only showing how low you had to stoop to beat people with skill, because you have none.
its like professional athletes that have to use performance enhancing drugs to beat the players that can do it because they just are that good and they train hard, and are professionals, people WITH SKILL.
to recap, micro managing used to win people money back in the star craft tournaments, still do today... a hot key not a script, but i dont think you know what im talking about because you act like you have skills and are a gamer, any tool can go do what you have done. i could teach my gramma how to do what you do.
i could probably teach a dog how to do it, im sure a monkey could.. if you could teach a monkey how to point at the dot on the screen and told it to press a key, it could make bombing runs for you...
but okay.. enough. im done.. i seriously dont think you even understand what im getting at, either you are attempting to troll even harder because you have been trolling this whole time using this type of program, or you are just not seeing what's going on here...
it's like putting peyton manning in little league basically..
are you serious guys? your going to complain?
just .. yes please do complain, this is the best, the best fun ive had in a week or two.. maybe.. lolz!!!!!!!!
Will I get in trouble for calling this person an idiot? I can use other words like a stupid person, fool, ass, halfwit, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, moron, imbecile, simpleton.
Please Advise,
GS
|
Kaliba Mort
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:47:17 -
[1534] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Macros are not banned. Speaking of 5 year olds, way to make your point.
http://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/eve-eula/
Paragraph 6, Subparagraph A(3)
Quote:You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.
So if your keyboard macros are not for things like accessibility, they are most likely against EULA as-is. To put it in 5-year-old's terms, if you are not handicapped, such that you require macros to play the game, you are most likely using said macros to make your activity more efficient. Use of macros to increase efficiency of eve game play is specifically prohibited in the rules. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
267
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:47:26 -
[1535] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
If CCP were to introduce a text-based minigame that you must play in order to dock in a station, people would complain. Sure, it adds to the "realism" and whatnot, but in the end it isn't necessary. The automated docking system makes life simple for you. Same thing with broadcasting keys and and mouse strokes. It's nice that we were able to use them, but removing them just adds a little minigame that we must play.
how is this related to topic, idgi. If you dont like how the game is played, using tools violating EULA is a safe way to get you removed from the game. Nolak Ataru wrote:
Mass reporting of people who are not breaking any rules is a easy way to get banned yourself. Keep that in mind.
noone is talking about mass petitioning, just in cases where use of isbot or similar tool is obvious. Nolak Ataru wrote:I can't say much about bombing as I've only participated in 2 bombing runs with Bombers Bar. But from what I learned about those massive bombing runs that removed an entire fleet was that they were AFK on a station/gate or stuck in a drag bubble 50km off a gate, not that they were somehow unable to react because of the bomber pilot himself. While I don't bomb myself, I would have understood CCP's reasons against multibox bombing. problem with bombers they can wipe out entire fleets. Being able to achieve something like that, which would otherwise require coordination of a decent group of people, by a single person, is way too OP and because of this I welcome this policy change effectively removing those isbotting bomber guys.
It's related, trust me. If you can't understand it, may I suggest you go back to middle school and learn critical thinking skills before attempting to play grown-up online. ISBoxer was never considered itself a violation of the EULA, and it still isn't. Stop thinking that everyone who uses ISBoxer is a bot.
Again, ISBoxer does not != botting. If you want to see bots, there was a video of a guy using a stealth bomber to go into deep Russian space and observed obvious bot behavior. Bots do not require input from a player to run. ISBoxer does.
I will be willing to bet you 1b isk that there will be fleet-welps to bomber wings in the future. You're trying to attribute rare instances of player error to ISBoxers. Please watch the video "Hello TEST, Meet Bombers Bar". You will see over 120 ships get destroyed by NON-BOXERS. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
841
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:47:30 -
[1536] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Every time you use "ISBotter" you further prove your ignorance as to what ISBoxer is, and the difference between an ISBoxer and a bot. It's two different things that both use a similar mechanism. To put it in layman's terms, you're calling a Hummer an Italian luxury car simply because they both have wheels and an engine.
na just calling things by names, bro.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Aimbots use the program's code as a weapon, automatically centering your crosshairs on the designated part of your enemy, most popular being the head, when the aimbot program calculates that you have line-of-sight on the target. ISBoxer does nothing of the sort.
yeah, an aimbot does whatever human does, but faster, this is why I compare it to isbotter.
Sentamon wrote:
Macros do no violate the EULA.
oh yeah they do, I quoted parts of EULA few pages back all you need is read. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
267
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:48:26 -
[1537] - Quote
Xython wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Chaining F1-F8 with a single macro key is not, since there are no 'branches' or if-then statements. That is macroing (using software to pass inputs) and input multiplexing (using one key for multiple inputs), both of which are explicitly banned now. Having said that I'm pretty sure they don't enforce that kind of macroing as a violation. Which is part of the problem here -- this policy seems to be vague enough that it will only be an issue when the GMs get too many petitions against someone.
I guess I was unclear. Pressing F1-F8 using a single macro key for a single client is not against the EULA. |
Apo Lamperouge
36
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:50:51 -
[1538] - Quote
[/quote]
Every time you use "ISBotter" you further prove your ignorance as to what ISBoxer is, and the difference between an ISBoxer and a bot. It's two different things that both use a similar mechanism. To put it in layman's terms, you're calling a Hummer an Italian luxury car simply because they both have wheels and an engine.
Aimbots use the program's code as a weapon, automatically centering your crosshairs on the designated part of your enemy, most popular being the head, when the aimbot program calculates that you have line-of-sight on the target. ISBoxer does nothing of the sort. [/quote]
OK, so two things that use a similar mechanism...hmmm
So a skeleton key and a master key and a set of lockpicks?
Really? Are you just are blind in one eye and can't see out of the other?
ISBoxer is being nerfed because it is against the EULA. It is outside software waking changes to multiple clients. Allowing one user to effectively become as many as he/she desires. How is that fair to everybody else who alt tabs their alts?
Your hairsplitting isn't going to change that. You are changing the mechanism of the game by outside software. Period. Changing your F1 key to a mouse key isn't altering the game, it's customization. Making one mouse click do a click on 14 different clients all at once? That is automation. And is prohibiited. End of story.
Put a dress on a pig and it's still your prom date.
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
841
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:52:47 -
[1539] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
It's related, trust me. If you can't understand it, may I suggest you go back to middle school and learn critical thinking skills before attempting to play grown-up online. ISBoxer was never considered itself a violation of the EULA, and it still isn't. Stop thinking that everyone who uses ISBoxer is a bot.
no its not considered a violation of EULA itself, but its core issues most people use it for is now a violation,
this is what this thread is about, for your information.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Again, ISBoxer does not != botting. If you want to see bots, there was a video of a guy using a stealth bomber to go into deep Russian space and observed obvious bot behavior. Bots do not require input from a player to run. ISBoxer does.
isbotter automates clients, its kind of a bot, who plays 20 clients replicating your main client actions. Kind of bot.
If you dont know what a bot is. its a piece of machinery which does things on its own, like isbotter controlling clients the player doesnt interact with directly.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
I will be willing to bet you 1b isk that there will be fleet-welps to bomber wings in the future. You're trying to attribute rare instances of player error to ISBoxers. Please watch the video "Hello TEST, Meet Bombers Bar". You will see over 120 ships get destroyed by NON-BOXERS.
lmao,
I never denied successful bombing runs performed by a group of people, show me the part where I blamed bombers by themselves. Like I saw 20 people ganking a freighter, yeah, this happens. SO WHAT? What is your argument here related to isbot which this thread is all about? |
Revman Zim
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
262
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:53:13 -
[1540] - Quote
To all the players threatening to unsub their 2 dozen accounts because they can't cheat anymore with ISBoxer, realize that no one cares.
Your accounts do nothing for the game. They do not independently interact with game or other players. As it has been already pointed out, the PLEX used for those accounts will still be in the game and cash in CCP's wallet. Your presence is not needed for EVE to survive and prosper. In fact, with you gone the game is immediately better.
In order for a threat to work you have to be worth something to someone. ISBoxers have no value except to themselves. |
|
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
6844
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:53:21 -
[1541] - Quote
I'm glad that I have other sources of income besides character trading.
Because, OMG! There are a whack of fleet sales all of a sudden today in the Character Bazaar. Great time to buy if you are in the market for Nightmare pilots and miners. They are going real cheap.
Mr Epeen
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
Darth Schweinebacke
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:54:21 -
[1542] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Again, ISBoxer does not != botting.
The correct version for what you wanted to say is either:
a) Isboxer does not equal botting.
b) Isboxer != botting.
Sry.. could not resist :). |
Apo Lamperouge
36
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:55:38 -
[1543] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:I'm glad that I have other sources of income besides character trading. Because, OMG! There are a whack of fleet sales all of a sudden today in the Character Bazaar. Great time to buy if you are in the market for Nightmare pilots and miners. They are going real cheap. Mr Epeen
Yeah I can use an out of corp Nightmare alt for going back to make some nice CONCORD LP and actually be able to get into fleets!
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
Ian Morbius
153
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:56:52 -
[1544] - Quote
Far more interesting....
Important update to EVE Online rules coming January 2015 [ ISBoxer Forum]
Death Valley & Mojave real world hardcore.
www.acronymfinder.com
|
Radkiel
Everlasting Vendetta.
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:57:23 -
[1545] - Quote
Apo Lamperouge wrote:Kaliba Mort wrote:Cervix Thumper wrote:
ISboxer has very little to do with that. I can take all my toons and launch them in fleet and take out a belt. I might be able to take that belt 10 times faster than a solo player but my costs are 10 x as large.
So NO multiboxing with ISboxer with the same ships in the same situation is NOT more profitable at least when it comes to mining.
You pay for ISboxer and you don't know that advantages? Shame on you to think the rest are that naive. 1. you have 10 chars, so you mine for 10 plexes, takes you 10 days 2. you want 10 plexes for your PvP alt for next month - you mine for 10 days. 3. you want to replace a dread - mine for 4 days. Now, if you are solo, 1. you want a PLEX, you mine for 10 days 2. you want 10 plexes for your PvP alt for next month. You mine for 100 days? oops 3. you want to replace a dread. mine for 40 days? The PLEX cost is a fixed cost. But the profit above those fixed costs is multiplied by number of characters. It's the same for mining, as missioning, as ratting as Incursions. This is also why majority (all?) of PvE ISboxers pay with PLEXes for their alts. There is a saying - don't **** on someone and say it's raining. Here is where the argument gets really rage-y. We had a threadnaught on skype about this too, and the isboxers say that they are paying for their accounts in plex, so losing them will take money out of ccp's hands. How so? Just because one person with 14 accounts rage quits because he cant click once for 14 toons now, CCP is losing out on all that MONEY. Sure, someone paid for that PLEX is his hard earned USD, or Euro or CDN or whatever goat trading they do in other parts of the world. But his money is already in CCP's hands. You as the ISBotter didn't pay one hairy butt nugget dime for that right to whine about money... Sure there will be market fluctuations, PLEX prices will fall (this time last year they were what? 650m?) but Empires will not fall. The sky will not fall. Chicken Little ensues. I pay for my accounts with game time purchased on my credit card, from money I make from having a real job, working 12-14 hours a day 5 days a week. You ISbotters.... don't. I mean come on. Do the math, seriously, do it.
I pay cashy money for my Accounts or I did until yesterday, now I will use plex to do so. |
Ssabat Thraxx
Dominion Tenebrarum
1047
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:58:25 -
[1546] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:white male privilege wrote:if the multiboxer continues mining after the plex requirement is met, he starts making ten times what someone in a solo miner will You're saying that as if ISBoxer is some kind of special privilege that's only available to the select few Chosen Ones or something. As much as I think that alt play should have never been a thing from the beginning, the matter of the fact is that it is, and always has been, available to everyone. It's a potential that everyone is able to unlock, but few choose to do so, much in the same way that making much more money via scamming and trading is possible when compared to mining and mission-running. By your logic, we should penalize the scammers and traders because they make the same money as miners or missioners in a fraction of the time, and can use the remainder of their time to make more.
No. Scamming = Not against the rules.
Multiplexing = Against the rules.
"Logic."
\m/ O.o \m/
"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
|
Jeanette Leon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 21:09:41 -
[1547] - Quote
Kaliba Mort wrote:Sentamon wrote:Macros are not banned. Speaking of 5 year olds, way to make your point. http://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/eve-eula/
Paragraph 6, Subparagraph A(3) Quote:You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game. So if your keyboard macros are not for things like accessibility, they are most likely against EULA as-is. To put it in 5-year-old's terms, if you are not handicapped, such that you require macros to play the game, you are most likely using said macros to make your activity more efficient. Use of macros to increase efficiency of eve game play is specifically prohibited in the rules.
If I have a keybind for all my hardeners on a single client it is indeed efficient, but not accelerated rate when compared with ordinary game play of mashing 3 or 4 keys at same time |
Apo Lamperouge
36
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 21:09:42 -
[1548] - Quote
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:white male privilege wrote:if the multiboxer continues mining after the plex requirement is met, he starts making ten times what someone in a solo miner will You're saying that as if ISBoxer is some kind of special privilege that's only available to the select few Chosen Ones or something. As much as I think that alt play should have never been a thing from the beginning, the matter of the fact is that it is, and always has been, available to everyone. It's a potential that everyone is able to unlock, but few choose to do so, much in the same way that making much more money via scamming and trading is possible when compared to mining and mission-running. By your logic, we should penalize the scammers and traders because they make the same money as miners or missioners in a fraction of the time, and can use the remainder of their time to make more. No. Scamming = Not against the rules. Multiplexing = Against the rules. "Logic."
Your argument is invalid because...umm wait. Hmmm.
Because you're....making sense.
STOP MAKING SENSE!
This is the Eve forums, not somewhere you come to actually make sense.
Move along.
Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
|
Irya Boone
Never Surrender.
408
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 21:24:06 -
[1549] - Quote
Stand your ground CCP
and after that could you please take a depp look at OFF GRID BOOSTER please :)
and the prophecy will come true
CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails
.... Open that damn door !!
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
1905
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 21:31:48 -
[1550] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
So what you're saying is that CCP will now blanket-ban every player who has keyboard and/or mouse drivers installed on their system? Because once again, there's no way for them to differentiate between a physical key press and one that was sent down through these drivers without hooking these processes somehow.
If they use them to multiplex their commands to several clients at same time.. YES. They will!
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
1905
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 21:37:27 -
[1551] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:The majority of people using ISBoxer for those things are automating the processes anyway. Implementing this new rule to punish the minority of ISBoxers who are actually there and manually controlling their input, while the botters go unpunished (as they always were), seems a bit moot to me.
The idea was NOT to banish botters. The Idea was to make much harder for peopel to not need other humans in game.. Simple as that! Anyone doing alone an activity designed to involve a community, of 10-20 people.. is BAD FOR THE GAME
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Telistra
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 21:42:26 -
[1552] - Quote
I can see it now...
ISBoxer Development Patch Notes:
- Added new input delay timer to for broadcasts
|
Khar-Toba
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 21:44:00 -
[1553] - Quote
I just want some clarification on this change (sorry if this has been covered already)
I have 4 Accounts and was planing to use an Autohotkey script which will duplicate mouse clicks on my second and third screens. This would enable me to fly 3 accounts at the same time more efficiently than I can currently.
I think this will be a breach of the revised rules - but I just wanted to check! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1277
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 21:45:53 -
[1554] - Quote
Khar-Toba wrote:I just want some clarification on this change (sorry if this has been covered already)
I have 4 Accounts and was planing to use an Autohotkey script which will duplicate mouse clicks on my second and third screens. This would enable me to fly 3 accounts at the same time more efficiently than I can currently.
I think this will be a breach of the revised rules - but I just wanted to check!
Yes, that would be a violation come January 1st. |
BKuCKy
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 21:53:02 -
[1555] - Quote
LOL guys just be honest! You just want that people pay real money for ISK buying PLEX from you! Don't lie to us! |
Radkiel
Everlasting Vendetta.
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 21:56:31 -
[1556] - Quote
Revman Zim wrote:To all the players threatening to unsub their 2 dozen accounts because they can't cheat anymore with ISBoxer, realize that no one cares.
Your accounts do nothing for the game. They do not independently interact with game or other players. As it has been already pointed out, the PLEX used for those accounts will still be in the game and cash in CCP's wallet. Your presence is not needed for EVE to survive and prosper. In fact, with you gone the game is immediately better.
In order for a threat to work you have to be worth something to someone. ISBoxers have no value except to themselves.
So you stopped by to tell us you don't care?
|
Irya Boone
Never Surrender.
408
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 21:58:07 -
[1557] - Quote
2014 the year of the tears
Tears of FW farmers ( with the dps check on NPC in plexes) :)
Tears of insta jumper all over the map in 2 minutes :)
Tears of i can control 15 accounts with one mouse and one keyboard..
I'm telling you the year of Tears
if i've forgotten some TEARS please remind me :)
CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails
.... Open that damn door !!
|
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7321
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 22:05:15 -
[1558] - Quote
Khar-Toba wrote:I just want some clarification on this change (sorry if this has been covered already)
I have 4 Accounts and was planing to use an Autohotkey script which will duplicate mouse clicks on my second and third screens. This would enable me to fly 3 accounts at the same time more efficiently than I can currently.
I think this will be a breach of the revised rules - but I just wanted to check!
If you don't know, use this:
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'.
|
Revman Zim
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
264
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 22:26:07 -
[1559] - Quote
Radkiel wrote:Revman Zim wrote:To all the players threatening to unsub their 2 dozen accounts because they can't cheat anymore with ISBoxer, realize that no one cares.
Your accounts do nothing for the game. They do not independently interact with game or other players. As it has been already pointed out, the PLEX used for those accounts will still be in the game and cash in CCP's wallet. Your presence is not needed for EVE to survive and prosper. In fact, with you gone the game is immediately better.
In order for a threat to work you have to be worth something to someone. ISBoxers have no value except to themselves. So you stopped by to tell us you don't care?
Typical ISBoxer reply. Cherry-pick a phrase and twist.
I believe wrote that NO ONE cares if they unsub their accounts.
But I will clarify. No one cares that YOU will be unsubbbing your accounts. You add nothing to the game and YOU and the rest of your ilk will not be missed. Your leaving will have no negative impact on EVE Online or CCP's finances. You have zero worth to the EVE Universe. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 22:27:55 -
[1560] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
If CCP were to introduce a text-based minigame that you must play in order to dock in a station, people would complain. Sure, it adds to the "realism" and whatnot, but in the end it isn't necessary. The automated docking system makes life simple for you. Same thing with broadcasting keys and and mouse strokes. It's nice that we were able to use them, but removing them just adds a little minigame that we must play.
how is this related to topic, idgi. If you dont like how the game is played, using tools violating EULA is a safe way to get you removed from the game. Nolak Ataru wrote:
Mass reporting of people who are not breaking any rules is a easy way to get banned yourself. Keep that in mind.
noone is talking about mass petitioning, just in cases where use of isbot or similar tool is obvious. Nolak Ataru wrote:I can't say much about bombing as I've only participated in 2 bombing runs with Bombers Bar. But from what I learned about those massive bombing runs that removed an entire fleet was that they were AFK on a station/gate or stuck in a drag bubble 50km off a gate, not that they were somehow unable to react because of the bomber pilot himself. While I don't bomb myself, I would have understood CCP's reasons against multibox bombing. problem with bombers they can wipe out entire fleets. Being able to achieve something like that, which would otherwise require coordination of a decent group of people, by a single person, is way too OP and because of this I welcome this policy change effectively removing those isbotting bomber guys.
Easyer to cordinate Trougth teamspeak + players working tougether. Its not going to change if People just find ways around it (etc having a lot off keypads to assaign modules to. like one rack off keys to unlcloak, and one rack off keys to bomb. (i have tryed bombing by multiboxing myself With 3 accounts) and if its easy? no, have i ever launched an bomb in wrong direction? yes.. there're allways someone complaining about something. :P, oh well. |
|
|
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
269
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 22:30:39 -
[1561] - Quote
Great change, long overdue.
Unlike many in here, I do feel bad for the folks who are negatively affected by this. They invested a considerable amount of their time and energy building their huge fleets of miners and bombers and sansha-murderers within the rules of the game. And now they're hosed.
But it's for the greater good.
I might actually have to start logging in again soon. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 22:35:03 -
[1562] - Quote
AkJon Ferguson wrote:Great change, long overdue.
Unlike many in here, I do feel bad for the folks who are negatively affected by this. They invested a considerable amount of their time and energy building their huge fleets of miners and bombers and sansha-murderers within the rules of the game. And now they're hosed.
But it's for the greater good.
I might actually have to start logging in again soon.
It wont effect miners pretty mutch at all, and who think so have wrong :)
I wish i enjoyed mining tho, But i dont Well, I dont see how this going to effect miners at all, No need for brodcasting when mining, you got pretty mutch what you need allready, -> Fleet Warp <- 'etc |
Radkiel
Everlasting Vendetta.
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 22:35:14 -
[1563] - Quote
Revman Zim wrote:Radkiel wrote:Revman Zim wrote:To all the players threatening to unsub their 2 dozen accounts because they can't cheat anymore with ISBoxer, realize that no one cares.
Your accounts do nothing for the game. They do not independently interact with game or other players. As it has been already pointed out, the PLEX used for those accounts will still be in the game and cash in CCP's wallet. Your presence is not needed for EVE to survive and prosper. In fact, with you gone the game is immediately better.
In order for a threat to work you have to be worth something to someone. ISBoxers have no value except to themselves. So you stopped by to tell us you don't care? Typical ISBoxer reply. Cherry-pick a phrase and twist. I believe wrote that NO ONE cares if they unsub their accounts. But I will clarify. No one cares that YOU will be unsubbbing your accounts. You add nothing to the game and YOU and the rest of your ilk will not be missed. Your leaving will have no negative impact on EVE Online or CCP's finances. You have zero worth to the EVE Universe.
Typical Hater reply. Blah, blah, blah....But just for the record I'll be sticking around. Just so you know, you are in no way, shape, form or fashion the least bit cleaver.
Have a wonder day! |
Ssabat Thraxx
Dominion Tenebrarum
1048
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 22:52:29 -
[1564] - Quote
Irya Boone wrote:2014 the year of the tears
Tears of FW farmers ( with the dps check on NPC in plexes) :)
Tears of insta jumper all over the map in 2 minutes :)
Tears of i can control 15 accounts with one mouse and one keyboard..
I'm telling you the year of Tears
if i've forgotten some TEARS please remind me :)
It's GLORIOUS, isn't it??
\m/ O.o \m/
"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
|
Ssabat Thraxx
Dominion Tenebrarum
1048
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 22:53:35 -
[1565] - Quote
Revman Zim wrote:Radkiel wrote:Revman Zim wrote:To all the players threatening to unsub their 2 dozen accounts because they can't cheat anymore with ISBoxer, realize that no one cares.
Your accounts do nothing for the game. They do not independently interact with game or other players. As it has been already pointed out, the PLEX used for those accounts will still be in the game and cash in CCP's wallet. Your presence is not needed for EVE to survive and prosper. In fact, with you gone the game is immediately better.
In order for a threat to work you have to be worth something to someone. ISBoxers have no value except to themselves. So you stopped by to tell us you don't care? Typical ISBoxer reply. Cherry-pick a phrase and twist. I believe wrote that NO ONE cares if they unsub their accounts. But I will clarify. No one cares that YOU will be unsubbbing your accounts. You add nothing to the game and YOU and the rest of your ilk will not be missed. Your leaving will have no negative impact on EVE Online or CCP's finances. You have zero worth to the EVE Universe.
Here here!
Good riddance to bad rubbish!
\m/ O.o \m/
"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
|
Hafwolf
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 22:55:09 -
[1566] - Quote
Hey just a simple question I don't think the dev's will ever read this but.
Input Multiplexing my understanding that means taking multiple sources into one screen. So using ISboxer, eve window helper or any other program to arrange displays of multiple characters and information onto one screen is against the EULA. In ISboxer you can use the Video FX to put overviews and mod buttons in the screen of the first pilot or on a black screen. My understanding this is now against the Rules. Even though I am clicking on a video feed of the second toon this can be considered multiplexing. Am I right in this Understanding of the new EULA.
Thank you |
Revman Zim
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
265
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 22:57:04 -
[1567] - Quote
Hafwolf wrote:Hey just a simple question I don't think the dev's will ever read this but.
Input Multiplexing my understanding that means taking multiple sources into one screen. So using ISboxer, eve window helper or any other program to arrange displays of multiple characters and information onto one screen is against the EULA. In ISboxer you can use the Video FX to put overviews and mod buttons in the screen of the first pilot or on a black screen. My understanding this is now against the Rules. Even though I am clicking on a video feed of the second toon this can be considered multiplexing. Am I right in this Understanding of the new EULA.
Thank you
Read page 1 of this thread. |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:08:44 -
[1568] - Quote
Telistra wrote:I can see it now...
ISBoxer Development Patch Notes:
- Added new input delay timer to for broadcasts
I don't think you understand how much Lax works on ISBoxer to stay compliant with the games that support the use of ISBoxer. It seems that this thread is filled to the brim with people jumping on the ISBotter bandwagon complaining about something they do not have a full understanding of.
ShadowandLight seemed to have a good grasp of what this could mean in the future and I share some of this concerns regarding these changes.
My personal concerns are highlighted in this post I made in this thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5243627#post5243627
To add to this, as a heavy user of ISBoxer, I am remembering the first time key and mouse duplication was introduced to the multiboxing community. I remembered how strong and limitless the potential was for multiboxing with the introduction of such a feature. I am also remembering players dealing with GMs and devs trying to sort out whether this could be bannable or if it was considered an exploit.
After much debate with different GMs and devs of many companies, the decision was split. That is why we see many games not allow the usage of such programs, and some going so far as to not allow multiboxing at all in any form by limiting the amount of clients a single computer can run.
The broadcast ability has made some of the veteran multiboxer a bit more lazy with their setups or allowed the more resourceful ones to create some severely complicated setups that do some amazing things.
With that said, I do find that the argument of multiplexing is botting or not to be arguing a very fine line. Semantics. Whether we, as the player base, agrees with the decision to ban this type of automation is completely in the hands of CCP. I do ask for CCP to please continue to monitor the situation and prevent waves of false bans after the January 1st date. There will be many resourceful multiboxers looking to continue their playstyle even with the new roadblock that comes with the ban of multiplexing, but I find that the difficulty and problem solving that comes with setting up a multibox setup is what makes multiboxing so much fun for so many of us that enjoy this niche style of gameplay.
I would also like to state that the slippery slope argument that ShadowandLight presented in his post is a bit flawed. The base mechanics and gameplay for Eve online relies heavily on alts. A game that relies so heavily on alts really cannot ban "multiboxing" as that is a main part of this game. Even CCP understands this with the promotion of power of 2. I do not think CCP will ever take the steps to banning multiaccount playstyle as that would hurt their game far too much.
As for those over privileged players arguing against multiboxing, needs to take a strong look at their arguments. Are you arguing because you truly feel that multiboxing in its truest form is ( ie having more than 1 client open at a time ) is actually cheating or if your argument is solely based on the premise that "if i cant have it no one else can" mentality.
As stated, the argument for multiplexing as botting is semantics and I understand both sides of the argument. I stood by the side of non botting because that is what CCP stated and at the time it was compliant of the EULA. Now that CCP has stated that it will no longer be compliant, I will stand by CCP regardless of what I think about the ruling.
TLDR; There isn't one. Read the post. |
Radkiel
Everlasting Vendetta.
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:11:41 -
[1569] - Quote
One last time. These changes will have very little effect on me. I don't like the way broadcasting works with EvE so I don't use it. I will miss mouse broadcast for a few things. Most of you are mistaking tears for explanations on what most of us use Isboxer for. But like most multi-box haters , you simply refused to see the other side of the argument. The bots will still be here January 1st and you will have to find another scapegoat to blame your unhappiness on .
So just for clarification.
No one is crying.
Very few will quit the game.
Botting will still be here.
And you will still need to blame someone for ruining YOUR game.
o7 |
Hafwolf
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:15:37 -
[1570] - Quote
I have read it. I am asking if this is correct interpretation of the word.
I run 3 account in eve I use eve window helper or IS boxer to see my screens. My understanding is that doing this is now wrong. I ask the GM for some clearance on this was told to post my questions on this forum. My reading that page sounds like anything form having a local of a scout on the same screen as a main is now against the EULA. |
|
|
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:17:47 -
[1571] - Quote
Hafwolf wrote:I have read it. I am asking if this is correct interpretation of the word.
I run 3 account in eve I use eve window helper or IS boxer to see my screens. My understanding is that doing this is now wrong. I ask the GM for some clearance on this was told to post my questions on this forum. My reading that page sounds like anything form having a local of a scout on the same screen as a main is now against the EULA.
Window management of ISBoxer is not against the EULA come January 1st. Any form of broadcasting or duplication will be against the EULA come January 1st. This includes mouse broadcasting and keyboard broadcasting. |
Revman Zim
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
265
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:20:24 -
[1572] - Quote
Hafwolf wrote:I have read it. I am asking if this is correct interpretation of the word.
I run 3 account in eve I use eve window helper or IS boxer to see my screens. My understanding is that doing this is now wrong. I ask the GM for some clearance on this was told to post my questions on this forum. My reading that page sounds like anything form having a local of a scout on the same screen as a main is now against the EULA.
From the first post on the first page:
Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇóEVE Online client settings-á
GÇóWindow positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
GÇóThe login process-á
Reading is hard. |
Hott Pocket
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:22:14 -
[1573] - Quote
The lack of basic reading comprehension in this thread is simply staggering.
Also, save yourselves some pain: maybe say that ISBoxer is "effectively banned" instead of saying it's banned and being corrected for it another hundred times? |
RenoIdo
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
55
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:23:30 -
[1574] - Quote
o/
As someone who multiboxed 4 ships to pvp in lowsec over the last year, I see people in this thread aren't realising a few things.
If I'm flying 4 ships I am risking 4 times more isk than 1 ship, I am subject to 4x as much misclicks, lag, if I get socked closed I loose 4 ships not 1 ect.
4x the risk for 4x the reward in a sandbox mmo sounds completely fair to me.
However, I believe isboxer and input multiplication should be banned from highsec only
As far as I have read people seem more upset about single isboxers ice mining or running incursions with 20 accounts, almost complete safe in highsec, and it is a big problem. But for pvp its really much harder to fly 4 ships than 1, more than people think I suspect. All the time I am loosing ships because one does not enter warp with the others ect. I am a target that people love to go after because they know multiboxers have weaknesses that individual players do not. If you think you can fly 4 ships in pvp as easy as you can fly one try it before jan 1. It is not easy at all.
|
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:26:57 -
[1575] - Quote
RenoIdo wrote:
o/
As someone who multiboxed 4 ships to pvp in lowsec over the last year, I see people in this thread aren't realising a few things.
If I'm flying 4 ships I am risking 4 times more isk than 1 ship, I am subject to 4x as much misclicks, lag, if I get socked closed I loose 4 ships not 1 ect.
4x the risk for 4x the reward in a sandbox mmo sounds completely fair to me.
However, I believe isboxer and input multiplication should be banned from highsec only
As far as I have read people seem more upset about single isboxers ice mining or running incursions with 20 accounts, almost complete safe in highsec, and it is a big problem. But for pvp its really much harder to fly 4 ships than 1, more than people think I suspect. All the time I am loosing ships because one does not enter warp with the others ect. I am a target that people love to go after because they know multiboxers have weaknesses that individual players do not. If you think you can fly 4 ships in pvp as easy as you can fly one try it before jan 1. It is not easy at all.
As an avid pvp multiboxer of EVERY type of ship, I understand your argument about 4x ships 4x risk. When I field a cruiser on each of my toons, I am risking a battleship. When i field a battleshiep, I am risking a carrier. When I field carriers, i am risking a super. In raw isk anyway. So I understand that.
Banning a type of gameplay in a single area of the game tends to be sticky and I appreciate CCP's consistency in their implementation of this policy. |
Stragak
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:28:19 -
[1576] - Quote
THE BEST THING EVER!!
"Oh look, the cat is sitting in the litter box and pooping over the side again" every time we go through these "rough patches".
In good humor, and slight annoyance,
Boiglio -á-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238130&p=82
|
Radkiel
Everlasting Vendetta.
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:30:10 -
[1577] - Quote
He needs a new hobby |
Truatho Bannon
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:36:21 -
[1578] - Quote
Revman Zim wrote:Radkiel wrote:Revman Zim wrote:To all the players threatening to unsub their 2 dozen accounts because they can't cheat anymore with ISBoxer, realize that no one cares.
Your accounts do nothing for the game. They do not independently interact with game or other players. As it has been already pointed out, the PLEX used for those accounts will still be in the game and cash in CCP's wallet. Your presence is not needed for EVE to survive and prosper. In fact, with you gone the game is immediately better.
In order for a threat to work you have to be worth something to someone. ISBoxers have no value except to themselves. So you stopped by to tell us you don't care? Typical ISBoxer reply. Cherry-pick a phrase and twist. I believe wrote that NO ONE cares if they unsub their accounts. But I will clarify. No one cares that YOU will be unsubbbing your accounts. You add nothing to the game and YOU and the rest of your ilk will not be missed. Your leaving will have no negative impact on EVE Online or CCP's finances. You have zero worth to the EVE Universe.
It is already established amongst the community that multiboxers are paying for their accounts whether plexing or not. To exchange in game currency(a fluctuating player-driven market resource) for something another player has paid RL money for(PLEX) is both allowed and supported by CCP. Your inability to articulate the distinction and impact of multiboxers(read: multicasters) account subscription dollars versus non multicasters subscription numbers in this context is your own failure and not that of the multicasters.
Years of contrary decisions and policy enforcement by CCP suddenly being reversed is now rightly being questioned and belittled by these multiboxers(multicasters). I would submit that if the total subscription value of this demographic of EVE players were more substantial, this announcement would not have been made. The question then becomes is that a game you would still wish to play? and what "worth" as you say, would they have upon it then?
MULTIcasters have value to everyone in that they affect the in-game economy. Whether you acknowledge that fact or not is irrelevant. The price of PLEX has already dropped due to this announcement. Yes the price is now lower, and also the demand will now be lower as a result. When you can't move as many PLEX will you still feel the same way? what about if the amount of PLEX you moved was 2x less? 5x? 10x? 20x? at what point does it change from they have no value to they have value and now your bottom line is affected substantially?
I care that they are unsubbing. I get less ISK for my PLEX now. I also can't move as many PLEX because demand is lower. They added something for me and a lot of other people, now it has negatively affected me and I don't like it.
|
Volcane Nephilim
The Magic Roundabout Initiative
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:43:24 -
[1579] - Quote
Yi Hyori wrote:
.
.
As for those over privileged players arguing against multiboxing, needs to take a strong look at their arguments. Are you arguing because you truly feel that multiboxing in its truest form is ( ie having more than 1 client open at a time ) is actually cheating or if your argument is solely based on the premise that "if i cant have it no one else can" mentality.
.
.
TLDR; There isn't one. Read the post.
Read the OP. You can multibox all you want, people do not want to stop multi boxing. You can even multi box with this tool in question - it's not being banned.
What you cannot do is broadcast actions. That's all.
Indeed, read the post. |
Alexandr Ranger
Light of the moon
Fraternity.
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:47:01 -
[1580] - Quote
excuse me
will broadcast char selecting,docking and logging off be banned?
things like this doesn't seem to have an impact on the EVE universe |
|
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
Spaceship Bebop
2647
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:49:48 -
[1581] - Quote
Going out of Business PLEX sale! Contact me for details! |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
Spaceship Bebop
2647
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:51:44 -
[1582] - Quote
RenoIdo wrote:However, I believe isboxer and input multiplication should be banned from highsec only
Let me guess, this player (and his 100 alts named Reynaldo, Ranaldo, Renaldo, Renolda, etc...) does not ever go into high sec... |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:52:28 -
[1583] - Quote
Volcane Nephilim wrote:Yi Hyori wrote:
.
.
As for those over privileged players arguing against multiboxing, needs to take a strong look at their arguments. Are you arguing because you truly feel that multiboxing in its truest form is ( ie having more than 1 client open at a time ) is actually cheating or if your argument is solely based on the premise that "if i cant have it no one else can" mentality.
.
.
TLDR; There isn't one. Read the post.
Read the OP. You can multibox all you want, people do not want to stop multi boxing. You can even multi box with this tool in question - it's not being banned. What you cannot do is broadcast actions. That's all. Indeed, read the post.
I was arguing a point made by shadowandlight which I forgot to link in my post. In retrospect, i probably should have linked his post as well to clarify, but at the time I couldn't find the original post and was working off a quote. I was going to go back and find the original, but I forgot and submitted the post anyway.
And to clarify yet again, Shadowandlight was arguing a slippery slope point of view that this could eventually lead to multiboxing being the new topic that players raise their pitchforks at. IE off grid boosting. |
Telistra
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:53:43 -
[1584] - Quote
Yi Hyori wrote:Telistra wrote:I can see it now...
ISBoxer Development Patch Notes:
- Added new input delay timer to for broadcasts
I don't think you understand how much Lax works on ISBoxer to stay compliant with the games that support the use of ISBoxer. It seems that this thread is filled to the brim with people jumping on the ISBotter bandwagon complaining about something they do not have a full understanding of. ShadowandLight seemed to have a good grasp of what this could mean in the future and I share some of this concerns regarding these changes. My personal concerns are highlighted in this post I made in this thread. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5243627#post5243627
To add to this, as a heavy user of ISBoxer, I am remembering the first time key and mouse duplication was introduced to the multiboxing community. I remembered how strong and limitless the potential was for multiboxing with the introduction of such a feature. I am also remembering players dealing with GMs and devs trying to sort out whether this could be bannable or if it was considered an exploit. After much debate with different GMs and devs of many companies, the decision was split. That is why we see many games not allow the usage of such programs, and some going so far as to not allow multiboxing at all in any form by limiting the amount of clients a single computer can run. The broadcast ability has made some of the veteran multiboxer a bit more lazy with their setups or allowed the more resourceful ones to create some severely complicated setups that do some amazing things. With that said, I do find that the argument of multiplexing is botting or not to be arguing a very fine line. Semantics. Whether we, as the player base, agrees with the decision to ban this type of automation is completely in the hands of CCP. I do ask for CCP to please continue to monitor the situation and prevent waves of false bans after the January 1st date. There will be many resourceful multiboxers looking to continue their playstyle even with the new roadblock that comes with the ban of multiplexing, but I find that the difficulty and problem solving that comes with setting up a multibox setup is what makes multiboxing so much fun for so many of us that enjoy this niche style of gameplay. I would also like to state that the slippery slope argument that ShadowandLight presented in his post is a bit flawed. The base mechanics and gameplay for Eve online relies heavily on alts. A game that relies so heavily on alts really cannot ban "multiboxing" as that is a main part of this game. Even CCP understands this with the promotion of power of 2. I do not think CCP will ever take the steps to banning multiaccount playstyle as that would hurt their game far too much. As for those over privileged players arguing against multiboxing, needs to take a strong look at their arguments. Are you arguing because you truly feel that multiboxing in its truest form is ( ie having more than 1 client open at a time ) is actually cheating or if your argument is solely based on the premise that "if i cant have it no one else can" mentality. As stated, the argument for multiplexing as botting is semantics and I understand both sides of the argument. I stood by the side of non botting because that is what CCP stated and at the time it was compliant of the EULA. Now that CCP has stated that it will no longer be compliant, I will stand by CCP regardless of what I think about the ruling. TLDR; There isn't one. Read the post.
Thank you for your detailed response to my sarcasm that the developer might just adjust just his/her software. It was well thought out and very articulate, and has done nothing for my current opinion.
:-) |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
Spaceship Bebop
2647
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:54:01 -
[1585] - Quote
Telistra wrote:I can see it now...
ISBoxer Development Patch Notes:
- Added new input delay timer to for broadcasts
Yeah, that'll be so much harder to detect.
|
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:54:34 -
[1586] - Quote
Alexandr Ranger wrote:excuse me will broadcast char selecting,docking and logging off be banned? things like this doesn't seem to have an impact on the EVE universe
Docking yes, logging in and off no.
According to the original post made by Faclon, multiplexing or any form of key duplication within the eve universe is going to be a bannable offense. With that said, to be safe, come January 1st, I would just simply disable all forms of keyboard and mouse broadcast, including repeater regions, and play that way. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
267
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 23:59:44 -
[1587] - Quote
Volcane Nephilim wrote:Yi Hyori wrote:
.
As for those over privileged players arguing against multiboxing, needs to take a strong look at their arguments. Are you arguing because you truly feel that multiboxing in its truest form is ( ie having more than 1 client open at a time ) is actually cheating or if your argument is solely based on the premise that "if i cant have it no one else can" mentality.
.
TLDR; There isn't one. Read the post.
Read the OP. You can multibox all you want, people do not want to stop multi boxing. You can even multi box with this tool in question - it's not being banned. What you cannot do is broadcast actions. That's all. Indeed, read the post.
If you aren't a multiboxer, you don't understand the trouble we've had in dealing with GMs and Devs who are ignorant of how it works (Seagull, my offer still stands on us sitting down and I'll explain how hard it is to multibox.) not to mention the difficulty of setting up ISBoxer. ISBoxer isn't a set of snow tires you pop onto your car and suddenly you can drive no problem in the snow. There are hundreds of settings you have to tweak and modify in order to get it to work. It's closer to building your own car from scratch starting with nothing but an engine and a set of wheels. Sure, you can weld something together that would look like it's the car from Half Life 2, and it'll work. Or you can spend more time and effort on it and it'll look like a Ferrari. The problem is, everyone's looking at the Ferrari and saying that you only spent the time and effort you would have on the HL2 car.
I see this same argument coming from left-wing gun nuts. You take one radical example (an assault rifle used in the military) and apply that to everything that fires bullets (hunting rifles used for putting meat on the table, pistols for self defense, shotguns for clay shooting.)
I challenge ANY CCP DEV OR GM to sit down with me and my friends, and we can discuss how hard it is to setup one of those videos you see on youtube of the guy running 12 Nightmares and a Basi. |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:01:33 -
[1588] - Quote
Telistra wrote:
Thank you for your detailed response to my sarcasm that the developer might just adjust just his/her software. It was well thought out and very articulate, and has done nothing for my current opinion.
:-)
The entire point of a forum is rhetoric in its truest form. To sway the opinion of another with words. It seems that I have not succeeded. Some will firmly hold unto their point of view and some can be swayed.
Personally, I prefer to make non biased and informative posts / suggestions, a sentiment which isn't shared with the entire group, but I find myself fighting an upward battle at times. But I seem to be digressing from the subject at hand.
I am an avid user of the ISBoxer suite, and have been so for a few years now. I have used the software due to its compliance with the EULA of the games that I use with the program. If for whatever reason that statement becomes false, I will discontinue the usage of said program.
|
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:04:16 -
[1589] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Volcane Nephilim wrote:Yi Hyori wrote:
.
As for those over privileged players arguing against multiboxing, needs to take a strong look at their arguments. Are you arguing because you truly feel that multiboxing in its truest form is ( ie having more than 1 client open at a time ) is actually cheating or if your argument is solely based on the premise that "if i cant have it no one else can" mentality.
.
TLDR; There isn't one. Read the post.
Read the OP. You can multibox all you want, people do not want to stop multi boxing. You can even multi box with this tool in question - it's not being banned. What you cannot do is broadcast actions. That's all. Indeed, read the post. If you aren't a multiboxer, you don't understand the trouble we've had in dealing with GMs and Devs who are ignorant of how it works (Seagull, my offer still stands on us sitting down and I'll explain how hard it is to multibox.) not to mention the difficulty of setting up ISBoxer. ISBoxer isn't a set of snow tires you pop onto your car and suddenly you can drive no problem in the snow. There are hundreds of settings you have to tweak and modify in order to get it to work. It's closer to building your own car from scratch starting with nothing but an engine and a set of wheels. Sure, you can weld something together that would look like it's the car from Half Life 2, and it'll work. Or you can spend more time and effort on it and it'll look like a Ferrari. The problem is, everyone's looking at the Ferrari and saying that you only spent the time and effort you would have on the HL2 car. I see this same argument coming from left-wing gun nuts. You take one radical example (an assault rifle used in the military) and apply that to everything that fires bullets (hunting rifles used for putting meat on the table, pistols for self defense, shotguns for clay shooting.) I challenge ANY CCP DEV OR GM to sit down with me and my friends, and we can discuss how hard it is to setup one of those videos you see on youtube of the guy running 12 Nightmares and a Basi.
Believe it or not, there are CCP devs that use the ISBoxer program for their playstyle as well. As I understand, they are quite familiar with the intricacies of ISBoxer and how the program works. I believe their decision to ban the duplication portion of the program stems from their experience with the program.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
267
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:07:53 -
[1590] - Quote
Yi Hyori wrote:Believe it or not, there are CCP devs that use the ISBoxer program for their playstyle as well. As I understand, they are quite familiar with the intricacies of ISBoxer and how the program works. I believe their decision to ban the duplication portion of the program stems from their experience with the program.
[CITATION NEEDED]
I'd love to have a chat with one of them and discuss the intricacies and failures of the current ban. Anyone who has spent more than a half hour thinking about it has already found obvious solutions to bypass the duplication ban. |
|
|
Blackhole's Revenge
Hoogalish Enterprises
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:11:56 -
[1591] - Quote
Why doesn't CCP create access for controlling multiple accounts on their terms, so it can still be done but with less automation? You can't take away controlling 5-10 accounts.
Say I have 3 accounts all used for combat. Should I not be able to have a central location for all my modules and formations for my fleet to fly in automatically? Shouldn't I be able to jump my squad on a gate or stop them from attacking and recall drones. I like more control over less. I don't use ISboxer but i know some people that have and i have had decent explanations of what it can do.
I think the best thing about eve is that playing multiple accounts at once gives you such a huge advantage. This is a great selling point. I'd buy more than 3 if I could control them more centrally. Even if it was just a single squad of 10. That would be super cool!
I always imagined commanding my own fleet of ships one day in eve. I don't think I'm the only one.
If CCP takes control of how multiple accounts are interfaced and gives more options and ease of use you might get more people running multiple accounts. I think limiting access that was already there is a bad idea.
Be awesome if CCP took charge of interfacing with multiple accounts. With limits but legitimate ease of access. Otherwise you're gonna just have people hacking the game regularly.
You wont completely eliminate the advantage and a power shift will happen. The people that can continue to do this without CCP knowing and those who cannot. |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:18:51 -
[1592] - Quote
Blackhole's Revenge wrote:Why doesn't CCP create access for controlling multiple accounts on their terms, so it can still be done but with less automation? You can't take away controlling 5-10 accounts.
Say I have 3 accounts all used for combat. Should I not be able to have a central location for all my modules and formations for my fleet to fly in automatically? Shouldn't I be able to jump my squad on a gate or stop them from attacking and recall drones. I like more control over less. I don't use ISboxer but i know some people that have and i have had decent explanations of what it can do.
I think the best thing about eve is that playing multiple accounts at once gives you such a huge advantage. This is a great selling point. I'd buy more than 3 if I could control them more centrally. Even if it was just a single squad of 10. That would be super cool!
I always imagined commanding my own fleet of ships one day in eve. I don't think I'm the only one.
If CCP takes control of how multiple accounts are interfaced and gives more options and ease of use you might get more people running multiple accounts. I think limiting access that was already there is a bad idea.
Be awesome if CCP took charge of interfacing with multiple accounts. With limits but legitimate ease of access. Otherwise you're gonna just have people hacking the game regularly.
You wont completely eliminate the advantage and a power shift will happen. The people that can continue to do this without CCP knowing and those who cannot.
The premise of the game is actually not for a single player to control multiple ships, but that an individual pilot can have a significant impact on the universe by himself. Unfortunately, the game mechanics involve players using multiple alts to get some ofthe more mundane things accomplished in a timely manner.
The removal of duplicated mouse and keystrokes is to curb the over excessive use of ISboxer in niche situations. It does affect the players ability to simultaneously control multiple characters, but the duplication feature has been a crutch the multiboxing community has embraced since its introduction.
There are plenty of other tools built into ISBoxer to aide multiboxing, its just that CCP has deemed the main / major tool of ISboxer to no longer be compliant with their EULA. |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:20:20 -
[1593] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Yi Hyori wrote:Believe it or not, there are CCP devs that use the ISBoxer program for their playstyle as well. As I understand, they are quite familiar with the intricacies of ISBoxer and how the program works. I believe their decision to ban the duplication portion of the program stems from their experience with the program.
[CITATION NEEDED] I'd love to have a chat with one of them and discuss the intricacies and failures of the current ban. Anyone who has spent more than a half hour thinking about it has already found obvious solutions to bypass the duplication ban.
I'm not sure on what your stance is on CCP's current stance on the subject. Do you believe they should roll back this change in stance or do you believe that the changes are insufficient to stop multiboxed fleets?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2456
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:24:36 -
[1594] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:white male privilege wrote:if the multiboxer continues mining after the plex requirement is met, he starts making ten times what someone in a solo miner will You're saying that as if ISBoxer is some kind of special privilege that's only available to the select few Chosen Ones or something.
It is available to those who are willing to pay the fee...that makes it very much like a Micro Transaction that gives those willing to pay an edge. Sorry, you've raised some interesting points in the past, but on this one you are quite simply totally wrong.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Ssabat Thraxx
Dominion Tenebrarum
1048
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:25:54 -
[1595] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Volcane Nephilim wrote:Yi Hyori wrote:
.
As for those over privileged players arguing against multiboxing, needs to take a strong look at their arguments. Are you arguing because you truly feel that multiboxing in its truest form is ( ie having more than 1 client open at a time ) is actually cheating or if your argument is solely based on the premise that "if i cant have it no one else can" mentality.
.
TLDR; There isn't one. Read the post.
Read the OP. You can multibox all you want, people do not want to stop multi boxing. You can even multi box with this tool in question - it's not being banned. What you cannot do is broadcast actions. That's all. Indeed, read the post. If you aren't a multiboxer, you don't understand the trouble we've had in dealing with GMs and Devs who are ignorant of how it works (Seagull, my offer still stands on us sitting down and I'll explain how hard it is to multibox.) not to mention the difficulty of setting up ISBoxer. ISBoxer isn't a set of snow tires you pop onto your car and suddenly you can drive no problem in the snow. There are hundreds of settings you have to tweak and modify in order to get it to work. It's closer to building your own car from scratch starting with nothing but an engine and a set of wheels. Sure, you can weld something together that would look like it's the car from Half Life 2, and it'll work. Or you can spend more time and effort on it and it'll look like a Ferrari. The problem is, everyone's looking at the Ferrari and saying that you only spent the time and effort you would have on the HL2 car. I see this same argument coming from left-wing gun nuts. You take one radical example (an assault rifle used in the military) and apply that to everything that fires bullets (hunting rifles used for putting meat on the table, pistols for self defense, shotguns for clay shooting.) I challenge ANY CCP DEV OR GM to sit down with me and my friends, and we can discuss how hard it is to setup one of those videos you see on youtube of the guy running 12 Nightmares and a Basi.
So what you're saying is that because it's hard to get your cheat set up, it's not cheating. Gotcha.
\m/ O.o \m/
"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2456
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:30:00 -
[1596] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
If you aren't a multiboxer, you don't understand the trouble we've had in dealing with GMs and Devs who are ignorant of how it works (Seagull, my offer still stands on us sitting down and I'll explain how hard it is to multibox.) not to mention the difficulty of setting up ISBoxer. ISBoxer isn't a set of snow tires you pop onto your car and suddenly you can drive no problem in the snow. There are hundreds of settings you have to tweak and modify in order to get it to work. It's closer to building your own car from scratch starting with nothing but an engine and a set of wheels. Sure, you can weld something together that would look like it's the car from Half Life 2, and it'll work. Or you can spend more time and effort on it and it'll look like a Ferrari. The problem is, everyone's looking at the Ferrari and saying that you only spent the time and effort you would have on the HL2 car.
Blah, blah, blah. This is almost surely true of any homemade macro program as well. So what that it might entail effort, that does not justify the accelerated pace at which ISBoxers can acquire resources over those who don't use the program just as it does not justify macros, bots, and other forms of automation.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2456
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:44:27 -
[1597] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Yi Hyori wrote:Believe it or not, there are CCP devs that use the ISBoxer program for their playstyle as well. As I understand, they are quite familiar with the intricacies of ISBoxer and how the program works. I believe their decision to ban the duplication portion of the program stems from their experience with the program.
[CITATION NEEDED] I'd love to have a chat with one of them and discuss the intricacies and failures of the current ban. Anyone who has spent more than a half hour thinking about it has already found obvious solutions to bypass the duplication ban.
So let me see if I understand this...
Either you are saying people have found a way to issue multiple commands across multiple accounts with a single "input" (i.e. button click, mouse click, whatever) that CCP wont be able to detect--i.e. they are masking their cheating....so CCP should give up and let people cheat more easily.
Or you are saying you've found a work around to the limitations imposed by ISBoxer that are in fact not in violation of the EULA...which leads to the question, why all your incessant whining about the limitations imposed on ISBoxer?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Anne Dieu-le-veut
Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People
159
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:46:41 -
[1598] - Quote
I'll believe it when I see it. If they actually stick to this, it will be a great change!
My understanding these massive ISboxers users all pay for their accounts with PLEX, so if they all rage quit or get banned, that should cut into the demand for PLEX, driving down the price. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
267
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:46:45 -
[1599] - Quote
Yi Hyori wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Yi Hyori wrote:Believe it or not, there are CCP devs that use the ISBoxer program for their playstyle as well. As I understand, they are quite familiar with the intricacies of ISBoxer and how the program works. I believe their decision to ban the duplication portion of the program stems from their experience with the program.
[CITATION NEEDED] I'd love to have a chat with one of them and discuss the intricacies and failures of the current ban. Anyone who has spent more than a half hour thinking about it has already found obvious solutions to bypass the duplication ban. I'm not sure on what your stance is on CCP's current stance on the subject. Do you believe they should roll back this change in stance or do you believe that the changes are insufficient to stop multiboxed fleets?
I'm of the rare opinion that CCP needs to either repeal their inane changes, or go all the way and ban all such programs because there are hundreds of work-arounds that will cause headaches for the GMs.
Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
If you aren't a multiboxer, you don't understand the trouble we've had in dealing with GMs and Devs who are ignorant of how it works (Seagull, my offer still stands on us sitting down and I'll explain how hard it is to multibox.) not to mention the difficulty of setting up ISBoxer. ISBoxer isn't a set of snow tires you pop onto your car and suddenly you can drive no problem in the snow. There are hundreds of settings you have to tweak and modify in order to get it to work. It's closer to building your own car from scratch starting with nothing but an engine and a set of wheels. Sure, you can weld something together that would look like it's the car from Half Life 2, and it'll work. Or you can spend more time and effort on it and it'll look like a Ferrari. The problem is, everyone's looking at the Ferrari and saying that you only spent the time and effort you would have on the HL2 car.
Blah, blah, blah. This is almost surely true of any homemade macro program as well. So what that it might entail effort, that does not justify the accelerated pace at which ISBoxers can acquire resources over those who don't use the program just as it does not justify macros, bots, and other forms of automation.
For the thousandth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a PER. TOON. BASIS.
CCP themselves have stated this.
If the clause was on a per-human basis, CCP would have to ban all forms of multi-account usage. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2456
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:48:52 -
[1600] - Quote
RenoIdo wrote:o/
As someone who multiboxed 4 ships to pvp in lowsec over the last year, I see people in this thread aren't realising a few things.
If I'm flying 4 ships I am risking 4 times more isk than 1 ship, I am subject to 4x as much misclicks, lag, if I get socked closed I loose 4 ships not 1 ect.
4x the risk for 4x the reward in a sandbox mmo sounds completely fair to me.
However, I believe isboxer and input multiplication should be banned from highsec only
As far as I have read people seem more upset about single isboxers ice mining or running incursions with 20 accounts, almost complete safe in highsec, and it is a big problem. But for pvp its really much harder to fly 4 ships than 1, more than people think I suspect. All the time I am loosing ships because one does not enter warp with the others ect. I am a target that people love to go after because they know multiboxers have weaknesses that individual players do not. If you think you can fly 4 ships in pvp as easy as you can fly one try it before jan 1. It is not easy at all.
Edit:
Oh and -4 accounts. I have always found eve to be too simple to pvp with 1 character. I generally move in the one logical way for the fight im in, and turn on/overheat my modules in generally the same way every fight.
Flying 4 ships at once in pvp raised the skill ceiling for me in eve, allowing me more options for strategy, before and during fights, and made eve play much more like a modern mmo for me (requiring actual player skill).
Eve combat is too simple to keep hardcore skilled mmo players like me interested without multiboxing.
Well, the question is would you get 4x the reward without ISBoxer and multiboxing? If the answer is, "No," then ISBoxer has always been in violation of the EULA.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2456
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:52:07 -
[1601] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
For the thousandth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a PER. TOON. BASIS.
CCP themselves have stated this.
If the clause was on a per-human basis, CCP would have to ban all forms of multi-account usage.
Look, its really simple. If ISBoxer makes the single player more efficient...then that single player is getting more isk than the player not using ISBoxer.
Here is yet another way to explain it to you:
Player|10 accounts and ISBoxer earns 500 million isk/hour.
Player|10 accounts and no ISBoxer earns 450 million isk/hour.
Earnings per character:
Player|10 accounts and ISBoxer earns 50 million isk/hour/character.
Player|10 accounts and no ISBoxer earns 45 million isk/hour/character.
If it is exactly the same earnings with and without ISBoxer....why all of your blubbering?
Oh, and dude....go back and learn some 3rd grade math.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2456
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:54:31 -
[1602] - Quote
Anne Dieu-le-veut wrote:I'll believe it when I see it. If they actually stick to this, it will be a great change! My understanding these massive ISboxers users all pay for their accounts with PLEX, so if they all rage quit or get banned, that should cut into the demand for PLEX, driving down the price.
Already happened to some extent. The upward pressure on PLEX prices is likely more complicated than just ISBoxer, but the price has dropped.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:55:08 -
[1603] - Quote
I half agree with Nolack Ataru in that this type of change may lead to headaches for GMs who are sometimes poorly trained and inadequately equipped to handle certain situations.
Hence my post in requesting better training and preparation for GMs when this change does go through. I would hate for my accounts to be banned and go through the motion of appealing because someone though my fleet warp toons were being "isboxed" or "botted"
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
267
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:57:54 -
[1604] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
For the thousandth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a PER. TOON. BASIS.
CCP themselves have stated this.
If the clause was on a per-human basis, CCP would have to ban all forms of multi-account usage.
Look, its really simple.
You're right, it IS really simple. I'll say it slowly so you can understand.
The. Accellerated. Gameplay. Clause. Is. On. A. Per. Toon. Basis. Not. A. Per. Human. Basis. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2456
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 00:58:55 -
[1605] - Quote
Yi Hyori wrote:I half agree with Nolack Ataru in that this type of change may lead to headaches for GMs who are sometimes poorly trained and inadequately equipped to handle certain situations.
Hence my post in requesting better training and preparation for GMs when this change does go through. I would hate for my accounts to be banned and go through the motion of appealing because someone though my fleet warp toons were being "isboxed" or "botted"
What is it with this fetish about fleet warping? A feature deliberately built into the game by CCP and available to all Eve players right from the first time they start up the client and start playing.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:00:28 -
[1606] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
For the thousandth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a PER. TOON. BASIS.
CCP themselves have stated this.
If the clause was on a per-human basis, CCP would have to ban all forms of multi-account usage.
Look, its really simple. If ISBoxer makes the single player more efficient...then that single player is getting more isk than the player not using ISBoxer. Here is yet another way to explain it to you: Player|10 accounts and ISBoxer earns 500 million isk/hour. Player|10 accounts and no ISBoxer earns 450 million isk/hour. Earnings per character: Player|10 accounts and ISBoxer earns 50 million isk/hour/character. Player|10 accounts and no ISBoxer earns 45 million isk/hour/character. If it is exactly the same earnings with and without ISBoxer....why all of your blubbering? Oh, and dude....go back and learn some 3rd grade math.
This is arguing semantics again. Both arguing the same point but different parts of it.
Nolak is arguing that 10 players with 1account each will make more isk in 1 hour than 1 player with 10 accounts using ISBoxer
You are arguing that 1 player with 10 accounts will make more with ISBoxer than 1 player with 10 accounts without ISBoxer.
Different points are being argued here. Under the previous stance of CCP on ISBoxer the first point that Nolak was making was the reason for ISBoxer being deemed compliant with CCP's EULA.
Now with the change in stance, this argument doesn't really matter since the duplication method is now considered a bannable offense.
I believe the reason that CCP does not do a blanket ban on multiboxing software is that it does cross into what a person can and cannot do with their own computer. In essence the window management of Eve is no more than simply managing the viewing area of the eve client. If they were to ban the usage of window manipulation, you would in essence be banned for adjusting the viewing of the client by projecting the client unto a projector or using more than 1 monitor. I am using extreme cases, but all points need to be taken into consideration before actions are taken. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2456
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:01:19 -
[1607] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
For the thousandth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a PER. TOON. BASIS.
CCP themselves have stated this.
If the clause was on a per-human basis, CCP would have to ban all forms of multi-account usage.
Look, its really simple. You're right, it IS really simple. I'll say it slowly so you can understand. The. Accellerated. Gameplay. Clause. Is. On. A. Per. Toon. Basis. Not. A. Per. Human. Basis.
Your obstinacy on this is duly noted.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:01:27 -
[1608] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Yi Hyori wrote:I half agree with Nolack Ataru in that this type of change may lead to headaches for GMs who are sometimes poorly trained and inadequately equipped to handle certain situations.
Hence my post in requesting better training and preparation for GMs when this change does go through. I would hate for my accounts to be banned and go through the motion of appealing because someone though my fleet warp toons were being "isboxed" or "botted"
What is it with this fetish about fleet warping? A feature deliberately built into the game by CCP and available to all Eve players right from the first time they start up the client and start playing.
I am not saying that fleet warping is botting, I am arguing that a layman who views someone fleet warping their toons, will jump to the conclusion and use that as the basis of their petition or whatnot.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
267
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:05:07 -
[1609] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
For the thousandth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a PER. TOON. BASIS.
CCP themselves have stated this.
If the clause was on a per-human basis, CCP would have to ban all forms of multi-account usage.
Look, its really simple. You're right, it IS really simple. I'll say it slowly so you can understand. The. Accellerated. Gameplay. Clause. Is. On. A. Per. Toon. Basis. Not. A. Per. Human. Basis. Your obstinacy on this is duly noted.
At this point I'm pretty sure you're trolling. No man can be this stupid when it took me 30 seconds with the forum search feature to find numerous threads where CCP backhanded whiners who were trying to use the gameplay clause to ban ISBoxers. |
Capt JJ
Van Diemen's Demise
Pandemic Legion
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:08:45 -
[1610] - Quote
[/quote]
What is it with this fetish about fleet warping? A feature deliberately built into the game by CCP and available to all Eve players right from the first time they start up the client and start playing.[/quote]
[/quote]
But under the new EULA conditions Fleet / Squad / Wing warps are bannable.
As they come into navigation of multiple accounts with a single click.
Yes its built into the game but it is NOT excluded or has provisions under the EULA changes. |
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2456
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:11:24 -
[1611] - Quote
Yi Hyori wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
For the thousandth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a PER. TOON. BASIS.
CCP themselves have stated this.
If the clause was on a per-human basis, CCP would have to ban all forms of multi-account usage.
Look, its really simple. If ISBoxer makes the single player more efficient...then that single player is getting more isk than the player not using ISBoxer. Here is yet another way to explain it to you: Player|10 accounts and ISBoxer earns 500 million isk/hour. Player|10 accounts and no ISBoxer earns 450 million isk/hour. Earnings per character: Player|10 accounts and ISBoxer earns 50 million isk/hour/character. Player|10 accounts and no ISBoxer earns 45 million isk/hour/character. If it is exactly the same earnings with and without ISBoxer....why all of your blubbering? Oh, and dude....go back and learn some 3rd grade math. This is arguing semantics again. Both arguing the same point but different parts of it. Nolak is arguing that 10 players with 1account each will make more isk in 1 hour than 1 player with 10 accounts using ISBoxer You are arguing that 1 player with 10 accounts will make more with ISBoxer than 1 player with 10 accounts without ISBoxer. Different points are being argued here. Under the previous stance of CCP on ISBoxer the first point that Nolak was making was the reason for ISBoxer being deemed compliant with CCP's EULA. Now with the change in stance, this argument doesn't really matter since the duplication method is now considered a bannable offense. I believe the reason that CCP does not do a blanket ban on multiboxing software is that it does cross into what a person can and cannot do with their own computer. In essence the window management of Eve is no more than simply managing the viewing area of the eve client. If they were to ban the usage of window manipulation, you would in essence be banned for adjusting the viewing of the client by projecting the client unto a projector or using more than 1 monitor. I am using extreme cases, but all points need to be taken into consideration before actions are taken.
I think the 10 players will do better than 1 player with 10 accounts is highly dubious proposition. It indicates a complete lack of actually doing things like leading a fleet. Here is one example of why such a claim is bogus, at least in regards to PvP:
FC calls primary, secondary and tertiary. All three targets start taking damage almost immediately. Some idiots in the fleet who want to ensure a number of kill mails have either ungrouped or have multiple groups of guns and put them on all three targets to ensure 3 kill mails. With ISBoxer that would not be a problem.
Basically people can behave contrary to what is best for the fleet...for whatever reasons. Inattention, malice, stupidity, personal goals not in sync with the overall fleet goals. There is even a name for this problem in game theory (mechanism design to be exact...which is actually quite fitting as we are talking about games and strategic behavior in games), its called incentive compatibility.
Incentive compatibility does not exist when you have just 1 player.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2456
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:12:31 -
[1612] - Quote
Capt JJ wrote:
But under the new EULA conditions Fleet / Squad / Wing warps are bannable.
As they come into navigation of multiple accounts with a single click.
Yes its built into the game but it is NOT excluded or has provisions under the EULA changes.
I'm sorry that is just stupid. Really stupid. It is stupid because fleet warping does not involve 3rd party software or reprogramming the client.
Now, go sit in the corner and be embarrassed.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2456
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:15:41 -
[1613] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
For the thousandth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a PER. TOON. BASIS.
CCP themselves have stated this.
If the clause was on a per-human basis, CCP would have to ban all forms of multi-account usage.
Look, its really simple. You're right, it IS really simple. I'll say it slowly so you can understand. The. Accellerated. Gameplay. Clause. Is. On. A. Per. Toon. Basis. Not. A. Per. Human. Basis. Your obstinacy on this is duly noted. At this point I'm pretty sure you're trolling. No man can be this stupid when it took me 30 seconds with the forum search feature to find numerous threads where CCP backhanded whiners who were trying to use the gameplay clause to ban ISBoxers.
And look who is whining now that you just smacked with the back of the hand for precisely that reason.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
267
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:19:58 -
[1614] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:And look who is whining now that you just smacked with the back of the hand for precisely that reason.
TIL: Calling out a troll is now whining. |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
73
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:22:30 -
[1615] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Man, its funny how hordes of isbotters claiming here how they cant be caught.
Holy ****, go try it out after January, 1st if you're so smart and tell us how it went for you.
I don't understand that mentality myself. I read the CSM summer summit minutes and one of the sections talked about how players use ISBoxer. Apparently, CCP has been gathering stats on ISBoxer users for months. The creator of ISBoxer last year in a Reddit AMA stated that it is easy for a company like CCP to detect ISBoxer.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2457
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:25:38 -
[1616] - Quote
Yi Hyori wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Yi Hyori wrote:I half agree with Nolack Ataru in that this type of change may lead to headaches for GMs who are sometimes poorly trained and inadequately equipped to handle certain situations.
Hence my post in requesting better training and preparation for GMs when this change does go through. I would hate for my accounts to be banned and go through the motion of appealing because someone though my fleet warp toons were being "isboxed" or "botted"
What is it with this fetish about fleet warping? A feature deliberately built into the game by CCP and available to all Eve players right from the first time they start up the client and start playing. I am not saying that fleet warping is botting, I am arguing that a layman who views someone fleet warping their toons, will jump to the conclusion and use that as the basis of their petition or whatnot.
Do you really think that GMs are that daft across the board that this would be a ThingGäó. Granted some nub players might think its cheating, but I doubt the GMs would do much beyond look at the petition then close it.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2457
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:26:34 -
[1617] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:And look who is whining now that you just smacked with the back of the hand for precisely that reason. TIL: Calling out a troll is now whining.
No, its all the previous posts you've got. You clearly are butt hurt about this change.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:29:06 -
[1618] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Capt JJ wrote:
But under the new EULA conditions Fleet / Squad / Wing warps are bannable.
As they come into navigation of multiple accounts with a single click.
Yes its built into the game but it is NOT excluded or has provisions under the EULA changes.
I'm sorry that is just stupid. Really stupid. It is stupid because fleet warping does not involve 3rd party software or reprogramming the client. Now, go sit in the corner and be embarrassed.
I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but technically using a chopstick with multiple mice taped together isnt using a third party software or reprograming the client either :P
I do understand what you're saying though as the fleet warp and regroup options are something thats built into the client.
The point of the other side is that they are using an extreme and exaggerated instance to make their point, which is a flawed method anyway.
As for your other point in incentive compatibility, youre always going to get friction when you get a gorup of people to try and work together. the point of multiboxing is to minimize said friction and try to be as efficient as possible because it is difficult to find so many people that follow the same train of thought.
Also to make a point, your example uses 10 people who are obviously slightly slow witted and comparing it to a single multiboxer performing his goals perfectly. The sample needs to be equivalent. If you are comparing 10 slightly slow, more concerned about whoring on KM, you should also use the same sample multiboxer who is slightly clueless and doesnt quite know what he is doing.
Also in terms of multiboxing, we are looking at a single thing that multiboxers are extremely good at. That is Coordinated alpha. They are very good at multiboxing f1 monkeys. Any good group of pvp'ers will tell you how effective F1 monkeys are at certain aspects of the game, but when it comes to the varying situationst hat come with combat, f1 monkeys tend to fall apart. Anyway, this argument holds up because of how diverse the eve universe is. F1 monkeys are not the be all end all of Eve and most players understand that. |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:32:02 -
[1619] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Yi Hyori wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Yi Hyori wrote:I half agree with Nolack Ataru in that this type of change may lead to headaches for GMs who are sometimes poorly trained and inadequately equipped to handle certain situations.
Hence my post in requesting better training and preparation for GMs when this change does go through. I would hate for my accounts to be banned and go through the motion of appealing because someone though my fleet warp toons were being "isboxed" or "botted"
What is it with this fetish about fleet warping? A feature deliberately built into the game by CCP and available to all Eve players right from the first time they start up the client and start playing. I am not saying that fleet warping is botting, I am arguing that a layman who views someone fleet warping their toons, will jump to the conclusion and use that as the basis of their petition or whatnot. Do you really think that GMs are that daft across the board that this would be a ThingGäó. Granted some nub players might think its cheating, but I doubt the GMs would do much beyond look at the petition then close it.
Simple answer... Yes :)
GMs tend to have a "shoot first and deal with it later" mentality. I understand that this is an awful generalization and not all GMs are deserving to be lumped into this group, but from the forum threads to the reddit threads and fellow players who have been falsely banned and later bans reversed, i would like to state that yes, indeed GMs can be quite daft. |
Meloni HELL
Unholy Knights of Cthulhu
Test Alliance Please Ignore
19
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:38:34 -
[1620] - Quote
If I made hundreds of accounts for the purpose of Captains Quarters shenanigans, could I isbox their movements, excluding chat / fitting / other meaningful actions. What about creation - Can I multi box the character creation process? That sounds kinda fun seeing what comes up.
Also, mass fitting function please? Fitting up frigs for the thousands of newbros is giving me nightmares. |
|
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
74
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:40:42 -
[1621] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:No wonder one of my ganker friends laughed at this.
I just tested with a few clients, and at lower settings and a few other small changes, you can cycle through them and activate modules pretty much as quickly as you can hit keys on the keyboard. And the best part is, alt+tab is a windows function, and can seamlessly be combined with any other singular input, such as a hotkey for the module slot that your weapon rack is located in. Works perfectly, too; all of the modules were in the ready state when going back through the clients to check if it worked. Can literally slide by finger across a set of keys, like the F keys, to make this work.
Caveat: windows can't be minimized (have to be active in the background, or side by side).
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.
Just a question. This was without ISBoxer, right? Just multiboxing the old fashioned way?
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Bagatur I
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:43:31 -
[1622] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:A little overboard with this change don't you think? Your game is far to slow for most activities.
While I can understand taking down the 30 man IsBoxer fleets, you should consider allowing small groups of 2 or 3 to multi-broadcast.
really? are you that lazy that you cant alt-tab 2 or 3 clients? |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
267
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:43:47 -
[1623] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:And look who is whining now that you just smacked with the back of the hand for precisely that reason. TIL: Calling out a troll is now whining. No, its all the previous posts you've got. You clearly are butt hurt about this change.
TIL: Attempting to inform the masses is being butthurt. |
Skelee VI
Wraithguard.
Dirt Nap Squad.
48
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:47:46 -
[1624] - Quote
I for one would love to see isboxer banned, However, the big alliances who pay big money will be in tears. How will they survive without 20 ships in one guys control mining! |
Bagatur I
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:50:08 -
[1625] - Quote
Michelle Monteleone wrote:Guess my 12 accounts are done as of January 1, 2015. I had fun while it lasted. First Warcraft removed /follow from pvp because of all the cry babies now CCP has removed multiboxing all together. The Eve universe is going to change quite a bit when all the resources people were pumping out with multiple accounts goes away. Merry Christmas CCP. Thanks for the lump of coal. See you cry babies in the next mmo I multibox in.
another one. who is multiboxing removed??? you should probably go play a simpler game if even this is hard for you to understand. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2457
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:00:04 -
[1626] - Quote
Jared Noan wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Godren Storm wrote:Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought. However, fleet warp isn't using third party software to do so. It's not food for thought at all. It's a disingenuous attempt to derail this. Nope, it's lawayer speak, they use it.
Lawyer speak...disingenuous...dude you are repeating yourself.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
943
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:01:08 -
[1627] - Quote
Capt JJ wrote:
But under the new EULA conditions Fleet / Squad / Wing warps are bannable.
As they come into navigation of multiple accounts with a single click.
Yes its built into the game but it is NOT excluded or has provisions under the EULA changes.
How about you stop telling the people who wrote the EULA how they should interpret the EULA?
How about you stop telling the people who designed the game the EULA protects what game mechanics are against the EULA?
How about you stop acting like some know it all brat spewing garbage?
How about you just shut up?
To all those who claim they won't be caught after january 1st, I am looking forward to seeing your butt turned into a statistic on one of CCP's 'this is how many morons we caught cheating' slides during Fanfest. I will be sitting in the audience and I will laugh at you
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1277
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:07:07 -
[1628] - Quote
Thinking about it, if we really want to be that technical fleet warp doesn't violate anything because at no point does the fleet warper issue any commands to the clients of the ships being warped. The only command issued is to the server, then the server moves the ships, the other clients only get involved by being told they are warping. The never get any "command."
Since only one "instance of the game" received an input, there is no violation even under a literal interpretation of the rules. Can we put this to bed now? |
Bagatur I
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:07:50 -
[1629] - Quote
Lee Sin Priest wrote:Utari Onzo wrote:The thing that makes me laugh are the ISBoxer users asking for refunds.
They have paid for subscription time, and been given that time. CCP was under no obligation to 'garauntee' to customers that their intentions for the characters use would still be applicable in the future. CCP didn't explicitely state that my training for a sentry drone Dominix for PVP last year would be a garaunteed OK and my 'playstyle' wouldn't get nerfed.
These characters could all be retrained into market alts, scouts, fleet boosters, or heavens forbid the ISboxers could just manually operate them, but no. Instead they demand a refund when they have recieved exactly what CCP promised them. A set amount of time to play in the sandbox. Please take your entitled attitude elsewhere. 35 days notice on 180degree turnaround on their own policy is not okay It's downright extortion Example: If you pay me money to go to theme park for a specific ride, you like the rollercoasters cause of the pretty lights n stuff I say of course you may enter, I have a policy that dictates how I must behave and such, what you want to do is legal and hundreds of other people have been doing it for years You grin, pay over your moneyzzzz and enter 3 feet in Miley comes in like a wrecking ball and bye bye the rollercoasters Sad right?
35 days more than enough! what do you want? a year? if you cant play without ISboxing your multiple accounts, you will quit after 35 days or 1 year no matter what. if you can adapt, you wont. |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:15:00 -
[1630] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Capt JJ wrote:
But under the new EULA conditions Fleet / Squad / Wing warps are bannable.
As they come into navigation of multiple accounts with a single click.
Yes its built into the game but it is NOT excluded or has provisions under the EULA changes.
How about you stop telling the people who wrote the EULA how they should interpret the EULA? How about you stop telling the people who designed the game the EULA protects what game mechanics are against the EULA? How about you stop acting like some know it all brat spewing garbage? How about you just shut up? To all those who claim they won't be caught after january 1st, I am looking forward to seeing your butt turned into a statistic on one of CCP's 'this is how many morons we caught cheating' slides during Fanfest. I will be sitting in the audience and I will laugh at you
Rather than not being caught, majority of the posts from multiboxer stems from, "i will continue my playstyle as this only limits a METHOD that is used in my playstyle."
what CCP is trying to do is prevent a METHOD multiboxers have been using to multibox, rather than banning the act itself. Eve online is a complex game that relies on alts to get a majority of things accomplished without wanting to rip your hair out.
@Teckos Pech
You are partially correct in saying that the whole point of multiboxing is to remove the multi part of multiplayer online. I personally prefer to play multiple accounts because indeed getting people to do what I want to do at a drop of a dime is rather like herding cats. This does not only include mining fleets, but it also includes pvp fleets. Any pvp group will inform you of the amount of rage pings an FC will send trying to get people into fleet to get something accomplished. Multiboxing for me helps to alleviate the issue a bit by bringing numbers.
Another reason for my multiboxing is that I do not have the same play time as other people. I do not have the time to dedicate as many hours to this game as some other players and my play time can sometimes be cut short or interrupted abruptly. In that case you run into player friction as parts of the fleet need to go afk and a group cannot continue with parts of it AFK.
I guess this point actually reinforces your point of view as to the advantages of multiboxing. But these are advantages. You are trading the benefits of flying a single ship competently for the benefit of not having to deal with player friction.
I do not think it is up to the player base for force players to deal with player friction merely because the title incorporates the genre of MMO. Single playstyles should also be embraced as long as it does not violate the EULA. Forcing people into groups would be similar to forcing people to roleplay because the full wording of MMO is actually MMORPG.
Pigeon holing a playerbase into playing the game that is the way an individual views the game is an error, I believe.
All sorts of people play this game and embrace different types of gameplay. As long as these methods are to be in line with the EULA, I don't see any reason argue against it merely for the sake of arguing.
As for whether the usage of ISBoxer is considered botting or not is not up to me. I have my opinions but the final word belongs to CCP, and I will stand by their decision. The entire topic is too sticky to really deal with anyway with everyone and their strong opinions on the matter.
|
|
|
Bagatur I
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:22:06 -
[1631] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Big +1 on the decision, but I'm worried it doesn't go far enough. People will just purchase more screens, and manually control multiple accounts. It'll be harder, surely, but it's still viable to manually control a 10 ship tornado gank fleet or procurer mining fleet. The only sure way to get rid of multiboxing, and entitle everyone equally to the actions of one character at a time, is to get rid of multiboxing entirely.
why would they want to get rid of multiboxing completely? if someone can manually control 10 accounts - that is a SKILL! why punish him? controlling just one account and have a dozen more do the same thing without any additional effort is cheating! |
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7323
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:25:31 -
[1632] - Quote
This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb.
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'.
|
Rhalina Sedai
Notice Has Been Served
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:41:34 -
[1633] - Quote
Looks like notice has been served, good job CCP: |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2457
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:55:38 -
[1634] - Quote
Yi Hyori wrote:
@Teckos Pech
You are partially correct in saying that the whole point of multiboxing is to remove the multi part of multiplayer online. I personally prefer to play multiple accounts because indeed getting people to do what I want to do at a drop of a dime is rather like herding cats. This does not only include mining fleets, but it also includes pvp fleets. Any pvp group will inform you of the amount of rage pings an FC will send trying to get people into fleet to get something accomplished. Multiboxing for me helps to alleviate the issue a bit by bringing numbers.
Another reason for my multiboxing is that I do not have the same play time as other people. I do not have the time to dedicate as many hours to this game as some other players and my play time can sometimes be cut short or interrupted abruptly. In that case you run into player friction as parts of the fleet need to go afk and a group cannot continue with parts of it AFK.
I guess this point actually reinforces your point of view as to the advantages of multiboxing. But these are advantages. You are trading the benefits of flying a single ship competently for the benefit of not having to deal with player friction.
I do not think it is up to the player base for force players to deal with player friction merely because the title incorporates the genre of MMO. Single playstyles should also be embraced as long as it does not violate the EULA. Forcing people into groups would be similar to forcing people to roleplay because the full wording of MMO is actually MMORPG.
Pigeon holing a playerbase into playing the game that is the way an individual views the game is an error, I believe.
All sorts of people play this game and embrace different types of gameplay. As long as these methods are to be in line with the EULA, I don't see any reason argue against it merely for the sake of arguing.
As for whether the usage of ISBoxer is considered botting or not is not up to me. I have my opinions but the final word belongs to CCP, and I will stand by their decision. The entire topic is too sticky to really deal with anyway with everyone and their strong opinions on the matter.
I don't have an issue with multi-boxing. In fact, I multi-box myself. Part of the reason I multi-box is the limitations of Eve itself. That is there is now way to over come the incentive problem with regards to industry. If I were to try and do my industry stuff with 10 other actual players I'd be robbed blind in short order. So to do industry, given the current mechanics of the game, I have to either multi-box or just not do industry. Since I prefer industry to other forms of making isk, I multi-box. I'm fine with this.
Just wanted to be clear on this.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1753
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 03:24:47 -
[1635] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb.
are we going to just assume it was for their head hair? |
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7325
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 03:31:57 -
[1636] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Doc Fury wrote:This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. are we going to just assume it was for their head hair?
I'm really hoping you mean neckbeards.
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'.
|
Kristen Andelare
Abacus Industries Group
Aerodyne Collective
29
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 03:43:00 -
[1637] - Quote
100% in support of this change!
Thank You CCP!
I run multiple accounts for mining, PvE, etc, But have never been tempted to use ISBOXER and don't even have my macro keys on my keyboard set for anything related to Eve. I don't need it. It pollutes our great game.
To all the unsubbers, you knew you were cheating all along, you knew you were playing with an unfair advantage. Get thee gone. We won't miss you one iota, not even a scintilla.
I won't even ask for your stuff. I'll earn my own, one rock at a time. |
Hausser0815
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 03:54:18 -
[1638] - Quote
What about using ISboxer in such a away:
Pressing F1 sends F1 to Client 1
Pressing F2 sends F1 to Client 2
Pressing F3 sends F1 to Client 3
Or use ISboxer to build your own, multy-char control panels.
Thats not multiplexing, so it should be fine regarding the rules,
but its still multiboxing way faster than by switching trough actual game clients. |
Masao Kurata
Z List
163
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:18:49 -
[1639] - Quote
Hausser0815 wrote:What about using ISboxer in such a away:
Pressing F1 sends F1 to Client 1
Pressing F2 sends F1 to Client 2
Pressing F3 sends F1 to Client 3
Or use ISboxer to build your own, multy-char control panels.
Thats not multiplexing, so it should be fine regarding the rules,
but its still multiboxing way faster than by switching trough actual game clients.
Pretty sure that's precisely what multiplexing is as opposed to broadcasting actually. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:21:02 -
[1640] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Hausser0815 wrote:What about using ISboxer in such a away:
Pressing F1 sends F1 to Client 1
Pressing F2 sends F1 to Client 2
Pressing F3 sends F1 to Client 3
Or use ISboxer to build your own, multy-char control panels.
Thats not multiplexing, so it should be fine regarding the rules,
but its still multiboxing way faster than by switching trough actual game clients. Pretty sure that's precisely what multiplexing is as opposed to broadcasting actually.
No actually as stated here.
Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game.
There is no actions/inputs etc to multiple instances of the game. Only one input to one client at a time. |
|
|
Masao Kurata
Z List
163
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:23:07 -
[1641] - Quote
Then I have no damn clue what the difference is meant to be. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:26:05 -
[1642] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Then I have no damn clue what the difference is meant to be.
Yeah that's a big problem with this action. I have no damned clue if I'll be banned for using multiple computers with multilple keyboards/mouse to move/attack/whatever too fast. Like what kind of delay is CCP expecting between clients/computers.
I'm going to let my accounts expire till I see this in action. I might be back in February once this is more concrete. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
268
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:36:25 -
[1643] - Quote
Is it true that during Fanfest, CCP Seagull, you were telling people that multiboxers had nothing to worry about?
And during EVE Vegas, that other devs were telling people that multiboxing was "ok", even if they personally disagreed with it? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1279
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:37:36 -
[1644] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Then I have no damn clue what the difference is meant to be. The difference between what and what? Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing were both explicitly defined in this context as being the same thing.
As far as creating a non-broadcasting multi-client control center, strict reading says it's ok, but common sense says file a petition to be sure. Uncertainty says file a petition to be sure. Really any specific situation which you think is borderline or may trigger a false positive says file a petition.
This rule was made with multiboxers in mind as well as the fact that people will continue doing it without software assistance. It also means they intend on some level to enforce it but really discussing methods would be foolish on their part as that just facilitates circumvention, so I'm not sure what good asking how they plan to detect it is, either directly of veiled, like asking what sort of delays between commands will keep one from getting banned.
Nolak Ataru wrote:Is it true that during Fanfest, CCP Seagull, you were telling people that multiboxers had nothing to worry about?
And during EVE Vegas, that other devs were telling people that multiboxing was "ok", even if they personally disagreed with it? Not sure how this is relevant as multiboxing has not been banned. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:42:20 -
[1645] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Then I have no damn clue what the difference is meant to be. The difference between what and what? Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing were both explicitly defined in this context as being the same thing. As far as creating a non-broadcasting multi-client control center, strict reading says it's ok, but common sense says file a petition to be sure. Uncertainty says file a petition to be sure. Really any specific situation which you think is borderline or may trigger a false positive says file a petition. This rule was made with multiboxers in mind as well as the fact that people will continue doing it without software assistance. It also means they intend on some level to enforce it but really discussing methods would be foolish on their part as that just facilitates circumvention, so I'm not sure what good asking how they plan to detect it is, either directly of veiled, like asking what sort of delays between commands will keep one from getting banned. Nolak Ataru wrote:Is it true that during Fanfest, CCP Seagull, you were telling people that multiboxers had nothing to worry about?
And during EVE Vegas, that other devs were telling people that multiboxing was "ok", even if they personally disagreed with it? Not sure how this is relevant as multiboxing has not been banned.
Well depending on how strict they are about timing multiboxing could be effectively bannable at any time. I've always used multiple machines with monitors/keyboards/mouse.. Now I'm worried I'll be just quick enough to be banned. |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation
DemSal Unlimited
2035
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:46:29 -
[1646] - Quote
Whew, caught up again.
I disagree with some things, agree with others but I have no wish to hunt and search and copy blocks of text most of us skip reading anyways.
so
1) I want to thank Nolak and Yi and Shadow(something or other) You wrote well and for the most part kept above the petty name calling or pouting. Well done and I tried to make sure I read your posts carefully.
2) Posts I skipped usually contained the words unsub or tears. They contributed very little to the discussion. I also tended to laugh at ones that involve parrots, chopsticks or images of a juryrigged computer from years ago.
3) Yes there are workarounds, some using ISBoxer, others using scripted mice or keyboard. Some are fair game others skate close enough to the edge that they risk a ban. Basically it comes down to a question of economics. Are you willing to risk ALL your accounts (and assets) being banned by skating on the thin ice knowingly? Risk vs reward in the metagame.
4) Someone posted that ISBoxer and such were discussed in the summer summit. Yup, and perhaps in more detail than the edited (or redacted) minutes show. Think that one through, please.
5) What I want to see. PLAYERS, not accounts, people. If there is a bomber wing (come on boys . . . wooohoohoo) I want to know it is eight guys working in unison. I like watching a football match (soccer) but I get far less enjoyment watching foosball.
6) Multiple accounts are still fair usage. Scouts, self boosting (for those 'solo' players), neutral logi? All good to go. So no smoke screens in that direction. Same for fleet and squad warp. Although I HAVE argued for the latter to be changed before . . . ask me some other time about why.
that's it for now. a few more posts have appeared while I was writing this.
I'll keep reading and listening because that is what I said I would do.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1279
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:46:53 -
[1647] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Well depending on how strict they are about timing multiboxing could be effectively bannable at any time. I've always used multiple machines with monitors/keyboards/mouse.. Now I'm worried I'll be just quick enough to be banned. As someone with only single machine multiboxing experience I must ask, how many clients are you issuing commands to within a single server tick? |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
268
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:57:44 -
[1648] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Is it true that during Fanfest, CCP Seagull, you were telling people that multiboxers had nothing to worry about?
And during EVE Vegas, that other devs were telling people that multiboxing was "ok", even if they personally disagreed with it? Not sure how this is relevant as multiboxing has not been banned.
Saying something isn't banned and saying they have nothing to worry about are two VERY different things. That's like the president / prime minister / king of your country saying "Do not fear! Gun owners have nothing to fear!" and then a month later, everything except .22 revolver handguns are banned.
Sure, you can still do it. But why? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1279
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 05:02:23 -
[1649] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Is it true that during Fanfest, CCP Seagull, you were telling people that multiboxers had nothing to worry about?
And during EVE Vegas, that other devs were telling people that multiboxing was "ok", even if they personally disagreed with it? Not sure how this is relevant as multiboxing has not been banned. Saying something isn't banned and saying they have nothing to worry about are two VERY different things. That's like the president / prime minister / king of your country saying "Do not fear! Gun owners have nothing to fear!" and then a month later, everything except .22 revolver handguns are banned. Sure, you can still do it. But why? Why not, 2 accounts in a lot of activities will still provide considerable benefit. It's more comparable to illegalizing tying 2 guns together so you can pull both triggers with the same finger than any restriction on caliber. |
Masao Kurata
Z List
163
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 05:03:31 -
[1650] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Then I have no damn clue what the difference is meant to be. The difference between what and what? Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing were both explicitly defined in this context as being the same thing..
It isn't clear to me at all that CCP consider them to be the same thing, and at least to me with a little electronics background it is very confusing if input multiplexing were to mean the same thing as input broadcasting as a multiplexer is a circuit which connects (at any given time) one of multiple inputs to a single output. |
|
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1280
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 05:14:39 -
[1651] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Then I have no damn clue what the difference is meant to be. The difference between what and what? Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing were both explicitly defined in this context as being the same thing.. It isn't clear to me at all that CCP consider them to be the same thing, and at least to me with a little electronics background it is very confusing if input multiplexing were to mean the same thing as input broadcasting as a multiplexer is a circuit which connects (at any given time) one of multiple inputs to a single output. From the op:
"Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game."
Whether the terms have entirely accurate use isn't so much relevant as the fact that they are defined for their use in this context. It feels like your confusion is manufactured by the expectation that for some reason the definition of an electronic switch is being used when the context and definition suggest multiplexing (or inverse multiplexing?) logically. |
Masao Kurata
Z List
163
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 05:19:54 -
[1652] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:From the op:
"Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game."
Whether the terms have entirely accurate use isn't so much relevant as the fact that they are defined for their use in this context. It feels like your confusion is manufactured by the expectation that for some reason the definition of an electronic switch is being used when the context and definition suggest multiplexing (or inverse multiplexing?) logically.
There's no reason to talk about "Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing" if they're the same thing, that would be like saying "talking, speaking and uttering". It seems clear to me that these refer to different specific technologies with a similar goal. What's not clear is what the difference between the two is. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 05:19:59 -
[1653] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Well depending on how strict they are about timing multiboxing could be effectively bannable at any time. I've always used multiple machines with monitors/keyboards/mouse.. Now I'm worried I'll be just quick enough to be banned. As someone with only single machine multiboxing experience I must ask, how many clients are you issuing commands to within a single server tick?
WEll I run three machines on my desktop so I can easily issue a single command to three clients probably easily within the server tick. I have extensive experience alt tab controlling multiple accounts in other games like Lineage 2. I mentioned L2 specifically because it's FFA PVP everywhere and I would control a whole party on my own with one computer and two 17 inch monitors. Now I have more larger monitors and more computers setup. When I get going I can issue commands to multiple clients quickly. I don't even need isboxer to control multiple accounts each running level 4s etc.
Basically I mastered my ADHD long ago by channeling it into games. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1280
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 05:28:51 -
[1654] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:From the op:
"Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game."
Whether the terms have entirely accurate use isn't so much relevant as the fact that they are defined for their use in this context. It feels like your confusion is manufactured by the expectation that for some reason the definition of an electronic switch is being used when the context and definition suggest multiplexing (or inverse multiplexing?) logically. There's no reason to talk about "Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing" if they're the same thing, that would be like saying "talking, speaking and uttering". It seems clear to me that these refer to different specific technologies with a similar goal. What's not clear is what the difference between the two is. I do believe the point is that the technologies don't matter as long as the actions committed with those means are those described. So even if we decide for instance that "Input Multiplexing" denotes a hardware means of "multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game." and "Input Broadcasting" is a software means of doing the same, we still arrive at the understanding that using either for the purpose of "multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game." is not allowed under the new rules.
So the question becomes, are you doing something, anything that results in "multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game?" If so you are in violation of the rules regardless of the tools used to accomplish that means and what you call them.
That reduces any debate regarding specific technological underpinnings of the terms to pedantry. |
Sinjin Atmos
Roman 7th Legion
Dredd - The Purification Project
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 05:35:37 -
[1655] - Quote
+1
I hate bots !!!!!! |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
268
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 05:43:22 -
[1656] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Is it true that during Fanfest, CCP Seagull, you were telling people that multiboxers had nothing to worry about?
And during EVE Vegas, that other devs were telling people that multiboxing was "ok", even if they personally disagreed with it? Not sure how this is relevant as multiboxing has not been banned. Saying something isn't banned and saying they have nothing to worry about are two VERY different things. That's like the president / prime minister / king of your country saying "Do not fear! Gun owners have nothing to fear!" and then a month later, everything except .22 revolver handguns are banned. Sure, you can still do it. But why? Why not, 2 accounts in a lot of activities will still provide considerable benefit. It's more comparable to illegalizing tying 2 guns together so you can pull both triggers with the same finger than any restriction on caliber.
Side-by-Side shotguns and over-under pistols would like to have a word with you....
Your analogy would be closer to holding 2 pistols in 2 hands vs single pistol using 2 hands.
2 pistols:
More lead downrange.
More raw chances to hit at cost of decreased accuracy
More suppression factor.
1 pistol:
Easier to put a bullet where you're aiming
Reloading is much easier
Can use empty hand to hold flashlight.
Overall accuracy is better at cost of fire rate. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1280
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 05:49:21 -
[1657] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Saying something isn't banned and saying they have nothing to worry about are two VERY different things. That's like the president / prime minister / king of your country saying "Do not fear! Gun owners have nothing to fear!" and then a month later, everything except .22 revolver handguns are banned.
Sure, you can still do it. But why?
Why not, 2 accounts in a lot of activities will still provide considerable benefit. It's more comparable to illegalizing tying 2 guns together so you can pull both triggers with the same finger than any restriction on caliber. Side-by-Side shotguns and over-under pistols would like to have a word with you.... Your analogy would be closer to holding 2 pistols in 2 hands vs single pistol using 2 hands. 2 pistols: More lead downrange. More raw chances to hit at cost of decreased accuracy More suppression factor. 1 pistol: Easier to put a bullet where you're aiming Reloading is much easier Can use empty hand to hold flashlight. Overall accuracy is better at cost of fire rate. If were going down this analogical rabbit hole using a separate hand for each gun is comparable to using a separate mouse for each client. without addressing advantages of disadvantages of either method, only the single finger method has been banned, not dual wielding. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25673
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 05:52:51 -
[1658] - Quote
If anyone has strong feelings, it's the players who have uniboxed for so long, for whatever reason. Perhaps we could have a new type of space that only allows one character per player at a time? They already have a forum section, Intergalactic Summit, it's only fair.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
268
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 05:56:30 -
[1659] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:If were going down this analogical rabbit hole using a separate hand for each gun is comparable to using a separate mouse for each client. without addressing advantages of disadvantages of either method, only the single finger method has been banned, not dual wielding.
Except we were only talking about 2 clients then, not multiple.
On the same analogy, all ISBoxer does is take each gun, lock it in a vice / stand, and attach a string to each trigger that is then being held by a person.
The problem then comes when people start coming up to you at the range saying "hurrdurr you must have a small *****".
Alternatively, each person is given 5 guns with empty magazines and they must fill each one and fire them in as short a time period as possible. You take the time before the start to setup your 5 guns as mentioned above, and easily beat their time when it you pull the string, because of all the extra effort you put into it beforehand. They run up to the judges crying about this and that, but the rulebook says nothing that would ban such a setup. The only ban in the rulebook is against full-auto pistols, which you are not using. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
Cosmic Consortium
5575
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 06:01:37 -
[1660] - Quote
Hausser0815 wrote:What about using ISboxer in such a away:
Pressing F1 sends F1 to Client 1
Pressing F2 sends F1 to Client 2
Pressing F3 sends F1 to Client 3
Or use ISboxer to build your own, multy-char control panels.
Thats not multiplexing, so it should be fine regarding the rules,
but its still multiboxing way faster than by switching trough actual game clients.
In electronics and networking, mux/demux is a means of taking multiple signals, blending them into soup, piping that over one channel, then pulling the soup apart to get the signals back. Thus while there is no practical impact on the policy, i would assume that the difference between multiplexing and broadcasting is that multiplexing is taking multiple input signals (e.g.: multiple keyboards and mouses) and sending them to multiple computers while broadcasting is taking one keyboard/mouse and sending the signals to multiple computers.
so one could imagine a setup where you have one keypad specifically for controlling the logistics ships in your fleet, another keypad specifically for the DPS ships, and a third keyboard for controlling the entire fleet at once (thus avoiding tne embarassing mistake of using the wrong virtual keyboard and shooting the ship that needs reps). Thus a rules-lawyering-multiboxer might try silly arguments like, "but i have just as many keyboards as active clients, so it is not cheating!"
And while i am not a CCP person, I would expect that the situation of using portions of one keyboard to control each client would be okay even though the keystrokes are broadcast, just as long as the keystrokes are only acted upon by one client. Thus "QAZ" are the important keys for client 1, "WSX" for client 2, and so forth. Just because all clients receive "Q" doesnt mean you should face a ban, only when you have multiple clients taking action on that Q.
That is just my take on the subject, and where I would "draw the line" based on my interpretation of the rules. Of course, CCP is the authority here.
If such behaviour is allowed, I will probably go a little overboard and prepare a custom mechanical keyboard with coloured keycaps to match the UI colour of the multiple clients I'm controlling :)
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
|
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1280
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 06:06:09 -
[1661] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:If were going down this analogical rabbit hole using a separate hand for each gun is comparable to using a separate mouse for each client. without addressing advantages of disadvantages of either method, only the single finger method has been banned, not dual wielding. Except we were only talking about 2 clients then, not multiple. On the same analogy, all ISBoxer does is take each gun, lock it in a vice / stand, and attach a string to each trigger that is then being held by a person. The problem then comes when people start coming up to you at the range saying "hurrdurr you must have a small *****". Alternatively, each person is given 5 guns with empty magazines and they must fill each one and fire them in as short a time period as possible. You take the time before the start to setup your 5 guns as mentioned above, and easily beat their time when it you pull the string, because of all the extra effort you put into it beforehand. They run up to the judges crying about this and that, but the rulebook says nothing that would ban such a setup. The only ban in the rulebook is against full-auto pistols, which you are not using. A more than 2 client comparison on both the player and shooters parts requires more dexterity outside of ones hands than most could spare, which fundamentally is part of the point it seems.
Though really you have hit the nail on the head with the string thing. The judges can at any time decide that that string is cheating with or without outside input. And that is purely the judges call. Any attempt at calling out whining is just, well, whining. Pointing out that the rules have changed from what they were doesn't make the change any less legitimate or the whining of those who's tools can no longer be used any less whiny.
Edit: And just like is being done here the explanation for the change is simply, "we wanted to measure how fast you can accurately empty 5 pistols, not 'do you know what string is'" |
TharOkha
0asis Group
943
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 06:51:23 -
[1662] - Quote
CCP released update about multiboxing ban... within a few hours PLEX prices has fallen more than 100m
Maybe just stupid correlation but still....
CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
|
Ore Farmer
4 Marketeers
Rura-Penthe
8
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 07:02:05 -
[1663] - Quote
Ok, so Ive read through quite a few comments on various pages. As with many others, I agree on some point but not so much on others. I agree that the broadcasting of 1 input across multiple accounts is in the grey area of the EULA, and action should be taken against such programs. However I would like to throw in my 2 cents:
Using multiple accounts give a player more flexibility and muscle to accomplish things they cant do solo (with 1 account). A good example of this is my solo mining fleet I ran in HS. 1 boosting orca, 1 hauling orca, and 6 mining toons. Without the use of ISboxer I was able to multitask and run the fleet very efficiently (less than 5 seconds to reactivate a mining laser when an asteroid pops). I had a 4 screen setup for this to make it much easier to swap between clients. I eventually switched to ISBoxer to help with the layout, so I could fit all the accounts in various resolutions across all 4 screens. This helped to increase the easy of my operations, but it didn't drastically make me anymore isk. So I strongly disagreed by the comments that "ISBoxer ruins eve". Its a tool to make things easier, but anyone who has the proper computer setup can do the same thing with a bit more effort. The people that say ISboxers have an advantage over other players is true, but again if a person is highly capable of multitasking, its a irrelevant point.
The other common argument is that people with multiple accounts make 30X more than people with 1 account. I'll just point to my first point on this. Yes, multiple accounts open options for players....however, each one of those accounts still need paid for. And I don't know anyone that can comfortably run 30 ACTIVE clients as long as 1 single account (it does become mentally taxing eventually).
However, the single click and broadcasting across all accounts is definitely an advantage that no single player should have. This make activities such as ganking in high sec much easier, and in such coordination that would require a very well organized group of people. Insta alpha with 1 click? Yeah, that I don't agree with. Many other activites are given such unfair advantages. So I agree that using ISBoxer to broadcast across multiple accounts should be ban worthy, but not the use of the program for the advantages for client layouts on multiple monitors.
...just my personal thoughts of course.
|
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
112
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 07:02:10 -
[1664] - Quote
Meloni HELL wrote:Also, mass fitting function please? Fitting up frigs for the thousands of newbros is giving me nightmares.
Maybe you write fitting instructions for newbros instead?
You take away a part of the game from them, and use them literally as F1 monkeys. You should feel bad for that. |
Erica Dusette
Isogen 5
20739
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 07:15:28 -
[1665] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:If anyone has strong feelings, it's the players who have uniboxed for so long, for whatever reason. Perhaps we could have a new type of space that only allows one character per player at a time? They already have a forum section, Intergalactic Summit, it's only fair.
I multibox in the Summit all the time.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25675
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 07:18:09 -
[1666] - Quote
Blaspheme!
You're not Sansha Kuvakei.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 07:24:41 -
[1667] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:
5) What I want to see. PLAYERS, not accounts, people. If there is a bomber wing (come on boys . . . wooohoohoo) I want to know it is eight guys working in unison. I like watching a football match (soccer) but I get far less enjoyment watching foosball.
6) Multiple accounts are still fair usage. Scouts, self boosting (for those 'solo' players), neutral logi? All good to go. So no smoke screens in that direction. Same for fleet and squad warp. Although I HAVE argued for the latter to be changed before . . . ask me some other time about why.
that's it for now. a few more posts have appeared while I was writing this.
I'll keep reading and listening because that is what I said I would do.
m
My thoughts on your last 2 points.
As great as some people would believe this game would be if there was no multiboxing and each ship in space was flown by an individual, the basic mechanics of this game make for certain jobs to be rather dull and more suited for alts.
Such examples are scouting, mining, hauling, off grid boosting, cyno lighting, to list a few. This is the reason for so many alts to be present. Some jobs are just rather dull. When you have multiple characters, there are some individuals who enjoy the challenge of flying multiple ships at the same time to the best of their ability. The introduction of ISBoxer has artificially created a lower barrier of entry to multiboxing where the previous barrier had to do with creative setups with hardware and one's dexterity.
The argument of the legitimacy of ISBoxer is not what I am arguing, rather the legitimacy of multiboxing in Eve.
I believe that ISBoxer has just been a scapegoat that players can rally around and raise their pitchforks at. Once January rolls around and players are still multiboxing with the good old alt tab, I wonder how many will continue to rage about it being an issue. I already see people proposing players are limited to 5 accounts or some random arbitrary number of accounts to be logged in at a single time. I just hope that CCP does not continue down the path of listening to the vocal minority that does not agree with their own play style.
To add to that point, I don't believe CCP to be so foolish as to follow the route of my fears, but I do want to make a point of pointing it out regardless.
As for the removal of squad / fleet warps and such, I'm sure you have your reasons and I have a sneaking suspicion that it may have something to do with your 5th point, but I won't get into the guessing game. Regardless of reason, I think the removal of those features may hurt the individual fleet commanders more than anything. Similar to the proposed changes to the cloacking mechanic to hurt ISBoxers, the chagne would have negative imapct to the game to try and change a specific type of gameplay.
On a totally separate note, I understand that CCP cannot and will not draw the line of what is legal and what is not legal in Eve. This is because the player base, being human, tend to try and skirt as close to the edge as possible if the proverbial line is known.
With that said, I still believe some items need to be clarified before the January 1st date.
According to Falcon in his opening post, he says that any form of multi client input either by software or hardware manipulation will now be a bannable offense.
My question to this is, how will CCP be able to detect if I am using 4 different number pads and pressing 4 keys at the same time via my fingers or with a wooden chopstick model? The more dexterous ones should be able to do much more. Will this user be subject to ban or will they need to jump through hoops to verify their innocence?
As with my previous posts, I am not concerned about CCP's change in stance, but rather on the consistency and accuracy of which they plan to enforce these new policy changes.
|
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
112
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 08:03:53 -
[1668] - Quote
Ore Farmer wrote:...I eventually switched to ISBoxer to help with the layout, so I could fit all the accounts in various resolutions across all 4 screens. This helped to increase the easy of my operations, but it didn't drastically make me anymore isk. So I strongly disagreed by the comments that "ISBoxer ruins eve". Its a tool to make things easier...
That's exactly what is ruining the game.
Everybody know the "risk-reward" axiom, but some seem to forget "no pain - no gain" principle, i.e. the tradeoff between efforts and rewards.
You have 3 options:
- gather a mining fleet of real people,
- make a fleet of you alts and alt-tab through them,
- make a fleet of alts and use multiboxing software.
The former path takes tremendous efforts, while the latter requires the least. But in all cases, the fleet gets the same revenue, give or take. If you chose to multibox, you get all gains without pain. No tradeoff here, no interesting decisions, poor game design.
"But I'm an efficient player, I managed to minimize unnecessary efforts! Why do you punish me?"
Playing the game is by itself the unnecessary thing. Because this is the game, it is played to get fun. The process of playing involves setting some arbitrary obsticles (game rules), overcoming them, and feeling happy about it. In this case, game designers realized that obsticles are too easy, and raised the bar.
"Why dont you remove the second option then? Even alt-tabing, fleet of alts is easier to manage than fleet of people. The arguments of pain-gain apply here as well."
Unfortunately, some areas of gameplay (mining included) are very obsolete. Fixing them is neither fast nor easy. But I hope it will happen one day. A man can dream, right? |
Josef Djugashvilis
2704
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 08:50:57 -
[1669] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb.
Nice reference to the Falklands War.
So, +1 from me good sir.
This is not a signature.
|
Ore Farmer
4 Marketeers
Rura-Penthe
8
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 09:03:53 -
[1670] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Ore Farmer wrote:...I eventually switched to ISBoxer to help with the layout, so I could fit all the accounts in various resolutions across all 4 screens. This helped to increase the easy of my operations, but it didn't drastically make me anymore isk. So I strongly disagreed by the comments that "ISBoxer ruins eve". Its a tool to make things easier... That's exactly what is ruining the game. Everybody know the "risk-reward" axiom, but some seem to forget " no pain - no gain" principle, i.e. the tradeoff between efforts and rewards. You have 3 options: - gather a mining fleet of real people, - make a fleet of you alts and alt-tab through them, - make a fleet of alts and use multiboxing software. The former path takes tremendous efforts, while the latter requires the least. But in all cases, the fleet gets the same revenue, give or take. If you chose to multibox, you get all gains without pain. No tradeoff here, no interesting decisions, poor game design. "But I'm an efficient player, I managed to minimize unnecessary efforts! Why do you punish me?" Playing the game is by itself the unnecessary thing. Because this is the game, it is played to get fun. The process of playing involves setting some arbitrary obsticles (game rules), overcoming them, and feeling happy about it. In this case, game designers realized that obsticles are too easy, and raised the bar. "Why dont you remove the second option then? Even alt-tabing, fleet of alts is easier to manage than fleet of people. The arguments of pain-gain apply here as well." Unfortunately, some areas of gameplay (mining included) are very obsolete. Fixing them is neither fast nor easy. But I hope it will happen one day. A man can dream, right?
Your argument is that having multiple accounts is ruining eve?
So having 10 accounts makes me 10X more than 1 account, but only costs me the same as 1 account? "you get all gains without pain" You forget that the "pain" comes from the price tag associated with the 10 multiple accounts. $150/month or at 10 plexs roughly 9 bill/month. That hurts either way you look at it. I multi box mining fleets because I enjoy that aspect of the game and like to be my own master sort of speak. I don't have 100 hours a week to play eve. With all my accounts, and all the activities I do in game....I hardly come close to plexing more than a couple accounts if Im lucky. So how is this ruining the game? How would it be any different than 10 people behind 10 computers paying for 10 accounts? Not everyone that multiboxes makes 100 bill a month and plexes all their accounts. Its unjust to assume that is the case. So true is the potential for 1 person with 1 account to make enough to plex every month. Null sec ratting, WH sites, etc....IF they had enough time to spend every week in game.
|
|
|
Rise Asahina
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 09:10:55 -
[1671] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:
You have 3 options:
- gather a mining fleet of real people,
- make a fleet of you alts and alt-tab through them,
- make a fleet of alts and use multiboxing software.
The former path takes tremendous efforts, while the latter requires the least. But in all cases, the fleet gets the same revenue, give or take. If you chose to multibox, you get all gains without pain. No tradeoff here, no interesting decisions, poor game design.
That's the problem with people making assumptions about how ISBoxer and multiboxing in general work. This is an untrue statement. Yes, by making a fleet of alts and multiboxing we remove the pain of organizing real people: Most notably scheduling, time constraints, and other people's decision making. But in so doing we take on a number of additional 'pains'. ISBoxer is not easy to set up or, even if set up properly, to maintain perfect control over every ship. It requires a fair bit of attention from the operator, even when just mining, to make sure all your ships are doing what you want them to and not flying off to Abu Dhabi and getting ganked. There is a trade off here. There are interesting decisions for us to make. Just not the ones presented by other people. Honestly, these decisions are the entire reason I multibox. They're fun. They're challenging. And I enjoy solving them and struggling against them. Flying a single ship is frankly easy and boring once you've done this sort of boxing.
Skia Aumer wrote:
"But I'm an efficient player, I managed to minimize unnecessary efforts! Why do you punish me?"
Playing the game is by itself the unnecessary thing. Because this is the game, it is played to get fun. The process of playing involves setting some arbitrary obsticles (game rules), overcoming them, and feeling happy about it. In this case, game designers realized that obsticles are too easy, and raised the bar.
This is where playstyles come into play. Not every player is required to mine rocks. Not every player is required to fly a capital. Not every player is required to do missions. Not every player is required to multibox. But some do. Multiboxing is every bit as valid a playstyle as any other until CCP finally decides to ban it entirely. There is no reason they cannot coexist. And there is no reason to completely screw over a particular playstyle just because of a few edge case abuses. Has multiplexing been abused? Absolutely. Why? Because it creates an "unfair" advantage. But what constitutes unfair? CCP has already said an advantage is fine in allowing us to effectively multibox as many accounts as we can stand. Each person's capacity may be different. I'm curious to see what they will say when they stumble across the individual who really can run 20-30 accounts by himself to great effect. They'll be right back where they started.
Skia Aumer wrote:
"Why dont you remove the second option then? Even alt-tabing, fleet of alts is easier to manage than fleet of people. The arguments of pain-gain apply here as well."
Unfortunately, some areas of gameplay (mining included) are very obsolete. Fixing them is neither fast nor easy. But I hope it will happen one day. A man can dream, right?
And this is exactly why we created tools like ISBoxer to make these wrist-slashing parts of the game interesting again, since CCP clearly won't do it.
So, if CCP's big issue is that multi-boxing creates an unfair advantage, instead of taking our toys away and making our playstyle invalid (and in my case, several of my accounts that I had invested a good deal of money in and now have no use for because I can't manage all 9 any more without going nuts), just decide "how much is too much" and let us know that.
I'd rather them say "No more than 5 accounts.", "No more than 2 accounts" or "no more than 1 account" than to keep perpetuating their hypocritical stance of "having an advantage over others is fine, but only so much as your reaction time or sanity can stand."
If the issue is an unfair advantage, remove the advantage, or set a hard limit on it. But stop taking away our quality of life improvements that we used on crappy, crappy systems that CCP themselves apparently don't know how, or refuse to fix.
|
Steel Dragon
Freelance Economics Astrological resources
Tactical Narcotics Team
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 09:14:08 -
[1672] - Quote
So ends my 10 year EvE life. I will not fill this post with tears as I understand CCp's decision. I even agree with it in part. People like replicator who have 30 SB sitting off a jump bridge alphaing anything that jumps in is over kill and ridiculous. I have used isboxer and 5 accounts for years and have done nothing but enrich the playing environment of the pilots around me and even when I increased to 9 accounts I was always curtious of the little guy and would not monopolize a ratting system or continually grief with it. I would police our alliance space and use the extra firepower to engage fleets that would come through. This too enriched the eve environment as it gave roaming fleets a target and gf's were had by all. But I will not nor can not go back to a single or even duel account play style it would simply be too slow passed for me at this point in eve. So it is with a heavy heart I say farewell to EvE and CCP
07
Steel |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1303
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 09:31:29 -
[1673] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:
Unfortunately, some areas of gameplay (mining included) are very obsolete. Fixing them is neither fast nor easy. But I hope it will happen one day. A man can dream, right?
Mining is in no fashion 'obsolete'. You may want to get a dictionary and check what the word even means. Wait, here, I'll do that for you, wouldn't want you to try to overload yourself trying to do two things at once. That'd be far too much like multiboxing.
adjective
1. no longer produced or used; out of date.
Judging by the many miners flying around, judging by the large volumes of minerals that pass through trading hubs like jita, judging by the amount of players like myself that do mining, I can assure you, mining is not 'obsolete'. The process of mining is something that many, like yourself, do not enjoy, and so you call for changes, at the expense of all of us who do enjoy it.
Mining is relaxing.
Mining is enjoyable.
Mining provides an active non-combat income source.
Mining can be done while talking to friends without a significant drop in productivity.
Mining is great how it is, to changing it? Myself and many of the others out there who actually mine, say no thankyou. Quit trying to change our gameplay just to suit your own agenda, so that people who don't like mining still won't mine, but those who enjoy it now, won't do it either.
"But mining pays out so little isk, it's not a comparable stream of revenue, it needs to be buffed/fixed/changed so it pays more."
Again, no. Supply and demand. There is demand for X amount of minerals on the market, and there are Y number of miners. The more desirable you make mining, the more Y increases, and thus, the value of minerals drops. Similarly, if you introduce new ships or methods that can attain minerals even faster, you will find that the amount of supply increases, whereas the demand does not, so again, we see a drop in the value of minerals.
The only way you are going to get mining to be more lucrative, short of adding lp/isk to mining, is by making mining LESS appealing to the majority. The current miners do it because they are comfortable making 15-50m an hour per character mining. If it was suddenly worth 80m an hour, active or inactive, enough people would bring mining ships out that it would very quickly be 15-50m an hour again. |
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
9
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 09:39:39 -
[1674] - Quote
Question for CCP legal and refund department.
So I assume CCP are going to be refunding people who recently subscribed, under the old terms of service, where ISBoxing style broadcasting was essentially allowed. Considering the abrupt change of terms of service I will be expecting a refund proportional to the remaining time I have on my account. Considering it is a dramatic change in policy, and completely here to encourage, considering the frequent power of 2 offers, and here to acceptability of ISboxer style broadcasting, and coupled with the fact that this change has been considered and approved by CCP management prior to the official announcement, it might be considered fraudulence to have sold the product, with a subscription period longer than the warning period given to for the implementation of this new terms of service.
As such I would be hopeful that CCP will refund any account which cannot agree to the new terms of service, as they are completely different to the old, and dramatically so to people who are affected by this change. |
Sentenced 1989
Quantum Anomaly Corporation
129
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 09:41:41 -
[1675] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:Question for CCP legal and refund department.
So I assume CCP are going to be refunding people who recently subscribed, under the old terms of service, where ISBoxing style broadcasting was essentially allowed. Considering the abrupt change of terms of service I will be expecting a refund proportional to the remaining time I have on my account. Considering it is a dramatic change in policy, and completely here to encourage, considering the frequent power of 2 offers, and here to acceptability of ISboxer style broadcasting, and coupled with the fact that this change has been considered and approved by CCP management prior to the official announcement, it might be considered fraudulence to have sold the product, with a subscription period longer than the warning period given to for the implementation of this new terms of service.
As such I would be hopeful that CCP will refund any account which cannot agree to the new terms of service, as they are completely different to the old, and dramatically so to people who are affected by this change.
From EULA:
Quote:CCP does not guarantee that it will continue to offer access to the System or support the Game. CCP may, in its sole discretion, cease to provide any or all of the services offered in connection with EVE (including access to the System and any or all features or components of the Game), terminate the EULA, close all Accounts and cancel all of the rights granted to you under the EULA. CCP may communicate such termination to you upon 30 daysGÇÖ notice in any of the following manners: (i) when you log into your Account; (ii) in a notice on CCP's website; (iii) via electronic mail; or (iv) in another manner that CCP deems suitable to inform you of the termination. If CCP terminates the EULA pursuant to this section, you will not receive a refund of any fees.
CCP can do what ever they want as it's their game.
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
9
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 09:51:26 -
[1676] - Quote
just noticed hide posts, now I can ignore idiots. That feature I like. |
Sentenced 1989
Quantum Anomaly Corporation
129
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 09:52:29 -
[1677] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:
Don't care what you or anyone else who is not speaking for CCP management thinks. They will know what my post means and not **** pick it, as it is a respectful legitimate question.
It's not what I think, it's what CCP wrote in their EULA, do you really need somebody with CCP badge on the arm to read it aloud to you?
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
Sibyyl
Gallente Federation
15294
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 09:54:09 -
[1678] - Quote
It doesn't matter what my personal opinion of "input multiplexing" may be. The reddit-style downvote brigade is in full effect here, just like it is in the Zero Clone Cost discussion, and exactly as it has been when we were discussing Ripard Teg and bonus rooms. It must indeed feel very gratifying to agree with CCP, and often it leads to an inability to present a solid argument. I won't disagree that the opposing side is any less populated by trolls, too.
What I wanted to bring up is how Falcon and CCP have decided to manage the input multiplexing ban. CCP has ridden the input multiplexing wave for years. The company has profited from accounts upon accounts subscribed due to this avenue of legal gameplay that very specifically had no policy against it (in CCP's own words).
This announcement comes with a 1 month look-ahead warning. What if someone subscribed a large number of accounts for a year, while depending on what has been for years a legal avenue of gameplay?
What if someone has invested thousands of dollars of their own money into this style of gameplay which essentially encouraged multiple accounts, which in turn put money into CCP's pockets?
There is a customer orientation lesson in here somewhere that someone is missing. It is inappropriate to turn policies around on a dime. Good customer orientation means that some amenable transition policy is devised instead of an immediate patch to the EULA which still, by its language, forbids multiple EVE installations on the same computer due to archaic, boilerplate language CCP has not looked at in years.
For the record, I never have been interested in, or have performed any multiboxing or input multiplexing. As a career miner, I've always thought ice mining was destroyed by ISBoxer fleets.
blah blah blah COFFEE blah blah. Yess yess the sophistication. ... Roasted coffee mmmm --Pepper the Penguin
~ For this is the end, I've drowned and dreamt this moment ~
|
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 09:57:37 -
[1679] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:It doesn't matter what my personal opinion of "input multiplexing" may be. The reddit-style downvote brigade is in full effect here, just like it is in the Zero Clone Cost discussion, and exactly as it has been when we were discussing Ripard Teg and bonus rooms. It must indeed feel very gratifying to agree with CCP, and often it leads to an inability to present a solid argument. I won't disagree that the opposing side is any less populated by trolls, too. What I wanted to bring up is how Falcon and CCP have decided to manage the input multiplexing ban. CCP has ridden the input multiplexing wave for years. The company has profited from accounts upon accounts subscribed due to this avenue of legal gameplay that very specifically had no policy against it (in CCP's own words). This announcement comes with a 1 month look-ahead warning. What if someone subscribed a large number of accounts for a year, while depending on what has been for years a legal avenue of gameplay? What if someone has invested thousands of dollars of their own money into this style of gameplay which essentially encouraged multiple accounts, which in turn put money into CCP's pockets? There is a customer orientation lesson in here somewhere that someone is missing. It is inappropriate to turn policies around on a dime. Good customer orientation means that some amenable transition policy is devised instead of an immediate patch to the EULA which still, by its language, forbids multiple EVE installations on the same computer due to archaic, boilerplate language CCP has not looked at in years. For the record, I never have been interested in, or have performed any multiboxing or input multiplexing. As a career miner, I've always thought ice mining was destroyed by ISBoxer fleets.
essentially what my post was aiming at, and specifically I would like to see that CCP fully accept they must refund people for accounts subscribed under the old TOS. Trying to avoid it and causing legal issues will only be bad for business.
|
Sibyyl
Gallente Federation
15296
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:04:31 -
[1680] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:essentially what my post was aiming at, and specifically I would like to see that CCP fully accept they must refund people for accounts subscribed under the old TOS. Trying to avoid it and causing legal issues will only be bad for business.
If the so-called victims of input multiplexers (utilizing a legal avenue of gameplay) can be refunded, which we all know they have been, then it is incumbent on CCP to refund any mutiboxing accounts subscribed past the poorly planned Jan 1 date.
Anything short of that makes it very obvious that CCP is happy to take your money and then make an arbitrary rule against the very reason you handed them your money in the first place.
blah blah blah COFFEE blah blah. Yess yess the sophistication. ... Roasted coffee mmmm --Pepper the Penguin
~ For this is the end, I've drowned and dreamt this moment ~
|
|
|
Heckar Ottig
Star Frontiers
Test Alliance Please Ignore
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:07:59 -
[1681] - Quote
I have 2 questions about this change of policies.
First.
I have 2 accounts and rarely use them simultaneously, but I am wondering will it be ok to use software like OnTopReplica to broadcast mouse clicks to a single account at a time. I'll elaborate: I can cut out part of the window of account 2 and put it on top of account 1 window. Then I can use the "Click forwarding" feature to transmit the click to account 2 while still having account 1 window active. It's still one click - one action on a single account in game, it just removes the annoying alt tabbing part, it's not possible to broadcast to multiple accounts with OnTop, only to one window it has replicated and I still have to click mods in account 1 to activate them.
I consider it just a way of window management, but a CCP response on that would be nice.
Second.
This has been asked a lot already. Fancy gaming peripherals and binding all resist mods to one button.
I found a GM post from 2011 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=117249#post117249
It says right there:
Quote:1) Keyboard macros a'la the G15 Logitech keyboard
This really depends on the exact useof those keyboard macros. General guideline: Automating gameplay: bad. Turning on all your hardeners with one key press: fine
CCP please provide update on this policy, activating non-grouped modules on a single account with 1 key - yes or no.
Also, about this:
CCP Random wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Can you also detect someone using mouse drivers to send multiple commands with one button? We've been asking this for many, many pages now.
Yes. To quote the initial post: Quote:
We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe.
The scope of this is controlling multiple accounts at the same time (in a semi-automated fashion which uses your input actions multiple times) for actions with meaning to EVE. The means you apply to archive this do not matter at all.
I am taking CCP Random's response as yes, because I am activating mod on one account at a time, but it's still too vague to be certain. |
Heinrich Rotwang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:08:17 -
[1682] - Quote
Capri Sun KraftFoods wrote:As someone who actually ISBox's bombers I'm a little upset.
The problem isn't ISBoxer. The problem is that bombs as they currently stand are completely broken Sure isboxer exacerbates the problem significantly, but you can still get 30 dudes into a fleet easily and go kill anything with 4 waves that isn't a T3 or a faction battleship. I'd be happy to see my bomber accounts become useless and de-sub them if it meant I didn't have to worry about getting hell bombed every other fleet.
So 30 people working together can get your ship killed? If that is what is needed to call for a nerf, I would like to add a couple of other things to the list. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
842
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:12:09 -
[1683] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
I'm of the rare opinion that CCP needs to either repeal their inane changes, or go all the way and ban all such programs because there are hundreds of work-arounds that will cause headaches for the GMs.
the ruling is pretty clear actually. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
843
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:17:21 -
[1684] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
For the thousandth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a PER. TOON. BASIS.
CCP themselves have stated this.
yeah, isbotter accelerates gameplay on PER TOON BASIS. This is why you use it.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
You're right, it IS really simple. I'll say it slowly so you can understand.
The. Accellerated. Gameplay. Clause. Is. On. A. Per. Toon. Basis. Not. A. Per. Human. Basis.
it is.
Isbotter saves you time on actions on every single toon you automate, since it removes human interaction overhead going through all of them, clicking manually. This is why you use it. |
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:20:33 -
[1685] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:Ger Atol wrote:essentially what my post was aiming at, and specifically I would like to see that CCP fully accept they must refund people for accounts subscribed under the old TOS. Trying to avoid it and causing legal issues will only be bad for business.
If the so-called victims of input multiplexers (utilizing a legal avenue of gameplay) can be refunded, which we all know they have been, then it is incumbent on CCP to refund any mutiboxing accounts subscribed past the poorly planned Jan 1 date. Anything short of that makes it very obvious that CCP is happy to take your money and then make an arbitrary rule against the very reason you handed them your money in the first place.
What is more, in some legal jurisdiction they will be legally obliged to refund customers based on changes in terms of service that the customer cannot agree to. If they are stupid enough to ignore this then the very operation of the game in those juristictions will be in question, if it is necessary to challenge CCP in legal proceedings. Where I live there are a **** tonne of regulations and customer refunds for bad/dishonest products/sales.
As I said before
Ger Atol wrote:Question for CCP legal and refund department.
So I assume CCP are going to be refunding people who recently subscribed, under the old terms of service, where ISBoxing style broadcasting was essentially allowed. Considering the abrupt change of terms of service I will be expecting a refund proportional to the remaining time I have on my account. Considering it is a dramatic change in policy, and completely here to encourage, considering the frequent power of 2 offers, and here to acceptability of ISboxer style broadcasting, and coupled with the fact that this change has been considered and approved by CCP management prior to the official announcement, it might be considered fraudulence to have sold the product, with a subscription period longer than the warning period given to for the implementation of this new terms of service.
As such I would be hopeful that CCP will refund any account which cannot agree to the new terms of service, as they are completely different to the old, and dramatically so to people who are affected by this change.
P.S. I am not interested in anyone but CCP official response. And yes the game goes on but I would rather that they accept the losses they may get from this, which judging by the posts here will be minimal compared to overall subscriptions.
Since the company is still trading/operating, it is still dubiously fraudulent to sell 1 year subscriptions up to the day of such a change in policy. |
Grauth Thorner
Vicious Trading Company
228
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:30:10 -
[1686] - Quote
In regard wether ISBoxer is banned or not, CCP FoxFour wrote this in another section:
CCP FoxFour wrote:ISBoxer was not banned. The broadcast feature of ISBoxer was banned. It doesn't matter what application you use. It could be ISBoxer or another, but input duplication was banned. Very big difference. ISBoxer adds lots of other functionality that is not banned.
Source: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=385412
Creator of the EVE Custom Ship Labeler application:
>EVE Custom Ship Labeler application forum thread
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
843
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:31:25 -
[1687] - Quote
Sentenced 1989 wrote:
You always knew ISBoxer or any other 3rd line program was technically banned, just not enforced. Guessing it's same as with old AP0 hack, CCP now has way to detect it more accurately and will start enforcing the rule.
yep, what he said. if you subscribed on basis of EULA violating gameplay its your fault. |
Devious Johnson
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:32:38 -
[1688] - Quote
I am thinking we might need a special system in Rhea...
The only feature in this system would be a gigantic barrel....
because all the known structures cant hold the sheer amount of isboxer tears in this thread....
Isboxers, stop crying and whinging.. admit that your unfair and game ruining advantage is now at a end , HTFU and begin to play eve with real people... the way the game is designed to be played... |
Sibyyl
Gallente Federation
15299
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:33:35 -
[1689] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Sentenced 1989 wrote:
You always knew ISBoxer or any other 3rd line program was technically banned, just not enforced. Guessing it's same as with old AP0 hack, CCP now has way to detect it more accurately and will start enforcing the rule.
yep, what he said. if you subscribed on basis of EULA violating gameplay its your fault.
Technically banned? CCP has told us in writing this was not the case.
blah blah blah COFFEE blah blah. Yess yess the sophistication. ... Roasted coffee mmmm --Pepper the Penguin
~ For this is the end, I've drowned and dreamt this moment ~
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
843
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:34:57 -
[1690] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Sentenced 1989 wrote:
You always knew ISBoxer or any other 3rd line program was technically banned, just not enforced. Guessing it's same as with old AP0 hack, CCP now has way to detect it more accurately and will start enforcing the rule.
yep, what he said. if you subscribed on basis of EULA violating gameplay its your fault. Technically banned? CCP has told us in writing this was not the case.
not technically banned but against EULA all the time already (accelerated gameplay part). |
|
|
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:40:14 -
[1691] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Sentenced 1989 wrote:
You always knew ISBoxer or any other 3rd line program was technically banned, just not enforced. Guessing it's same as with old AP0 hack, CCP now has way to detect it more accurately and will start enforcing the rule.
yep, what he said. if you subscribed on basis of EULA violating gameplay its your fault. Technically banned? CCP has told us in writing this was not the case.
Yep, that's pretty clear. With words like that they should have give a heads up equal to the longest subscription they sell, i.e. 1 year. |
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:41:27 -
[1692] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Sibyyl wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Sentenced 1989 wrote:
You always knew ISBoxer or any other 3rd line program was technically banned, just not enforced. Guessing it's same as with old AP0 hack, CCP now has way to detect it more accurately and will start enforcing the rule.
yep, what he said. if you subscribed on basis of EULA violating gameplay its your fault. Technically banned? CCP has told us in writing this was not the case. not technically banned but against EULA all the time already (accelerated gameplay part).
No, it will only be against the terms of service in January. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
843
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:45:31 -
[1693] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:
No, it will only be against the terms of service in January.
the accelerated gameplay part be part of EULA for a long time already.
They just decided to strictly enforce this part upon isbotters since 1st of Jan. 2015. |
Quarantine
Panga Management
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:46:52 -
[1694] - Quote
I'm not much of a forum poster but this change of policy affects me so heavily I have to say something about it. I'm part of a small corp of 8 real world people who can make a difference in the game thanks to our ability to field several toons at the same time. Our real life work involves shift patterns that prevent us from sharing regular times to be able to play the game together, so we have grown to appreciate the time playing the game together when we can.
Thanks to CCP's previous stance on multiboxing and signal broadcasting, if and when I had time to log on to the game and I had no corp mates to play with (as is often the case) I was still able to make a difference and spend my time in the game usefully.
Now, activities that our corp are associated with such as C4 worm hole farming, null sec ratting and incursion running will only be possible when other corp members are online. This will cause me to play the game far less. I'm sure this is the case for others in New Eden and is a far less populated universe what people really want? I for one am responsible for 22 active and skilled toons.
I have not been afraid of PVPing with my toons using isboxer before and had a few interesting battles as a result (usually on the losing side), as of Jan 1st 2015 my toons will no longer be sitting ducks for the better players in the game to get nice shiny kill mails.
CCP's policy to allow software like isboxer caused me to invest heavily in terms of time and money in the character bazaar, extra accounts and more recently, multiple character training. CCP's policy change has rendered all my investments null and void, I doubt it's even worth selling my toons on the character bazaar as it will no doubt be flooded with people trying to do the same.
I don't have the time or inclination to play the game as regularly as others and the pressure from many PVP corps and alliances for regular participation means they are not a viable option. This leaves me wondering what I can do in the game to keep me interested, or even if this game has a future for me at all. |
Ore Farmer
4 Marketeers
Rura-Penthe
10
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:51:51 -
[1695] - Quote
Devious Johnson wrote:I am thinking we might need a special system in Rhea...
The only feature in this system would be a gigantic barrel....
because all the known structures cant hold the sheer amount of isboxer tears in this thread....
Isboxers, stop crying and whinging.. admit that your unfair and game ruining advantage is now at a end , HTFU and begin to play eve with real people... the way the game is designed to be played...
EVE is an MMO, right? I didn't realize that being an MMO it was designed to solely be 1 account per person kind of game, and that the structure of the game focuses on me working with other people. There is a difference between multiboxing and using ISBoxer to 1 click multiple accounts at a time. Name 1 MMO that restricts player to having only one account. Multiboxers don't all use ISBoxer, and not all ISBoxers use broadcasting across multiple accounts when multiboxing. The 2 aren't the same, people need to disassociate the 2 just because they go hand and hand.
Lets say ISboxer is completely banned....and I decide to make 100 accounts, and ice mine 12 hours a day with them all....and single handedly cause ice products to sky rocket. Do I have an unfair advantage over everyone else? Should I be banned? Anyone that plays eve can make and play as many accounts as they want, that in itself doesn't ruin eve. Those accounts still need to be paid for....either with PLEX or subscription costs. How many people complaining that the multiboxers are ruining eve, only have 1 account? Why do you have only 1 account, cuz of the cost? Again, multiboxers still have to pay for those accounts....they don't just magically make more isk.
So then if you want to argue I HAVE to play 1 account and work with other players....guess what happens...I run ops with my corp on a more regular basis and make just as much with 1 account as a group as I would 10 accounts solo. How does that make eve any better? More isk in game, while CCP losses income from restricting accounts?
|
HypoConDreAct
Shits N Giggles
18
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:55:31 -
[1696] - Quote
Quarantine wrote:I'm not much of a forum poster but this change of policy affects me so heavily I have to say something about it. I'm part of a small corp of 8 real world people who can make a difference in the game thanks to our ability to field several toons at the same time. Our real life work involves shift patterns that prevent us from sharing regular times to be able to play the game together, so we have grown to appreciate the time playing the game together when we can.
Thanks to CCP's previous stance on multiboxing and signal broadcasting, if and when I had time to log on to the game and I had no corp mates to play with (as is often the case) I was still able to make a difference and spend my time in the game usefully.
Now, activities that our corp are associated with such as C4 worm hole farming, null sec ratting and incursion running will only be possible when other corp members are online. This will cause me to play the game far less. I'm sure this is the case for others in New Eden and is a far less populated universe what people really want? I for one am responsible for 22 active and skilled toons.
I have not been afraid of PVPing with my toons using isboxer before and had a few interesting battles as a result (usually on the losing side), as of Jan 1st 2015 my toons will no longer be sitting ducks for the better players in the game to get nice shiny kill mails.
CCP's policy to allow software like isboxer caused me to invest heavily in terms of time and money in the character bazaar, extra accounts and more recently, multiple character training. CCP's policy change has rendered all my investments null and void, I doubt it's even worth selling my toons on the character bazaar as it will no doubt be flooded with people trying to do the same.
I don't have the time or inclination to play the game as regularly as others and the pressure from many PVP corps and alliances for regular participation means they are not a viable option. This leaves me wondering what I can do in the game to keep me interested, or even if this game has a future for me at all.
if you need help setting up a dash board for your accounts mail me in game. its a bit of a click fest now but you will find you have more control over your toons with out the repeater than with it. you do have to be on your toes a bit more but its not that bad
http://gyazo.com/b8b066881638082bf2d0d4eaf53fdee4
is how mine is set up. the dash board is on the right screent. happy to help a fellow multiboxer if you want it |
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:58:14 -
[1697] - Quote
Quarantine wrote:I'm not much of a forum poster but this change of policy affects me so heavily I have to say something about it. I'm part of a small corp of 8 real world people who can make a difference in the game thanks to our ability to field several toons at the same time. Our real life work involves shift patterns that prevent us from sharing regular times to be able to play the game together, so we have grown to appreciate the time playing the game together when we can.
Thanks to CCP's previous stance on multiboxing and signal broadcasting, if and when I had time to log on to the game and I had no corp mates to play with (as is often the case) I was still able to make a difference and spend my time in the game usefully.
Now, activities that our corp are associated with such as C4 worm hole farming, null sec ratting and incursion running will only be possible when other corp members are online. This will cause me to play the game far less. I'm sure this is the case for others in New Eden and is a far less populated universe what people really want? I for one am responsible for 22 active and skilled toons.
I have not been afraid of PVPing with my toons using isboxer before and had a few interesting battles as a result (usually on the losing side), as of Jan 1st 2015 my toons will no longer be sitting ducks for the better players in the game to get nice shiny kill mails.
CCP's policy to allow software like isboxer caused me to invest heavily in terms of time and money in the character bazaar, extra accounts and more recently, multiple character training. CCP's policy change has rendered all my investments null and void, I doubt it's even worth selling my toons on the character bazaar as it will no doubt be flooded with people trying to do the same.
I don't have the time or inclination to play the game as regularly as others and the pressure from many PVP corps and alliances for regular participation means they are not a viable option. This leaves me wondering what I can do in the game to keep me interested, or even if this game has a future for me at all.
indeed, several people are in the same situation, I know I am leaving and I expect a refund of my subscription time left. I will not be advising friends to try eve anymore, and the few who have stayed will quit when i leave. I didn't even seriously ISBox, but like you, my time in game was limited and ISBoxer ment i could do my own thing easily when friends were not around. this is impossible now, and I have no desire to run one character, to rarely log in.
|
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:59:35 -
[1698] - Quote
HypoConDreAct wrote:Quarantine wrote:I'm not much of a forum poster but this change of policy affects me so heavily I have to say something about it. I'm part of a small corp of 8 real world people who can make a difference in the game thanks to our ability to field several toons at the same time. Our real life work involves shift patterns that prevent us from sharing regular times to be able to play the game together, so we have grown to appreciate the time playing the game together when we can.
Thanks to CCP's previous stance on multiboxing and signal broadcasting, if and when I had time to log on to the game and I had no corp mates to play with (as is often the case) I was still able to make a difference and spend my time in the game usefully.
Now, activities that our corp are associated with such as C4 worm hole farming, null sec ratting and incursion running will only be possible when other corp members are online. This will cause me to play the game far less. I'm sure this is the case for others in New Eden and is a far less populated universe what people really want? I for one am responsible for 22 active and skilled toons.
I have not been afraid of PVPing with my toons using isboxer before and had a few interesting battles as a result (usually on the losing side), as of Jan 1st 2015 my toons will no longer be sitting ducks for the better players in the game to get nice shiny kill mails.
CCP's policy to allow software like isboxer caused me to invest heavily in terms of time and money in the character bazaar, extra accounts and more recently, multiple character training. CCP's policy change has rendered all my investments null and void, I doubt it's even worth selling my toons on the character bazaar as it will no doubt be flooded with people trying to do the same.
I don't have the time or inclination to play the game as regularly as others and the pressure from many PVP corps and alliances for regular participation means they are not a viable option. This leaves me wondering what I can do in the game to keep me interested, or even if this game has a future for me at all. if you need help setting up a dash board for your accounts mail me in game. its a bit of a click fest now but you will find you have more control over your toons with out the repeater than with it. you do have to be on your toes a bit more but its not that bad happy to help a fellow multiboxer if you want it
You are a very considerate person and may be the only hope for me and my toons staying, I may mail you. :)
|
Blastcaps Madullier
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
DARKNESS.
157
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:09:14 -
[1699] - Quote
Falcon as you know players go inactive for periods at a time, rather than banning returning players who haven't heard/seen/read this thread can a popup be put into game for returning players who login with ISboxer etc active warning them of these changes so that you dont end up with a bunch of returning players ending up getting banned for the use of ISboxer simply because they didn't know or read the forums before logging in for the first time in ages, like multiboxing ice miners etc.
Saves agrivation and hassle both for ccp and said returning players.
|
The Ironfist
Nordbot Capitals
Northern Associates.
72
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:11:11 -
[1700] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:
5) What I want to see. PLAYERS, not accounts, people. If there is a bomber wing (come on boys . . . wooohoohoo) I want to know it is eight guys working in unison. I like watching a football match (soccer) but I get far less enjoyment watching foosball.
Fair enough though what point is there right now bombing does not require any skill it is too easy to wipe out fleets the change that could have fixed that ccp took back because of massive crying. Now with isboxed bombers gone will we see battleship meta again? No we won't. Because again the problem was not isboxer the problem is still that AOE weapon systems in a MMO are broken and ccp still refuses to accept that. |
|
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
843
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:11:52 -
[1701] - Quote
Quarantine wrote:I'm not much of a forum poster but this change of policy affects me so heavily I have to say something about it. I'm part of a small corp of 8 real world people who can make a difference in the game thanks to our ability to field several toons at the same time. Our real life work involves shift patterns that prevent us from sharing regular times to be able to play the game together, so we have grown to appreciate the time playing the game together when we can.
join a bigger corp maybe? Merge with another corp? |
Darth Schweinebacke
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:11:57 -
[1702] - Quote
CCP in no way needs to refund any of your payments.
You paid CCP to get access to their server with multiple accounts and the policy does not change the ability from CCPs side in any way.
You did not pay CCP to be able to use all ISboxer features. |
Grauth Thorner
Vicious Trading Company
231
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:12:12 -
[1703] - Quote
Ore Farmer wrote:Devious Johnson wrote:I am thinking we might need a special system in Rhea...
The only feature in this system would be a gigantic barrel....
because all the known structures cant hold the sheer amount of isboxer tears in this thread....
Isboxers, stop crying and whinging.. admit that your unfair and game ruining advantage is now at a end , HTFU and begin to play eve with real people... the way the game is designed to be played... EVE is an MMO, right? I didn't realize that being an MMO it was designed to solely be 1 account per person kind of game, and that the structure of the game focuses on me working with other people. There is a difference between multiboxing and using ISBoxer to 1 click multiple accounts at a time. Name 1 MMO that restricts player to having only one account. Multiboxers don't all use ISBoxer, and not all ISBoxers use broadcasting across multiple accounts when multiboxing. The 2 aren't the same, people need to disassociate the 2 just because they go hand and hand. Lets say ISboxer is completely banned....
Again:
In regard wether ISBoxer is banned or not, CCP FoxFour wrote this in another section:
CCP FoxFour wrote:
ISBoxer was not banned. The broadcast feature of ISBoxer was banned. It doesn't matter what application you use. It could be ISBoxer or another, but input duplication was banned. Very big difference. ISBoxer adds lots of other functionality that is not banned.
Source: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=385412
Creator of the EVE Custom Ship Labeler application:
>EVE Custom Ship Labeler application forum thread
|
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:14:16 -
[1704] - Quote
Darth Schweinebacke wrote:CCP in no way needs to refund any of your payments.
You paid CCP to get access to their server with multiple accounts and the policy does not change the ability from CCPs side in any way.
You did not pay CCP to be able to use all ISboxer features.
Fortunately where I live we have consumer law is reasonable places to live, and don't rely on the opinions of random people :) |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
112
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:14:31 -
[1705] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:Mining is relaxing.
Mining is enjoyable.
Mining is stiff. The yield varies very little, no matter how hard you try.
You may be all relaxed throughout a month, but one day it strikes you "I want to make something big, and I want it quick!" You have some options like switching from Mackinaw to Hulk, or ask for Rorqual bonuses - but it's all so minuscule. If you want to become serious - the only real option is to get +1 barge. And then +1 more. And some more. And even more. Finally, you end up with 20 accounts. Then, when you want to step back and return to the good old relaxing mining, chatting with friends and stuff, something inside you is whispering "no! the accounts are plexed! they must work!"
What we need is an activity that allows for different modes of operation - both relaxing (but with low profit), and active (with a lot more profit). CCP tried it, but no success yet: mining quality ores in "high-risk" environment is not that risky in fact, and Mackinaw/Hulk tradeoff lacks depth. |
Blastcaps Madullier
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
DARKNESS.
157
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:15:02 -
[1706] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:HypoConDreAct wrote:Quarantine wrote:I'm not much of a forum poster but this change of policy affects me so heavily I have to say something about it. I'm part of a small corp of 8 real world people who can make a difference in the game thanks to our ability to field several toons at the same time. Our real life work involves shift patterns that prevent us from sharing regular times to be able to play the game together, so we have grown to appreciate the time playing the game together when we can.
Thanks to CCP's previous stance on multiboxing and signal broadcasting, if and when I had time to log on to the game and I had no corp mates to play with (as is often the case) I was still able to make a difference and spend my time in the game usefully.
Now, activities that our corp are associated with such as C4 worm hole farming, null sec ratting and incursion running will only be possible when other corp members are online. This will cause me to play the game far less. I'm sure this is the case for others in New Eden and is a far less populated universe what people really want? I for one am responsible for 22 active and skilled toons.
I have not been afraid of PVPing with my toons using isboxer before and had a few interesting battles as a result (usually on the losing side), as of Jan 1st 2015 my toons will no longer be sitting ducks for the better players in the game to get nice shiny kill mails.
CCP's policy to allow software like isboxer caused me to invest heavily in terms of time and money in the character bazaar, extra accounts and more recently, multiple character training. CCP's policy change has rendered all my investments null and void, I doubt it's even worth selling my toons on the character bazaar as it will no doubt be flooded with people trying to do the same.
I don't have the time or inclination to play the game as regularly as others and the pressure from many PVP corps and alliances for regular participation means they are not a viable option. This leaves me wondering what I can do in the game to keep me interested, or even if this game has a future for me at all. if you need help setting up a dash board for your accounts mail me in game. its a bit of a click fest now but you will find you have more control over your toons with out the repeater than with it. you do have to be on your toes a bit more but its not that bad happy to help a fellow multiboxer if you want it You are a very considerate person and may be the only hope for me and my toons staying, I may mail you. :)
as I said else where in this thread ISboxer wasn't a issue when it was confined to mining, but as time has gone on people have expanded that use upto and including pvp which has a detrimental effect on the game as a whole, and its the health of the WHOLE game ccp has to consider over all.
as for incursions, your MENT to run these in a group and there's plenty of groups in the incursion community happy to take players in fleets, your NOT supposed to run a entire fleet by yourself to do incursions.... |
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:15:33 -
[1707] - Quote
Anyway, considering the weight of opinion, it will not cost CCP much to live up to their obligation and refund people affected. |
Devious Johnson
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:16:55 -
[1708] - Quote
Ore Farmer wrote:Devious Johnson wrote:I am thinking we might need a special system in Rhea...
The only feature in this system would be a gigantic barrel....
because all the known structures cant hold the sheer amount of isboxer tears in this thread....
Isboxers, stop crying and whinging.. admit that your unfair and game ruining advantage is now at a end , HTFU and begin to play eve with real people... the way the game is designed to be played... EVE is an MMO, right? I didn't realize that being an MMO it was designed to solely be 1 account per person kind of game, and that the structure of the game focuses on me working with other people. There is a difference between multiboxing and using ISBoxer to 1 click multiple accounts at a time. Name 1 MMO that restricts player to having only one account. Multiboxers don't all use ISBoxer, and not all ISBoxers use broadcasting across multiple accounts when multiboxing. The 2 aren't the same, people need to disassociate the 2 just because they go hand and hand. Lets say ISboxer is completely banned....and I decide to make 100 accounts, and ice mine 12 hours a day with them all....and single handedly cause ice products to sky rocket. Do I have an unfair advantage over everyone else? Should I be banned? Anyone that plays eve can make and play as many accounts as they want, that in itself doesn't ruin eve. Those accounts still need to be paid for....either with PLEX or subscription costs. How many people complaining that the multiboxers are ruining eve, only have 1 account? Why do you have only 1 account, cuz of the cost? Again, multiboxers still have to pay for those accounts....they don't just magically make more isk. So then if you want to argue I HAVE to play 1 account and work with other players....guess what happens...I run ops with my corp on a more regular basis and make just as much with 1 account as a group as I would 10 accounts solo. How does that make eve any better? More isk in game, while CCP losses income from restricting accounts?
The point is this. Eve is a MMO. It is designed so if you work together with other people you can achieve more. Isboxer removes the requirement to work together with people. It enabled you to do almost everything solely and more efficently than working with others.
And it removed content (incursions, ice, minerals, rats and pvp content from the game) for others at faster rate than a single player not using the software could remove that content.
Isboxer made a single person too efficent and did not encourage teamwork with other real people.
It is therefore not healthy for the longtime health of eve. Eve relies on player interaction (see the latest eve trailer) to survive.
Isboxer was hurting Eve.
|
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:18:59 -
[1709] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:Ger Atol wrote:HypoConDreAct wrote:Quarantine wrote:I'm not much of a forum poster but this change of policy affects me so heavily I have to say something about it. I'm part of a small corp of 8 real world people who can make a difference in the game thanks to our ability to field several toons at the same time. Our real life work involves shift patterns that prevent us from sharing regular times to be able to play the game together, so we have grown to appreciate the time playing the game together when we can.
Thanks to CCP's previous stance on multiboxing and signal broadcasting, if and when I had time to log on to the game and I had no corp mates to play with (as is often the case) I was still able to make a difference and spend my time in the game usefully.
Now, activities that our corp are associated with such as C4 worm hole farming, null sec ratting and incursion running will only be possible when other corp members are online. This will cause me to play the game far less. I'm sure this is the case for others in New Eden and is a far less populated universe what people really want? I for one am responsible for 22 active and skilled toons.
I have not been afraid of PVPing with my toons using isboxer before and had a few interesting battles as a result (usually on the losing side), as of Jan 1st 2015 my toons will no longer be sitting ducks for the better players in the game to get nice shiny kill mails.
CCP's policy to allow software like isboxer caused me to invest heavily in terms of time and money in the character bazaar, extra accounts and more recently, multiple character training. CCP's policy change has rendered all my investments null and void, I doubt it's even worth selling my toons on the character bazaar as it will no doubt be flooded with people trying to do the same.
I don't have the time or inclination to play the game as regularly as others and the pressure from many PVP corps and alliances for regular participation means they are not a viable option. This leaves me wondering what I can do in the game to keep me interested, or even if this game has a future for me at all. if you need help setting up a dash board for your accounts mail me in game. its a bit of a click fest now but you will find you have more control over your toons with out the repeater than with it. you do have to be on your toes a bit more but its not that bad happy to help a fellow multiboxer if you want it You are a very considerate person and may be the only hope for me and my toons staying, I may mail you. :) as I said else where in this thread ISboxer wasn't a issue when it was confined to mining, but as time has gone on people have expanded that use upto and including pvp which has a detrimental effect on the game as a whole, and its the health of the WHOLE game ccp has to consider over all. as for incursions, your MENT to run these in a group and there's plenty of groups in the incursion community happy to take players in fleets, your NOT supposed to run a entire fleet by yourself to do incursions....
Think about your arguement. The main point is you could do all those things, and buy 1 year subscription to do it. Now you suddenly can't. That is a change in terms of service, within that year, so yes people deserve a refund for being sold a product whose specs have changes completely within the time frame they were to use it.
Anyone not affected should not have a problem with this, as it does not affect them. |
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:21:20 -
[1710] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:Question for CCP legal and refund department.
So I assume CCP are going to be refunding people who recently subscribed, under the old terms of service, where ISBoxing style broadcasting was essentially allowed. Considering the abrupt change of terms of service I will be expecting a refund proportional to the remaining time I have on my account. Considering it is a dramatic change in policy, and completely here to encourage, considering the frequent power of 2 offers, and here to acceptability of ISboxer style broadcasting, and coupled with the fact that this change has been considered and approved by CCP management prior to the official announcement, it might be considered fraudulence to have sold the product, with a subscription period longer than the warning period given to for the implementation of this new terms of service.
As such I would be hopeful that CCP will refund any account which cannot agree to the new terms of service, as they are completely different to the old, and dramatically so to people who are affected by this change.
P.S. I am not interested in anyone but CCP official response. And yes the game goes on but I would rather that they accept the losses they may get from this, which judging by the posts here will be minimal compared to overall subscriptions.
Since the company is still trading/operating, it is still dubiously fraudulent to sell 1 year subscriptions up to the day of such a change in policy.
better get a CCP response by tomorrow.
|
|
|
Darth Schweinebacke
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:22:20 -
[1711] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:
Think about your arguement. The main point is you could do all those things, and by 1 year subscription to do it. Now you suddenly can't. That is a change in terms of service, within that year, so yes people deserve a refund for being sold a product whose specs have changes completely within the time frame they were to use it.
You can still run your 1 man fleets, just with slightly less help from 3rd party tools, which ccp has no obligation to accept as legal method to play their game in the first place.
If you subscribed for 10 accounts and suddenly ccp decides to limit each individual player to 1 account you would be right. In this case you are not. |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
112
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:23:16 -
[1712] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:bombing does not require any skill it is too easy to wipe out fleets
How many times did you organize bombing runs that wiped out fleets?
My guess is... hm... ZERO!
You have no idea what you're talking about. Get educated first. |
Devious Johnson
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:23:27 -
[1713] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:Ger Atol wrote:Question for CCP legal and refund department.
So I assume CCP are going to be refunding people who recently subscribed, under the old terms of service, where ISBoxing style broadcasting was essentially allowed. Considering the abrupt change of terms of service I will be expecting a refund proportional to the remaining time I have on my account. Considering it is a dramatic change in policy, and completely here to encourage, considering the frequent power of 2 offers, and here to acceptability of ISboxer style broadcasting, and coupled with the fact that this change has been considered and approved by CCP management prior to the official announcement, it might be considered fraudulence to have sold the product, with a subscription period longer than the warning period given to for the implementation of this new terms of service.
As such I would be hopeful that CCP will refund any account which cannot agree to the new terms of service, as they are completely different to the old, and dramatically so to people who are affected by this change.
P.S. I am not interested in anyone but CCP official response. And yes the game goes on but I would rather that they accept the losses they may get from this, which judging by the posts here will be minimal compared to overall subscriptions.
Since the company is still trading/operating, it is still dubiously fraudulent to sell 1 year subscriptions up to the day of such a change in policy. better get a CCP response by tomorrow.
Just get out. Nobody wants a person like you in this game.
|
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:25:45 -
[1714] - Quote
Darth Schweinebacke wrote:Ger Atol wrote:
Think about your arguement. The main point is you could do all those things, and by 1 year subscription to do it. Now you suddenly can't. That is a change in terms of service, within that year, so yes people deserve a refund for being sold a product whose specs have changes completely within the time frame they were to use it.
You can still run your 1 man fleets, just with slightly less help from 3rd party tools, which ccp has no obligation to accept as legal method to play their game in the first place. If you subscribed for 10 accounts and suddenly ccp decides to limit each individual player to 1 account you would be right. In this case you are not.
No, think about it dude. Just imagine for one second how it would feel like if you had subscribed say 13 accounts cos everyone else is, and you did it the day before the announcement. It's bad form. they should refund you, since they publically stated it was acceptable up to the moment it was announced.
Not asking for any in game advantage, just a simple Real Life reversal of the transaction made in good faith to CCP. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
843
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:26:46 -
[1715] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:The Ironfist wrote:bombing does not require any skill it is too easy to wipe out fleets How many times did you organize bombing runs that wiped out fleets? My guess is... hm... ZERO! You have no idea what you're talking about. Get educated first.
with isbotter, it IS LITTLE SKILL!
Get prober in your fleet, probe fleet, warp your bomber fleet to prober in position, all simultaneously decloak, all simultaneously warp drop bomb, all simultaneously warp out. The organizing part is clearly missing there, idgi why you dont unterstand the concept of isbotted bombing. |
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:28:40 -
[1716] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:Ger Atol wrote:Question for CCP legal and refund department.
So I assume CCP are going to be refunding people who recently subscribed, under the old terms of service, where ISBoxing style broadcasting was essentially allowed. Considering the abrupt change of terms of service I will be expecting a refund proportional to the remaining time I have on my account. Considering it is a dramatic change in policy, and completely here to encourage, considering the frequent power of 2 offers, and here to acceptability of ISboxer style broadcasting, and coupled with the fact that this change has been considered and approved by CCP management prior to the official announcement, it might be considered fraudulence to have sold the product, with a subscription period longer than the warning period given to for the implementation of this new terms of service.
As such I would be hopeful that CCP will refund any account which cannot agree to the new terms of service, as they are completely different to the old, and dramatically so to people who are affected by this change.
P.S. I am not interested in anyone but CCP official response. And yes the game goes on but I would rather that they accept the losses they may get from this, which judging by the posts here will be minimal compared to overall subscriptions.
Since the company is still trading/operating, it is still dubiously fraudulent to sell 1 year subscriptions up to the day of such a change in policy.
Again transactions made in good faith for a reliable service up to the moment of announcement should be refunded. Real Life comes first remember people, this is not a question of in-game advantage, just a real life business integrity and consumer relations issue. |
Darth Schweinebacke
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:30:03 -
[1717] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:Darth Schweinebacke wrote:Ger Atol wrote:
Think about your arguement. The main point is you could do all those things, and by 1 year subscription to do it. Now you suddenly can't. That is a change in terms of service, within that year, so yes people deserve a refund for being sold a product whose specs have changes completely within the time frame they were to use it.
You can still run your 1 man fleets, just with slightly less help from 3rd party tools, which ccp has no obligation to accept as legal method to play their game in the first place. If you subscribed for 10 accounts and suddenly ccp decides to limit each individual player to 1 account you would be right. In this case you are not. No, think about it dude. Just imagine for one second how it would feel like if you had subscribed say 13 accounts cos everyone else is, and you did it the day before the announcement. It's bad form. they should refund you, since they publically stated it was acceptable up to the moment it was announced. Not asking for any in game advantage, just a simple Real Life reversal of the transaction made in good faith to CCP.
They also said several times that they might revisit their policy on that topic and it might get changed at some point.
And surely it would be nice if they would give out a refund, but pretending that they would be breaking laws (which they don-¦t) if they do not do it, will not be helping you. |
Irya Boone
Never Surrender.
412
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:30:22 -
[1718] - Quote
anyway thank you CCP for this , keep doing the good work and don't listen to the Isboxers at all
Drop the hammer again and again and don't forget the offgrid booster too :)
CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails
.... Open that damn door !!
|
Grauth Thorner
Vicious Trading Company
233
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:30:51 -
[1719] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:
Think about your arguement. The main point is you could do all those things, and buy 1 year subscription to do it. Now you suddenly can't. That is a change in terms of service, within that year, so yes people deserve a refund for being sold a product whose specs have changes completely within the time frame they were to use it.
Anyone not affected should not have a problem with this, as it does not affect them.
Why should people that are offending the EULA get a refund? It was their own choice to offend the EULA because at that point there were no consequences apart from what is happening now, namely the message that there will be consequences in the future.
Creator of the EVE Custom Ship Labeler application:
>EVE Custom Ship Labeler application forum thread
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
843
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:32:34 -
[1720] - Quote
Grauth Thorner wrote:
Why should people that are offending the EULA get a refund? It was their own choice to offend the EULA because at that point there were no consequences apart from what is happening now, namely the message that there will be consequences in the future.
yeah **** them over, they have been an issue for long enough already. If you paid to play against the rules, its your fault. |
|
|
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
114
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:32:59 -
[1721] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:The Ironfist wrote:bombing does not require any skill it is too easy to wipe out fleets How many times did you organize bombing runs that wiped out fleets? My guess is... hm... ZERO! You have no idea what you're talking about. Get educated first. with isbotter, it IS LITTLE SKILL! Get prober in your fleet, probe fleet, warp your bomber fleet to prober in position, all simultaneously decloak, all simultaneously warp drop bomb, all simultaneously warp out. The organizing part is clearly missing there, idgi why you dont unterstand the concept of isbotted bombing.
Because I was talking about real-player bombing run.
The dude said "even though isboxer is banned, it's still too easy". I say - it's not. |
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:33:40 -
[1722] - Quote
Darth Schweinebacke wrote:Ger Atol wrote:Darth Schweinebacke wrote:Ger Atol wrote:
Think about your arguement. The main point is you could do all those things, and by 1 year subscription to do it. Now you suddenly can't. That is a change in terms of service, within that year, so yes people deserve a refund for being sold a product whose specs have changes completely within the time frame they were to use it.
You can still run your 1 man fleets, just with slightly less help from 3rd party tools, which ccp has no obligation to accept as legal method to play their game in the first place. If you subscribed for 10 accounts and suddenly ccp decides to limit each individual player to 1 account you would be right. In this case you are not. No, think about it dude. Just imagine for one second how it would feel like if you had subscribed say 13 accounts cos everyone else is, and you did it the day before the announcement. It's bad form. they should refund you, since they publically stated it was acceptable up to the moment it was announced. Not asking for any in game advantage, just a simple Real Life reversal of the transaction made in good faith to CCP. They also said several times that they might revisit their policy on that topic and it might get changed at some point. And surely it would be nice if they would give out a refund, but pretending that they would be breaking laws (which they don-¦t) if they do not do it, will not be helping you.
Not pretending much. Or do you not see that is pretty dubious to sell a product, take real money for it, and immediately change policy before the term expired? do you think you would accept this from any other product you buy? how about a car? you would like to buy a new car but find out when you get it home that it will be illegal to drive that model in a month?
|
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:34:38 -
[1723] - Quote
Grauth Thorner wrote:Ger Atol wrote:
Think about your arguement. The main point is you could do all those things, and buy 1 year subscription to do it. Now you suddenly can't. That is a change in terms of service, within that year, so yes people deserve a refund for being sold a product whose specs have changes completely within the time frame they were to use it.
Anyone not affected should not have a problem with this, as it does not affect them.
Why should people that are offending the EULA get a refund? It was their own choice to offend the EULA because at that point there were no consequences apart from what is happening now, namely the message that there will be consequences in the future.
wasnt against it before this announcement, go look at the forum post on this topic up to now. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
843
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:36:48 -
[1724] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:
Not pretending much. Or do you not see that is pretty dubious to sell a product, take real money for it, and immediately change policy before the term expired? do you think you would accept this from any other product you buy? how about a car? you would like to buy a new car but find out when you get it home that it will be illegal to drive that model in a month?
you accept the terms of service when you subscribe for eve. And those terms say that CCP is free to change their terms at any given time. Its not even that they changed really something, they start to enforce policy which is in EULA for a decade already. |
Darth Schweinebacke
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:37:01 -
[1725] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:
Not pretending much. Or do you not see that is pretty dubious to sell a product, take real money for it, and immediately change policy before the term expired? do you think you would accept this from any other product you buy? how about a car? you would like to buy a new car but find out when you get it home that it will be illegal to drive that model in a month?
You said that they are breaking laws, created to protect customers.
Again. You pay your subscription to be able to access the server and play their game. You do not pay to be allowed to do it with the help of 3rd party tools.
Your ability to access the server with multiple accounts does not get changed at all by the change of this policy. |
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:39:20 -
[1726] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:Ger Atol wrote:[quote=Ger Atol]Question for CCP legal and refund department.
So I assume CCP are going to be refunding people who recently subscribed, under the old terms of service, where ISBoxing style broadcasting was essentially allowed. Considering the abrupt change of terms of service I will be expecting a refund proportional to the remaining time I have on my account. Considering it is a dramatic change in policy, and completely here to encourage, considering the frequent power of 2 offers, and here to acceptability of ISboxer style broadcasting, and coupled with the fact that this change has been considered and approved by CCP management prior to the official announcement, it might be considered fraudulence to have sold the product, with a subscription period longer than the warning period given to for the implementation of this new terms of service.
As such I would be hopeful that CCP will refund any account which cannot agree to the new terms of service, as they are completely different to the old, and dramatically so to people who are affected by this change.
P.S. I am not interested in anyone but CCP official response. And yes the game goes on but I would rather that they accept the losses they may get from this, which judging by the posts here will be minimal compared to overall subscriptions.
Since the company is still trading/operating, it is still dubiously fraudulent to sell 1 year subscriptions up to the day of such a change in policy.
I challenge any CSM to read my point. You should see where this crosses the line. I won't say who I vote for, but I want to see your metal. Get behind this simple point.
This is not like a module rebalance that negates you year training. This is a total change in how you can use multiple clients. Again judging by the reaction, very few refunds will be necessary.
Any rational person who understands my point will see there is only one "right thing to do"
Do the right thing CCP
Refund people whose real life money you have taken before this change, and who are now out of pocket for nothing.
Do the real life right thing. |
Devious Johnson
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:49:37 -
[1727] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:Ger Atol wrote:Ger Atol wrote:[quote=Ger Atol]Question for CCP legal and refund department.
So I assume CCP are going to be refunding people who recently subscribed, under the old terms of service, where ISBoxing style broadcasting was essentially allowed. Considering the abrupt change of terms of service I will be expecting a refund proportional to the remaining time I have on my account. Considering it is a dramatic change in policy, and completely here to encourage, considering the frequent power of 2 offers, and here to acceptability of ISboxer style broadcasting, and coupled with the fact that this change has been considered and approved by CCP management prior to the official announcement, it might be considered fraudulence to have sold the product, with a subscription period longer than the warning period given to for the implementation of this new terms of service.
As such I would be hopeful that CCP will refund any account which cannot agree to the new terms of service, as they are completely different to the old, and dramatically so to people who are affected by this change.
P.S. I am not interested in anyone but CCP official response. And yes the game goes on but I would rather that they accept the losses they may get from this, which judging by the posts here will be minimal compared to overall subscriptions.
Since the company is still trading/operating, it is still dubiously fraudulent to sell 1 year subscriptions up to the day of such a change in policy. I challenge any CSM to read my point. You should see where this crosses the line. I won't say who I vote for, but I want to see your metal. Get behind this simple point. This is not like a module rebalance that negates you year training. This is a total change in how you can use multiple clients. Again judging by the reaction, very few refunds will be necessary. Any rational person who understands my point will see there is only one "right thing to do" Do the right thing CCP Refund people whose real life money you have taken before this change, and who are now out of pocket for nothing. Do the real life right thing.
Reported for spamming. Stop cluttering up this thread with your whinge for a refund.
|
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7328
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:50:15 -
[1728] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:Ger Atol wrote:Ger Atol wrote:[quote=Ger Atol]Question for CCP legal and refund department.
So I assume CCP are going to be refunding people who recently subscribed, under the old terms of service, where ISBoxing style broadcasting was essentially allowed. Considering the abrupt change of terms of service I will be expecting a refund proportional to the remaining time I have on my account. Considering it is a dramatic change in policy, and completely here to encourage, considering the frequent power of 2 offers, and here to acceptability of ISboxer style broadcasting, and coupled with the fact that this change has been considered and approved by CCP management prior to the official announcement, it might be considered fraudulence to have sold the product, with a subscription period longer than the warning period given to for the implementation of this new terms of service.
As such I would be hopeful that CCP will refund any account which cannot agree to the new terms of service, as they are completely different to the old, and dramatically so to people who are affected by this change.
P.S. I am not interested in anyone but CCP official response. And yes the game goes on but I would rather that they accept the losses they may get from this, which judging by the posts here will be minimal compared to overall subscriptions.
Since the company is still trading/operating, it is still dubiously fraudulent to sell 1 year subscriptions up to the day of such a change in policy. I challenge any CSM to read my point. You should see where this crosses the line. I won't say who I vote for, but I want to see your metal. Get behind this simple point. This is not like a module rebalance that negates you year training. This is a total change in how you can use multiple clients. Again judging by the reaction, very few refunds will be necessary. Any rational person who understands my point will see there is only one "right thing to do" Do the right thing CCP Refund people whose real life money you have taken before this change, and who are now out of pocket for nothing. Do the real life right thing.
Good luck with that sparky.
Can I have your stuff when you ragequit?
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
25676
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:53:18 -
[1729] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Whew, caught up again.
I disagree with some things, agree with others but I have no wish to hunt and search and copy blocks of text most of us skip reading anyways.
so
1) I want to thank Nolak and Yi and Shadow(something or other) You wrote well and for the most part kept above the petty name calling or pouting. Well done and I tried to make sure I read your posts carefully.
2) Posts I skipped usually contained the words unsub or tears. They contributed very little to the discussion. I also tended to laugh at ones that involve parrots, chopsticks or images of a juryrigged computer from years ago.
3) Yes there are workarounds, some using ISBoxer, others using scripted mice or keyboard. Some are fair game others skate close enough to the edge that they risk a ban. Basically it comes down to a question of economics. Are you willing to risk ALL your accounts (and assets) being banned by skating on the thin ice knowingly? Risk vs reward in the metagame.
4) Someone posted that ISBoxer and such were discussed in the summer summit. Yup, and perhaps in more detail than the edited (or redacted) minutes show. Think that one through, please.
5) What I want to see. PLAYERS, not accounts, people. If there is a bomber wing (come on boys . . . wooohoohoo) I want to know it is eight guys working in unison. I like watching a football match (soccer) but I get far less enjoyment watching foosball.
6) Multiple accounts are still fair usage. Scouts, self boosting (for those 'solo' players), neutral logi? All good to go. So no smoke screens in that direction. Same for fleet and squad warp. Although I HAVE argued for the latter to be changed before . . . ask me some other time about why.
that's it for now. a few more posts have appeared while I was writing this.
I'll keep reading and listening because that is what I said I would do.
m
how many characters do you multibox?
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 11:54:30 -
[1730] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:Ger Atol wrote:Ger Atol wrote:Ger Atol wrote:[quote=Ger Atol]Question for CCP legal and refund department.
So I assume CCP are going to be refunding people who recently subscribed, under the old terms of service, where ISBoxing style broadcasting was essentially allowed. Considering the abrupt change of terms of service I will be expecting a refund proportional to the remaining time I have on my account. Considering it is a dramatic change in policy, and completely here to encourage, considering the frequent power of 2 offers, and here to acceptability of ISboxer style broadcasting, and coupled with the fact that this change has been considered and approved by CCP management prior to the official announcement, it might be considered fraudulence to have sold the product, with a subscription period longer than the warning period given to for the implementation of this new terms of service.
As such I would be hopeful that CCP will refund any account which cannot agree to the new terms of service, as they are completely different to the old, and dramatically so to people who are affected by this change.
P.S. I am not interested in anyone but CCP official response. And yes the game goes on but I would rather that they accept the losses they may get from this, which judging by the posts here will be minimal compared to overall subscriptions.
Since the company is still trading/operating, it is still dubiously fraudulent to sell 1 year subscriptions up to the day of such a change in policy. I challenge any CSM to read my point. You should see where this crosses the line. I won't say who I vote for, but I want to see your metal. Get behind this simple point. This is not like a module rebalance that negates you year training. This is a total change in how you can use multiple clients. Again judging by the reaction, very few refunds will be necessary. Any rational person who understands my point will see there is only one "right thing to do" Do the right thing CCP Refund people whose real life money you have taken before this change, and who are now out of pocket for nothing. Do the real life right thing. Good luck with that sparky. Can I have your stuff when you ragequit?
You can have all my stuff if they agree to refund me, will only cost a company with millions in turn over a couple of hundred bucks. And I have a very sad story that got me to this juncture which they would at least get some feel good factor for acquiescing to my request.
And I will give you all my stuff, if you see where I am coming from and support me in this real life issue.
I have several hundred billion in assets, all yours friend, you asked first.
|
|
|
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
30
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 12:00:40 -
[1731] - Quote
Irya Boone wrote:2014 the year of the tears
Tears of FW farmers ( with the dps check on NPC in plexes) :)
Tears of insta jumper all over the map in 2 minutes :)
Tears of i can control 15 accounts with one mouse and one keyboard..
I'm telling you the year of Tears
if i've forgotten some TEARS please remind me :)
I have an additional wish: Remove the automatic email to the SOV owner in case a POS is placed in the system. This would force the owners to actively search for intruder which is impossible for the "alliances" owning big renting spaces and last but not least brek the neck of this crap renting mechanism.
Then we also would have blue doughnut tears :) |
Grauth Thorner
Vicious Trading Company
233
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 12:04:05 -
[1732] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:Grauth Thorner wrote:Ger Atol wrote:
Think about your arguement. The main point is you could do all those things, and buy 1 year subscription to do it. Now you suddenly can't. That is a change in terms of service, within that year, so yes people deserve a refund for being sold a product whose specs have changes completely within the time frame they were to use it.
Anyone not affected should not have a problem with this, as it does not affect them.
Why should people that are offending the EULA get a refund? It was their own choice to offend the EULA because at that point there were no consequences apart from what is happening now, namely the message that there will be consequences in the future. wasnt against it before this announcement, go look at the forum post on this topic up to now.
From the EULA:
"(3) For a Change in the EULA
If an amendment alters a material term of the EULA that is unacceptable to you, you may, as your sole and exclusive remedy, terminate the EULA and close your Accounts by: (a) clicking the "DECLINE" button when you are prompted to review and agree to the amended EULA; or (b) notifying CCP via electronic mail within thirty (30) days after the amended EULA was communicated to you, provided that you have not clicked the "ACCEPT" button, accessed the System or played the Game during that period. Your notice must state: (i) that you do not agree to the amended EULA, specifically describing the amendment(s) with which you disagree, and request CCP to close all of your Accounts; (ii) your player name and (iii) your login name. You may receive a refund of any prepaid subscription fees, prorated as of the effective date of your termination, by sending CCP a request via electronic mail within thirty (30) days of your termination notice. If you click "ACCEPT" or otherwise continue to access the System or play the Game, you shall be deemed to have accepted the amended EULA and waive your rights to terminate under this section."
This is your only hope, really... But afaik the EULA isn't changed, as I didn't have to re-accept a EULA. The only thing that is changed is that there are now consequences for parts in the EULA, consequences that weren't there before. But this change isn't mentioned in the EULA.
Creator of the EVE Custom Ship Labeler application:
>EVE Custom Ship Labeler application forum thread
|
Ger Atol
FocusPoint
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 12:08:27 -
[1733] - Quote
Grauth Thorner wrote:Ger Atol wrote:Grauth Thorner wrote:Ger Atol wrote:
Think about your arguement. The main point is you could do all those things, and buy 1 year subscription to do it. Now you suddenly can't. That is a change in terms of service, within that year, so yes people deserve a refund for being sold a product whose specs have changes completely within the time frame they were to use it.
Anyone not affected should not have a problem with this, as it does not affect them.
Why should people that are offending the EULA get a refund? It was their own choice to offend the EULA because at that point there were no consequences apart from what is happening now, namely the message that there will be consequences in the future. wasnt against it before this announcement, go look at the forum post on this topic up to now. From the EULA: "(3) For a Change in the EULA If an amendment alters a material term of the EULA that is unacceptable to you, you may, as your sole and exclusive remedy, terminate the EULA and close your Accounts by: (a) clicking the "DECLINE" button when you are prompted to review and agree to the amended EULA; or (b) notifying CCP via electronic mail within thirty (30) days after the amended EULA was communicated to you, provided that you have not clicked the "ACCEPT" button, accessed the System or played the Game during that period. Your notice must state: (i) that you do not agree to the amended EULA, specifically describing the amendment(s) with which you disagree, and request CCP to close all of your Accounts; (ii) your player name and (iii) your login name. You may receive a refund of any prepaid subscription fees, prorated as of the effective date of your termination, by sending CCP a request via electronic mail within thirty (30) days of your termination notice. If you click "ACCEPT" or otherwise continue to access the System or play the Game, you shall be deemed to have accepted the amended EULA and waive your rights to terminate under this section." This is your only hope, really... But afaik the EULA isn't changed, as I didn't have to re-accept a EULA. The only thing that is changed is that there are now consequences for parts in the EULA, consequences that weren't there before. But this change isn't mentioned in the EULA.
just going to leave this here
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2750884#post2750884
in case you don't bother looking it says
Please do not parse our words without context. Yesterday, I made a post saying "Our policy on this has not changed." Earlier today I made a post saying "Our policy on this did not change since yesterday."
I meant this incredible literally. Our policy on ISBoxer has not changed in a long time. I am not trying to trick you or present you with some sort of intricate sting operation. We are currently applying the same rule we have on ISBoxer as we have for quite a long time.
CCP Eterne
essentially, i cannot click accept to the new terms of service, hence i want a refund. TY |
Wander Prian
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
44
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 12:20:35 -
[1734] - Quote
This is the wrong place to be asking for a refund. File a petition and do it that way. Shouting for a refund here is not going to get you anywhere |
Bagatur I
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 12:21:46 -
[1735] - Quote
Daniel Jackson wrote:what exactly is Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing? i still don't understand is using the logitech keyboards GKEY binds Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing ?
the new change will affect controlling multiple accounts only! what you mention may or may not fall under input automation rule, which has been bannable even before that.
are people not even using google anymore? just input 'difference between broadcasting and multicasting". here is a link with some technical definitions http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry/course/intro-pages/uni-b-mcast.html |
Grauth Thorner
Vicious Trading Company
236
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 12:37:32 -
[1736] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:Grauth Thorner wrote:Ger Atol wrote:Grauth Thorner wrote:Ger Atol wrote:
Think about your arguement. The main point is you could do all those things, and buy 1 year subscription to do it. Now you suddenly can't. That is a change in terms of service, within that year, so yes people deserve a refund for being sold a product whose specs have changes completely within the time frame they were to use it.
Anyone not affected should not have a problem with this, as it does not affect them.
Why should people that are offending the EULA get a refund? It was their own choice to offend the EULA because at that point there were no consequences apart from what is happening now, namely the message that there will be consequences in the future. wasnt against it before this announcement, go look at the forum post on this topic up to now. From the EULA: "(3) For a Change in the EULA If an amendment alters a material term of the EULA that is unacceptable to you, you may, as your sole and exclusive remedy, terminate the EULA and close your Accounts by: (a) clicking the "DECLINE" button when you are prompted to review and agree to the amended EULA; or (b) notifying CCP via electronic mail within thirty (30) days after the amended EULA was communicated to you, provided that you have not clicked the "ACCEPT" button, accessed the System or played the Game during that period. Your notice must state: (i) that you do not agree to the amended EULA, specifically describing the amendment(s) with which you disagree, and request CCP to close all of your Accounts; (ii) your player name and (iii) your login name. You may receive a refund of any prepaid subscription fees, prorated as of the effective date of your termination, by sending CCP a request via electronic mail within thirty (30) days of your termination notice. If you click "ACCEPT" or otherwise continue to access the System or play the Game, you shall be deemed to have accepted the amended EULA and waive your rights to terminate under this section." This is your only hope, really... But afaik the EULA isn't changed, as I didn't have to re-accept a EULA. The only thing that is changed is that there are now consequences for parts in the EULA, consequences that weren't there before. But this change isn't mentioned in the EULA. just going to leave this here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2750884#post2750884
in case you don't bother looking it says Please do not parse our words without context. Yesterday, I made a post saying "Our policy on this has not changed." Earlier today I made a post saying "Our policy on this did not change since yesterday." I meant this incredible literally. Our policy on ISBoxer has not changed in a long time. I am not trying to trick you or present you with some sort of intricate sting operation. We are currently applying the same rule we have on ISBoxer as we have for quite a long time. CCP Eterne essentially, i cannot click accept to the new terms of service, hence i want a refund. TY
What new terms of service? As this post is stating, the policy has not been changed for a long time (somewhere else in your linked thread someone is saying the last time it changed was 2010, I'll take that for granted). If you clicked accept on the changes made back in 2010, which you have because you can log in, you have accepted that using software/hardware for broadcasting, among other things, is not allowed.
Creator of the EVE Custom Ship Labeler application:
>EVE Custom Ship Labeler application forum thread
|
Kallen Stadfelt
Spectre II
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 12:43:49 -
[1737] - Quote
There are allot of people using ISBoxer, without it it is just a pain to control multiple characters, would not be surprised if they all De-Subbed to see the logon number drop by quite a bit, also allot of those ISBoxers would buy Plexes to run those accounts.
I use ISBoxer for Everquest btw...
First they shoot themselves in the foot with Announcing Dust Legion, most of us Day 1 Dusties quit after that, they cancel Vampire, now no longer allowed to use ISBoxer properly.
Not sure if CCP is heading in the direction i want to be in when Legion comes out (if ever). |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire
760
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 12:46:21 -
[1738] - Quote
Just chiming in to say
*I love U Mr. Falcon*
Over the recent weeks, I've engage more single guys running an ISBoxer fleet compared compared to actual groups of individuals. I'm certain since suspected ISBoxer fleets had either identical pilot names with numbers or otherwise some numbers on them...
LOVE U GUYS
"I honestly thought I was in lowsec"
|
Sentenced 1989
Quantum Anomaly Corporation
132
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 12:53:49 -
[1739] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:
essentially, i cannot click accept to the new terms of service, hence i want a refund. TY
You do realize CCP has entire legal department who sorts stuff regarding EULA and everything.
In matter of law, they are not obligated to refund you . Even if they pull the plug tomorrow out of server, they don't have to refund anybody, as it is stated before hand in EULA which you accepted when you were buying your one year subscription.
So your full argument in this case would be:
"I accepted EULA when I payed year of subscription which stated that I am not entitled to any refunds. I did click I accept those terms before paying CCP and money. I can't use 3rd party software now to help me play the game and I want my money back."
You won't have to click to accept new terms of service because there aren't any, they just clarified that one part of EULA is against key broadcasting/multiplication, and they will start to enforce that part at January and won't do it proactively.
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
Challenged
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP
Brave Collective
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 12:54:28 -
[1740] - Quote
Kaaeliaa wrote:Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D Who cares? They're the kind of people EVE doesn't want because they screw things up for everyone else. CCP, congratulations on having the stones to put your foot down and tell these types to get out. Maybe we can finally have nice things again.
I doubt many players will quit over it, but the amount of accounts subscribed may take a dip.
I have 14 subscribed accounts (im too bad at eve to plex them), as of next month that will drop down to 3, possibly 2, depending on what activities I plan on doing. That's a $1400 - $1900 loss for CCP annually from myself alone.
I never used them for bombing, or to gain advantages in pvp apart from bashing structures.
I believe CCP probably have already factored an ballpark figure of how much money may be lost from this, and since they are going forward, it is probably not high enough to affect them long term.
I find it annoying, but not game breaking. By the looks of replies here overall it's a pretty unpopular thing in general, so probably for the best of the game. |
|
|
Sentenced 1989
Quantum Anomaly Corporation
132
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 13:00:48 -
[1741] - Quote
Challenged wrote:
I doubt many players will quit over it, but the amount of accounts subscribed may take a dip.
I have 14 subscribed accounts (im too bad at eve to plex them), as of next month that will drop down to 3, possibly 2, depending on what activities I plan on doing. That's a $1400 - $1900 loss for CCP annually from myself alone.
I never used them for bombing, or to gain advantages in pvp apart from bashing structures.
I believe CCP probably have already factored an ballpark figure of how much money may be lost from this, and since they are going forward, it is probably not high enough to affect them long term.
I find it annoying, but not game breaking. By the looks of replies here overall it's a pretty unpopular thing in general, so probably for the best of the game.
That is loss for them yea, unless you sell your toons who are then again going to be payed.
And if you don't, you won't be buying plex which will cause some increase in supply, causing plex to go a bit down in price (10 accounts ins' that much, but lets assume there is 5.000 of cases like this). Since you will then get less ingame ISK for a plex, you might decided to buy more plexes from CCP, in the end evening it out. So yea, generally they won't lose much money if any at all.
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
Leorajev Aubaris
Blue Goat Ltd.
16
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 13:17:38 -
[1742] - Quote
Mierin Arthie wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe. How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard?
As I read it you can still use a KVM switch (as long as it does not send the same command simultanously to all connected computers).
|
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
31
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 13:21:24 -
[1743] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote: understands my point will see there is only one "right thing to do"
Do the right thing CCP
Refund people whose real life money you have taken before this change, and who are now out of pocket for nothing.
Do the real life right thing.
I am pretty sure they can add some isk to your account, the isk you spent on the market purchasing plex. If you try to tell me you paid real money in the past (you know? real money means you open your real bank account and push an given amount in your currency to the account of CCP) then I don't believe you.
I don't believe that someone who spent 100 or more USD real money per month just to play a game suddenly has problems when he lost some bucks. If you spent some billions of isk to purchase plexes you should receive isk back after the account is inactivated.
o/ |
Bagatur I
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 13:23:46 -
[1744] - Quote
Jared Noan wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters
Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
Reading into this, fleet warping could be considered a banable offence. You want to take out the lawyer talk, so will I.
Fleet warping is a game feature, as in it is in the freaking EVE client, as in it is NOT an external hardware or 3rd party software, and it is being used as intended!
EVE community brags how EVE is hard and only the smartest gamers survive and it weeds out the dumb ones, and yet this thread is full of people like you |
Bagatur I
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 13:26:27 -
[1745] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:While I can't say I agree with CCP's decision in this regards, I do understand it and I do respect it.
I will miss the ice mining, but it appears to be time to lay off my "employees" and go find something else worthwhile to do within New Eden.
and what stops from mining with one account? or alt-tabbing a couple?
if you could finance 10 accounts with 10 ISboxed miners, you should be able to finance 1 account with manual mining? |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14032
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 13:30:29 -
[1746] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:This is the wrong place to be asking for a refund. File a petition and do it that way. Shouting for a refund here is not going to get you anywhere
Please don't do this. The answer is no and you will slow down response times to people with actual problems
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Wander Prian
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
44
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 13:38:54 -
[1747] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Wander Prian wrote:This is the wrong place to be asking for a refund. File a petition and do it that way. Shouting for a refund here is not going to get you anywhere Please don't do this. The answer is no and you will slow down response times to people with actual problems
He is still going to get his official answer from there faster than from this thread. And as it is quite simple answer he's going to get, it shouldn't make the waiting time that much longer.
I am failing to see how this is such a big problem for everybody? English isn't my native language and I still understood Falcons post. Multiboxing is still perfectly legal. You just cannot control your fleet with one button. |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
947
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 13:41:30 -
[1748] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:This is the wrong place to be asking for a refund. File a petition and do it that way. Shouting for a refund here is not going to get you anywhere
Oh yes it will. It will get me to tell them they need to stop being such f*cking morons.
Asking for refunds because your 'gameplay method' (read: cheat) was banned with plenty of warning in advance. How dare you.
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Terino
Widgit Inc
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 14:01:08 -
[1749] - Quote
Bagatur I wrote:
and what stops from mining with one account? or alt-tabbing a couple?
if you could finance 10 accounts with 10 ISboxed miners, you should be able to finance 1 account with manual mining?
Alt Tabbing isn't multiplexing or manipulating hardware to perform SIMULTANEOUS inputs to multiple sessions..
This is legit. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
843
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 14:02:35 -
[1750] - Quote
Terino wrote:
Alt Tabbing isn't multiplexing or manipulating hardware to perform SIMULTANEOUS inputs to multiple sessions..
This is legit.
if you Alt-Tab its not simultaneous.
|
|
|
Terino
Widgit Inc
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 14:28:12 -
[1751] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Terino wrote:
Alt Tabbing isn't multiplexing or manipulating hardware to perform SIMULTANEOUS inputs to multiple sessions..
This is legit.
if you Alt-Tab its not simultaneous.
That's what I said...
I'm sure that is how I read it
|
Grauth Thorner
Vicious Trading Company
237
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 14:31:38 -
[1752] - Quote
Terino wrote:Bagatur I wrote:
and what stops from mining with one account? or alt-tabbing a couple?
if you could finance 10 accounts with 10 ISboxed miners, you should be able to finance 1 account with manual mining?
Alt Tabbing isn't multiplexing or manipulating hardware to perform SIMULTANEOUS inputs to multiple sessions.. This is legit.
And this is what he said. He is actually saying 'do this instead of that because this is legit'
Creator of the EVE Custom Ship Labeler application:
>EVE Custom Ship Labeler application forum thread
|
Square PI
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 14:48:39 -
[1753] - Quote
Ger Atol wrote:
essentially what my post was aiming at, and specifically I would like to see that CCP fully accept they must refund people for accounts subscribed under the old TOS. Trying to avoid it and causing legal issues will only be bad for business.
And there is your problem. There is no "old" TOS. It was not changed at all, just clarified how they will response to it in future.
Untill now CCP didnt enforce for their TOS and allowed to use multibox with 3rd party tools that were sending commandos to multi accounts.
And all they said is that this is not allowed and they will punish the use with bans.
You see the difference?
Earlier: Not allowed but no one cared.
Now: Not allowed and ban if they find someone who is using it (as it should have been from the begin).
Why are you thinking they are doing it now? Maybe it went over the edge and is becoming a problem. I have no clue. But basicly i find it ok. Time will tell if will pay off. If they lose 50-90% of the sups it might be a bad outcoming. But for everyone who was not using these tools, and was playing with his 1, 2 or maybe 3 accounts the legal way, it will be a good change.
|
Square PI
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 15:01:34 -
[1754] - Quote
Heckar Ottig wrote:I have 2 questions about this change of policies. First. I have 2 accounts and rarely use them simultaneously, but I am wondering will it be ok to use software like OnTopReplica to broadcast mouse clicks to a single account at a time. I'll elaborate: I can cut out part of the window of account 2 and put it on top of account 1 window. Then I can use the "Click forwarding" feature to transmit the click to account 2 while still having account 1 window active. It's still one click - one action on a single account in game, it just removes the annoying alt tabbing part, it's not possible to broadcast to multiple accounts with OnTop, only to one window it has replicated and I still have to click mods in account 1 to activate them. I consider it just a way of window management, but a CCP response on that would be nice. Second. This has been asked a lot already. Fancy gaming peripherals and binding all resist mods to one button. I found a GM post from 2011 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=117249#post117249
It says right there: Quote:1) Keyboard macros a'la the G15 Logitech keyboard
This really depends on the exact useof those keyboard macros. General guideline: Automating gameplay: bad. Turning on all your hardeners with one key press: fine CCP please provide update on this policy, activating non-grouped modules on a single account with 1 key - yes or no. ............................
About 1.)
From what i see there should be no problem with this.
I am using Synergy for my System. It is really helpfull and makes it easier to use more than one computer. But it is basicly only a bigger desktop where you still use the one mouse and keyboard on several PCs.
2.)
It is always the same. The question is what can the hardware do and what are you using of this.
You can write macros with the G15. And with these you can automatize really alot. The question is when is to much and becoming illigal.
It is no problem to set a marco to turn on several modules at once, or all your weapons. But it will become a problem when you make a "target asteroid, mine, dock, unload, undock, warp, target asteroid" macro.
Or you can set hotkeys on the G15 to automatic repeat. Even this might already be a problem. You can easy make a Spam macro for local chat with this. |
Boob Titski
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 15:26:09 -
[1755] - Quote
does it mean we dont get those annoying patches anymore every 6 weeks cuss CCP will have less monizz cuss how many accounts are funded though multiboxing ? (multiboxing like key broadcast)(i guess its way more than those 10% mentioned earlier)
on the other hand: it means CCP would care more about players than their own wallet which is a milestone in gaming history.
also it will be possible again to see the local in only 1 screen.
at first i wanted to ***** about that nerv but now ... AWESOME CCP !!!
|
Volcane Nephilim
The Magic Roundabout Initiative
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 15:31:18 -
[1756] - Quote
Do people really think CCP made a decision like this without being able to analyse the economic impact of the alt not being paid?
You can be fairly certain they are able to detect input broadcasting - else how will they enforce it in Jan?
You can be fairly certain they already have this capability in the client and platform you use today
They already know exactly how many alts are being used in this manner and they can guess most of them will unsub as a result of this policy change
Devs don't make revenue impacting changes on their own without talking to the accountants, they ran the numbers, they know what will happen and decided based on numbers that this is an acceptable loss of income.
You have *every* person who play the game in this manner whining on this thread, and there really arent that many of you. Don't let the door hit on you on the way out you really will not be missed. |
Square PI
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 15:33:16 -
[1757] - Quote
I can already see the news for the future:
BBOD (big ban of the day).
Today we stroke again. This time 21 trillion ISK were destroyed by banning another botter. We are on the right path to make EVE a better world and increased the value of the ISK.
You Mittani CCP. |
Bagatur I
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 15:33:16 -
[1758] - Quote
Dazamin wrote:Can we remove squad / wing / fleet warps too?
you can remove your brain, because apparently you are not using it |
Bagatur I
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 15:39:16 -
[1759] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:Just wanna throw this out there to start, I am always amazed how players can support actions taken to shrink their player base. That actually like seeing people quit and their game shrivel. I laugh every time. With that said...
This seems like a far more harmful action to be taking without concurrent buffs within the game. I personally do not ISBox, yet can see it's necessity within a game with a shrinking player base for market stability. Think about it's primary use: Mining. Can you tell me that you think that when this starts being enforced that mineral prices will not begin to skyrocket? Do you believe that ship, module, ammo, and drone prices will not go up in turn? Simple case of supply and demand people. This will not cut off your supply entirely, but it will completely remove a large percentage of your suppliers. I would assume most players who make use of this program are strongly contemplating unloading their characters and leaving entirely.
While most of us can say that the multiboxing suicide ganks and bombers are annoying.. and may be glad to see their frequency decline (they will NEVER stop unless ccp wants to kill this game entirely).. this action is too broad without a patch hitting concurrently increasing the mineral payouts of refining modules and ore. CCP is removing a large portion of the game supply without supplementing it with anything. More players will not start mining until the prices are already increasing making the profits worth their time to change their professions. By that time the damage has been done and while the market will stabilize it will be much higher than what we currently see.
CCP this is too broad an action. Some people are upset about the pvp related actions of that segment of the player base. Those you see crying now about multiboxing miners don't seem to understand what they actually contribute to the game or are simply bandwagoning trolls who do understand but just like to watch the world burn.
I'll end with this I really have no horse in this game. Just wanted to throw that out there and maybe open some eyes.
stopped reading there. how is this shrinking the player base? if ISboxers dont quit, instead of ONE player running 10 accounts you will have still ONE player running 1 count. no shrinking. if ISboxers quit, a player OUTSIDE of player base is removed, because they mainly ISbox so that they didnt have to play with other players. no loss here either.
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
75
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 15:41:45 -
[1760] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Sentenced 1989 wrote:
You always knew ISBoxer or any other 3rd line program was technically banned, just not enforced. Guessing it's same as with old AP0 hack, CCP now has way to detect it more accurately and will start enforcing the rule.
yep, what he said. if you subscribed on basis of EULA violating gameplay its your fault. Technically banned? CCP has told us in writing this was not the case.
Actually, that statement was superseded when CCP published its Third Party Policies page. The page has already been updated with the latest information provided in the opening post, but using the wayback machine, the last paragraph under "Client modification" used to read:
Previous Third Party Policy on Client Modification wrote:
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. We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay. For instance, the use of programs that provide in-game overlays (Mumble, Teamspeak) and the multiboxing application is not something we plan to actively police at this time. 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.
The multiboxing application referred to above was ISBoxer. So for over a year, (the wayback machine shows the same language on the page back in June 2013) CCP posted in writing that ISBoxer violated the prohibitions against client modification (6A2, 6A3, and 9C) but that they were not going to enforce the EULA. However, CCP warned that they could enforce these provisions of the EULA in the future and to use the software "at your own risk."
Well, CCP has decided to start enforcing these provisions, and gave everyone 5 weeks notice. Even then, CCP is only banning the functionality that violates the EULA, which means that ISBoxer is not banned, just using some of the optional features is.
I have the feeling that giving over 30 days notice for the change was due to legal reasons.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
|
|
Bagatur I
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 15:41:51 -
[1761] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:I don't understand why this has to apply to mining or ratting. You're going to lose hundreds of subscriptions over this CCP. What a terrible decision this is.
Please place an exception where broadcasting commands to mine rocks, shoot rats, jettison cargo, etc. is all permitted.
CCP please dont. cheating is cheating, whether you use it get numerical advantage in pvp or financial advantage. |
Heckar Ottig
Star Frontiers
Test Alliance Please Ignore
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 15:48:08 -
[1762] - Quote
Square PI wrote:
2.)
It is always the same. The question is what can the hardware do and what are you using of this.
You can write macros with the G15. And with these you can automatize really alot. The question is when is to much and becoming illigal.
It is no problem to set a marco to turn on several modules at once, or all your weapons. But it will become a problem when you make a "target asteroid, mine, dock, unload, undock, warp, target asteroid" macro.
Or you can set hotkeys on the G15 to automatic repeat. Even this might already be a problem. You can easy make a Spam macro for local chat with this.
Well the mining situation is a bit straight forward, some piece of your macro code has to check if your cargo is full or are your mining lasers are running, that's a logical operation and is considered automation. Also unloading your cargo can only be performed with mouse gestures (is it?), putting it in the macro is 100% automation. Pressing all f buttons simultaneously doesn't have any if/when/while logic behind it.
Basically, as long as the peripheral doesn't get any data from the game and is only used to broadcast commands it's not automation. |
Santa Spirit
Christmas Spirit and Goodwill Toward Man
306
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 15:48:32 -
[1763] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Is it true that during Fanfest, CCP Seagull, you were telling people that multiboxers had nothing to worry about?
And during EVE Vegas, that other devs were telling people that multiboxing was "ok", even if they personally disagreed with it?
If I may?
the issue here is not multi-boxing.
the issue here is the automated sending of signals/commands to multiple clients at the same time.
The difference being in the delivery method of the command, not the fact that there are multiple client instances receiving it.
My Main uses as many as 11 accounts at once, each one manually selected and given its orders (squad/fleet actions sent by the server excluded), that is what's known as multi-boxing.
A program such as ISBoxer that sends the signal to all clients at once without the need to select the individual clients instances is what CCP is referring to when they talk about multiple broadcasting, or multi-plexing the commands via software.
Santa
PS. Come join us this year: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5181952 <- blatant advertisement :)
On Occasion, I must apologize for the things I say because they sometimes make me sound as though I have a clue.
Please feel free to join in on the fun Dec 14th. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3918380 (2013) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=183205 (2012)
|
Bagatur I
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 15:54:17 -
[1764] - Quote
Brutus Le'montac wrote:are logitech keyboards with macro keys now also prohibited ( if i use the 1 or more of the 18 macro keys)?
if so please send me the info i need to claim 150$ from ccp for a new keybord, or send me a gamer keyboard that does not have macro keys ccp, tyvm in advance.
macros have been prohibited looooong time ago, way before this automated multiboxing ban. why are you whining about it now and in this thread? |
Raziel Walker
Lucifer's Hammer
A Band Apart.
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 16:05:49 -
[1765] - Quote
If ISboxers were such a huge factor in mineral pricing and supply then the game was unhealthy and in need of a fix anyway.
CCP could gradually increase mining or ore refine yields until the remaining miners can cover the shortfall created. This will also draw in new miners because the activity becomes rewarding.
No revenue is lost with ISboxers quitting and unsubscribing because ISBoxers were plexing accounts anyway, now someone else can buy that plex. Less demand will push down plex prices. No idea if lower plex prices will result in more or in less people selling PLEX on the market though.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
844
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 16:08:18 -
[1766] - Quote
Heckar Ottig wrote:
Basically, as long as the peripheral doesn't get any data from the game and is only used to broadcast commands it's not automation.
there is no such restriction.
Lacking feed-back from client does not make a difference in this case.
Automation does not describe just a set of methods but for a big part the purpose being targetted as well.
When asking the question if something is automated or not you should primarily ask the question about the goal being pursued by certain means/tools - in case of isbotter it is clearly controlling x clients without direct human interaction with them, which pretty much meets the definition of automation, i.e. controlling complex machinery/technology with reduced human workload.
I yet wonder how many people confuse multiboxing (which is still perfectly fine for CCP) with
multiboxing automation, which is topic of this thread. Is it ignorance, pure idiocy or just trolling?? |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation
DemSal Unlimited
2045
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 16:22:05 -
[1767] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:
how many characters do you multibox?
Funny thing. I have just one account active. 99.9% of the time I am on I am on as Mike Azariah. I admire the skill of people who can multibox and, as said before (many times), THAT is not on the chopping block. I just like being a single entity.
As to the refund request folks? Probably not, although I do not speak for CCP. If anything I would request a refund from the maker of ISBoxer or whomsoever you bought that software from (or is that a subscription too?) IF they said it would work in a specific way with Eve. Eve did not say it would work with third party software so it is under no obligation to do so nor to refund you if it decides to change how it interacts with third party folks.
I won't go all rules lawyery beyond the above. Just say that I am not pushing for a refund for you. Hey, maybe you voted for someone else and he or she will take up your banner.
I won't.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 16:22:28 -
[1768] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:
This announcement comes with a 1 month look-ahead warning. What if someone subscribed a large number of accounts for a year, while depending on what has been for years a legal avenue of gameplay?
Exactly. I had purchased 2 new toons simply to use with ISBoxer (with the intention of purchasing 8 more). I then purchased ISBoxer and started setting it up and playing with it. The day I was able to get all the ships to launch together in formation (via broadcasting), was the day this notice came out.
Do I feel perturbed about subbing 2 accts for a year? somewhat. Do I feel cheated for purchasing ISBoxer when its main feature is going to get nerftf? A little.
Should CCP have given us a little more notice. Yea... that would have been appreciated. Adding a little lube to the stick in the butt would have been nice.
Will I keep playing eve? oh yea.. will I continue to multibox? hell yea. Will this change have a huge impact? That is something yet to be seen.
What is surprising is the amount of anger and hostility shown here in this "discussion". If the active forum posters represent a small faction of the player base, then I am more than happy to keep multiboxing and doing my own thing.
|
Maurice Shepard
Running with Dogs
Nerfed Alliance Go Away
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 16:27:20 -
[1769] - Quote
Kant Boards wrote:CCP making bold and courageous and much needed changes. Whats next!? An end to AFK cloaking?!
One can only hope. |
Heckar Ottig
Star Frontiers
Test Alliance Please Ignore
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 16:38:06 -
[1770] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Heckar Ottig wrote:
Basically, as long as the peripheral doesn't get any data from the game and is only used to broadcast commands it's not automation.
there is no such restriction. Lacking feed-back from client does not make a difference in this case. Automation does not describe just a set methods but for a big part the purpose as well. When asking the question if something is automated or not you should primarily ask the question about the goal being pursued by certain means/tools - in case of isbotter it is clearly controlling x clients without direct human interaction with them, which pretty much meets the definition of automation, i.e. controlling complex machinery/technology with reduced human workload. I yet wonder how many people confuse multiboxing (which is still perfectly fine for CCP) with multiboxing automation, which is topic of this thread. Is it ignorance, pure idiocy or just trolling??
We ask about the programmable keys because of this part of the op:
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.
We want to make it clear at which point does CCP consider using programmable keys as automation (with use cases examples preferably). I agree with the definition of the word "automation" you provided, but, unless you relog under your CCP dev/gm character and tell me the exact same thing, your point is irrelevant.
If they say "grouping resist mods and ewar is a nono" that's fine, whatever. More frustrating to mash 4 keys instead of 1, but masochism is the reason half the people here play this game in the first place. |
|
|
Bagatur I
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 16:40:27 -
[1771] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:
I get <10ms lagtimes when manually alt-tabbing hard and using keybinds. It all comes down to the granularity of the logs in question as to whether it can be done or not.
such a load of bullcrap!!! if you have 10ms lag times even just manually alt-tabbing even without using keybind to send commands to alt-tabbed windows, that means you can press alt-tab, or even hold alt and press tab 100 times per second. let me repeat - ONE HUNDRED TIMES per second. you can not press a button 100 times per second. |
Areen Sassel
40
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 16:57:02 -
[1772] - Quote
Square PI wrote:Why are you thinking they are doing it now? Maybe it went over the edge and is becoming a problem.
My guess is the influx of new players, some of whom will end up as miners (whether or not that's a good idea). The situation for them isn't improved by vast supplies of minerals mined by clone armies. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4325
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:05:02 -
[1773] - Quote
Areen Sassel wrote:Square PI wrote:Why are you thinking they are doing it now? Maybe it went over the edge and is becoming a problem. My guess is the influx of new players, some of whom will end up as miners (whether or not that's a good idea). The situation for them isn't improved by vast supplies of minerals mined by clone armies.
It's been in discussion for a while.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
268
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:09:00 -
[1774] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:The multiboxing application referred to above was ISBoxer. So for over a year, (the wayback machine shows the same language on the page back in June 2013) CCP posted in writing that ISBoxer violated the prohibitions against client modification (6A2, 6A3, and 9C) but that they were not going to enforce the EULA. However, CCP warned that they could enforce these provisions of the EULA in the future and to use the software "at your own risk."
Well, CCP has decided to start enforcing these provisions, and gave everyone 5 weeks notice. Even then, CCP is only banning the functionality that violates the EULA, which means that ISBoxer is not banned, just using some of the optional features is.
I have the feeling that giving over 30 days notice for the change was due to legal reasons.
Except that's wrong.
6a2 doesn't apply as ISBoxer doesn't re-skin or otherwise change how a player sees the game. An example of this would be the WoW healing mod that places everyone's name in a nice little box and automatically healed them when you clicked.
CCP has stated countless times in the past that the "accelerated gameplay" clause was on a PER TOON BASIS. If you continue to believe differently, send them a ticket or spend 30 seconds looking through all the old "PLZ BAN ISBOXER MY FEELINGS WERE HURT" threads.
Lax did not do anything to modify, decompile, or otherwise disassemble the EVE source code. At this stage, you're fishing for ANYTHING to grasp a hold of to justify your lack of education on the issue. |
Radkiel
Everlasting Vendetta.
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:13:12 -
[1775] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:The Ironfist wrote:bombing does not require any skill it is too easy to wipe out fleets How many times did you organize bombing runs that wiped out fleets? My guess is... hm... ZERO! You have no idea what you're talking about. Get educated first. with isbotter, it IS LITTLE SKILL! Get prober in your fleet, probe fleet, warp your bomber fleet to prober in position, all simultaneously decloak, all simultaneously warp drop bomb, all simultaneously warp out. The organizing part is clearly missing there, idgi why you dont unterstand the concept of isbotted bombing.
For all of your statements it is blatantly obvious you have never used this program yet you continue act as if your the worlds foremost authority. You have no clue what Isboxer is, therefore your opinions are worthless. IF a person wish to debate a point that person should educate themselves before making wild and misleading accusations.
GS |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
844
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:13:48 -
[1776] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
CCP has stated countless times in the past that the "accelerated gameplay" clause was on a PER TOON BASIS.
this clause covers exactly isbotters input broadcast functionality.
Radkiel wrote:
For all of your statements it is blatantly obvious you have never used this program yet you continue act as if your the worlds foremost authority. You have no clue what Isboxer is, therefore your opinions are worthless. IF a person wish to debate a point that person should educate themselves before making wild and misleading accusations.
GS
which part of my statement is wrong? Feel free to correct it. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
275
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:18:33 -
[1777] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Fonac wrote:So is-boxer is banned?
edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned.
Technically, ISBoxer is not banned but the use of it is.
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
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
268
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:19:37 -
[1778] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
CCP has stated countless times in the past that the "accelerated gameplay" clause was on a PER TOON BASIS.
this clause covers exactly isbotters input broadcast functionality.
What? No it hasn't. Unless you're referring to the new clause in which case I'll simply laugh you out of court.
From a multiboxer in 2010:
https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/oldrigs
CCP told him even back then that their main issue was the AUTOMATION of the gameplay. If CCP was getting too many petitions regarding actual multiboxers vs bots and gave up, then I must seriously question the quality of their GMs if they cannot tell the difference (or if indeed, they don't have the proper tools to tell the difference. Hint: Multiboxers chat with a "main" character. Bots are silent and never speak.) then the community should not be punished for this failure. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
844
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:24:02 -
[1779] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
CCP has stated countless times in the past that the "accelerated gameplay" clause was on a PER TOON BASIS.
this clause covers exactly isbotters input broadcast functionality. What? No it hasn't. Unless you're referring to the new clause in which case I'll simply laugh you out of court.
isbotter accelerates gameplay on PER TOON BASIS. I explained why few pages back.
This accelerated gameplay is the exact reason people used it.
Nolak Ataru wrote:From a multiboxer in 2010: https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/oldrigs CCP told him even back then that their main issue was the AUTOMATION of the gameplay. If CCP was getting too many petitions regarding actual multiboxers vs bots and gave up, then I must seriously question the quality of their GMs if they cannot tell the difference (or if indeed, they don't have the proper tools to tell the difference. Hint: Multiboxers chat with a "main" character. Bots are silent and never speak.) then the community should not be punished for this failure.
I dont know how the ruling and policy enforcement from 2010 is relevant for this discussion,
Many others and me already explained many times, even on this page why isbotter automates gameplay,
dont get it why you you quote these statements. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:26:49 -
[1780] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
CCP has stated countless times in the past that the "accelerated gameplay" clause was on a PER TOON BASIS.
this clause covers exactly isbotters input broadcast functionality. Radkiel wrote:
For all of your statements it is blatantly obvious you have never used this program yet you continue act as if your the worlds foremost authority. You have no clue what Isboxer is, therefore your opinions are worthless. IF a person wish to debate a point that person should educate themselves before making wild and misleading accusations.
GS
which part of my statement is wrong? Feel free to correct it.
you just keep posting and posting here (not that there is anything wrong in that), for anyone who have used isboxer do understand (more likely if they have tried/done their research) And people should do some research before they (''yell'' ''rage'') out about something they dont know anything about, and please dont quote only (1/4 off what i Write) because everything is relevant. |
|
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
75
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:28:23 -
[1781] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rosewalker wrote:The multiboxing application referred to above was ISBoxer. So for over a year, (the wayback machine shows the same language on the page back in June 2013) CCP posted in writing that ISBoxer violated the prohibitions against client modification (6A2, 6A3, and 9C) but that they were not going to enforce the EULA. However, CCP warned that they could enforce these provisions of the EULA in the future and to use the software "at your own risk."
Well, CCP has decided to start enforcing these provisions, and gave everyone 5 weeks notice. Even then, CCP is only banning the functionality that violates the EULA, which means that ISBoxer is not banned, just using some of the optional features is.
I have the feeling that giving over 30 days notice for the change was due to legal reasons. Except that's wrong. 6a2 doesn't apply as ISBoxer doesn't re-skin or otherwise change how a player sees the game. An example of this would be the WoW healing mod that places everyone's name in a nice little box and automatically healed them when you clicked. CCP has stated countless times in the past that the "accelerated gameplay" clause was on a PER TOON BASIS. If you continue to believe differently, send them a ticket or spend 30 seconds looking through all the old "PLZ BAN ISBOXER MY FEELINGS WERE HURT" threads. Lax did not do anything to modify, decompile, or otherwise disassemble the EVE source code. At this stage, you're fishing for ANYTHING to grasp a hold of to justify your lack of education on the issue.
You left out the quote from CCP stating that "the multiboxing application" (aka ISBoxer) violated the client modification portions of the EULA. I'll add it for you.
Previous Third Party Policy on Client Modification wrote:
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. We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay. For instance, the use of programs that provide in-game overlays (Mumble, Teamspeak) and the multiboxing application is not something we plan to actively police at this time. 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.
For over a year, CCP stated that they would not enforce the EULA where ISBoxer was concerned. Now, they've given a 5 week notice that the policy is changing and that using some optional features of ISBoxer starting on 1 January 2015 will result in player bans. ISBoxer itself is not banned, so users can still use the windows management features in ISBoxer.
Look, if you don't like the fact that CCP published its ruling under the Client Modification section of the Third Party Policies that specifically refers to Sections 6A2, 6A3, and 9C, then yell at CCP and tell them they don't know what does and does not violated their own EULA. I can just go by CCP's published policies.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Tikra Vargur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:29:49 -
[1782] - Quote
Radkiel wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:The Ironfist wrote:bombing does not require any skill it is too easy to wipe out fleets How many times did you organize bombing runs that wiped out fleets? My guess is... hm... ZERO! You have no idea what you're talking about. Get educated first. with isbotter, it IS LITTLE SKILL! Get prober in your fleet, probe fleet, warp your bomber fleet to prober in position, all simultaneously decloak, all simultaneously warp drop bomb, all simultaneously warp out. The organizing part is clearly missing there, idgi why you dont understand the concept of isbotted bombing. For all of your statements it is blatantly obvious you have never used this program yet you continue act as if your the worlds foremost authority. You have no clue what Isboxer is, therefore your opinions are worthless. IF a person wish to debate a point that person should educate themselves before making wild and misleading accusations. GS
All I know about isboxer is that it allows one person to play many characters at once. This is wrong. The evidence that it is wrong is all over these forums all over the eve universe, and all through the game play.
You came to a sandbox with a bulldozer while everyone else has a shovel. It's about time the bulldozer got kicked out. It is a shame you still get another few weeks to play. I would have made it effective immediately
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
844
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:32:17 -
[1783] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:you just keep posting and posting here (not that there is anything wrong in that), for anyone who have used isboxer do understand (more likely if they have tried/done their research) And people should do some research before they (''yell'' ''rage'') out about something they dont know anything about, and please dont quote only (1/4 off what i Write) because everything is relevant.
your posting lacks substance, what are you trying to tell? You want to fix one of my quoted statement or what? Then do it specifically, instead of ranting for no reason. |
Lupe Meza
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
37
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:42:30 -
[1784] - Quote
I believe any short term loss in players is offset by CCP putting themselves in a position to make a better game overall. As has been said already, all these ISK generating alts that exist solely to farm and funnel resources to a single player does nothing for the game environment. ISK becomes trivial to the player, which should never happen as it totally skews the whole concept of "risk vs. reward". The only player interaction they offer is stripping entire belts, driving up prices with their inflated wallets, and dumping ISK on various forms of pure griefplay because the loss of a ship is inconsequential because ISK is inconsequential and "lol so bored lol tears".
I anticipate that while there will be initially a dip in minerals on the market and production, non-isboxer miners and industrial/mining corps will see an increase in profits in the short term that will even out as more people fire up their mining alts as the money becomes less of a "joke" since the same money one guy was getting with 20 accounts is now distributed among 20 different players.
If ship prices should suffer, CCP can always tuned the material cost to be more inline with the materials. But I doubt this as I think more miners will eventually arrive to collect the money left by any isboxer's void.
As far as PVE, similarly it will curtail single players using multiple accounts to gain inordinate amounts of ISK or LP from incursions, missions, rats, anomalies, etc in spans of time to again, make ISK a trivial commodity. In PVP it eliminates single players having the power of an entire squad or small fleet. You can be sure if you go up against a small gang you are fighting a gang, or if you need a bomber squadron you will need to have individual pilots to put in the hulls. Longterm the ISK value of a fleet comp more of an issue if ships that could be replaced with individual player revenue streams of a billion/hr are now an order of magnitude lower. Management of you corps or individual assets become more of a thing now that ISk doesn't drop out of the sky.
Long term I think that this move will foster a more player-driven (not PLAYER driven) symbiotic environment, better economy, and better Risk/Reward mechanic. This change in addition to the Power Projection changes makes me optimistic about the future of EvE as it is slowly seems to be becoming the game it claims to be. A sandbox where every player can have an impact in their own way, not just the ones with the biggest bankroll (ingame and out). |
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:43:02 -
[1785] - Quote
In light of the input automation....broadcast....blah blah blah nonsense could I ask (because I've searched on the forums and keep getting confused beyond all measure)
Are keyboards like razer and g15, with the inbuilt functions allowed?
You know the ones that you can make so if you press 1 button it could say...spam f1-f8 for a single client
You know...the ones that have the negative stigma
....the one that starts with Mah and ends in Crow? |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
268
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:47:10 -
[1786] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:
isbotter accelerates gameplay on PER TOON BASIS. I explained why few pages back.
This accelerated gameplay is the exact reason people used it.
I dont know how the ruling and policy enforcement from 2010 is relevant for this discussion,
Many others and me already explained many times, even on this page why isbotter automates gameplay,
dont get it why you you quote these statements.
1. Just because they use it doesnt mean it's against the rules. Derpaherp.
2. You've been grasping at straws without the knowledge of what the program does. You see some dude in local with "Jonny 1-8" and immediately assume he's a bot. If you want to contribute to the discussion, please watch some videos regarding how to setup ISBoxer and EVE, instead of watching the end-product and thinking "a 5 year old can do this". The ruling clearly explained in user-friendly terms that ISBoxer was allowed because it did not let him get up from his keyboard and get a smoke while the program kept flying him around and doing stuff.
[quote[] For over a year, CCP stated that they would not enforce the EULA where ISBoxer was concerned. Now, they've given a 5 week notice that the policy is changing and that using some optional features of ISBoxer starting on 1 January 2015 will result in player bans. ISBoxer itself is not banned, so users can still use the windows management features in ISBoxer.
Look, if you don't like the fact that CCP published its ruling under the Client Modification section of the Third Party Policies that specifically refers to Sections 6A2, 6A3, and 9C, then yell at CCP and tell them they don't know what does and does not violated their own EULA. I can just go by CCP's published policies. [/quote]
CCP also stated that cache-scraping was banned but they wouldn't police it. I've also explained *why* this change is illogical just because a few nullbabies cried in a petition that they got bombed sitting on a station AFK. I went to great pains to explain what this change represented in terms the average player could understand and to give an analogy that someone with a triple digit IQ could understand.
And the bolded part which you tried your best to tie to broadcasting keys and mouse movements to ISBoxer makes zero sense when reading the whole sentence. If you need me to spell it out for you, I shall. ISBoxer allows one to reposition multiple clients windows. It also allows one to take portions of client A and place a viewer on client B and allow one to interact through the viewer. This is not banned. Never was. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
109
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:48:41 -
[1787] - Quote
Lee Sin Priest wrote:In light of the input automation....broadcast....blah blah blah nonsense could I ask (because I've searched on the forums and keep getting confused beyond all measure)
Are keyboards like razer and g15, with the inbuilt functions allowed?
You know the ones that you can make so if you press 1 button it could say...spam f1-f8 for a single client
You know...the ones that have the negative stigma
....the one that starts with Mah and ends in Crow?
Edit : no BS where it mines for 23 hours or anything, the kind of thing I could still do raking my hand across the keyboard, headbashing it or spamming it really fast
Thats the problem that people have there panties in a bunch about. If its just that where you press that button and it turns on a couple mods that doesn't seam to be against the rules. If you make it so that you press the button and it targets an asteroid and starts mining lazors than that is against the rules. Its like isbox its still legal just not every function of it is legal anymore. |
Tappits
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
70
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:52:04 -
[1788] - Quote
Lee Sin Priest wrote:In light of the input automation....broadcast....blah blah blah nonsense could I ask (because I've searched on the forums and keep getting confused beyond all measure)
Are keyboards like razer and g15, with the inbuilt functions allowed?
You know the ones that you can make so if you press 1 button it could say...spam f1-f8 for a single client
You know...the ones that have the negative stigma
....the one that starts with Mah and ends in Crow?
Edit : no BS where it mines for 23 hours or anything, the kind of thing I could still do raking my hand across the keyboard, headbashing it or spamming it really fast
Prob not no as its possible to do F1-F8 by any abled bodied person already.
Its were you program it to do something allot more complicated than activating all your guns or something (you can all ready do with with one key press anyway in-game with stacked guns.) |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:53:46 -
[1789] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:If I get ganked by ten players at a gate camp, that is fine and dandy.
If I get ganked at a gate camp by one ISboxer player it is wrong.
At least the ten gate campers had to organize the camp.
In any case, CCP have made their decision, so ISboxers need to adapt, stop using ISboxer, or well..rage quit.
ever heard about drone assist?
5x10=50. assist to one. =11 charaters.
so, you can do that without isb boxer. so same person can do that to you With or without it.
1 player buy 10 ships means he risk way more isk (on his overall eco) than if he just had 1 ship to lose. so the loss is the same per charater. |
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:57:16 -
[1790] - Quote
Tappits wrote:Lee Sin Priest wrote:In light of the input automation....broadcast....blah blah blah nonsense could I ask (because I've searched on the forums and keep getting confused beyond all measure)
Are keyboards like razer and g15, with the inbuilt functions allowed?
You know the ones that you can make so if you press 1 button it could say...spam f1-f8 for a single client
You know...the ones that have the negative stigma
....the one that starts with Mah and ends in Crow?
Edit : no BS where it mines for 23 hours or anything, the kind of thing I could still do raking my hand across the keyboard, headbashing it or spamming it really fast Prob not no as its possible to do F1-F8 by any abled bodied person already. Its were you program it to do something allot more complicated than activating all your guns or something (you can all ready do with with one key press anyway in-game with stacked guns.)
Sorry you confused me abit there when you said "probs not no" and then went on to make it sound it it was okay...
My question was whether or not it was okay, because a quick search on the forums says it is |
|
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
844
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 17:58:30 -
[1791] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
1. Just because they use it doesnt mean it's against the rules. Derpaherp.
it was always against the rules, CCP just didnt police it - however they will past Jan. 1st.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
2. You've been grasping at straws without the knowledge of what the program does. You see some dude in local with "Jonny 1-8" and immediately assume he's a bot. If you want to contribute to the discussion, please watch some videos regarding how to setup ISBoxer and EVE, instead of watching the end-product and thinking "a 5 year old can do this". The ruling clearly explained in user-friendly terms that ISBoxer was allowed because it did not let him get up from his keyboard and get a smoke while the program kept flying him around and doing stuff.
grasping at staws? for what? When did I do that?
here again, what are you trying to tell? Refer to my exact quotes which you think are wrong and try to relate
your replies properly.
for the rest of your posting, I dont think they were directed at me, misquoted or whatever you messed up while posting. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
268
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 18:13:00 -
[1792] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
1. Just because they use it doesnt mean it's against the rules. Derpaherp.
it was always against the rules, CCP just didnt police it - however they will past Jan. 1st. Nolak Ataru wrote:
2. You've been grasping at straws without the knowledge of what the program does. You see some dude in local with "Jonny 1-8" and immediately assume he's a bot. If you want to contribute to the discussion, please watch some videos regarding how to setup ISBoxer and EVE, instead of watching the end-product and thinking "a 5 year old can do this". The ruling clearly explained in user-friendly terms that ISBoxer was allowed because it did not let him get up from his keyboard and get a smoke while the program kept flying him around and doing stuff.
grasping at staws? for what? When did I do that? here again, what are you trying to tell? Refer to my exact quotes which you think are wrong and try to relate your replies properly. for the rest of your posting, I dont think they were directed at me, misquoted or whatever you messed up while posting.
It was never against the rules. The most you could argue was that using it to automate flying without any input was and always is against the rules.
I'm accusing you of grasping for a reason, ANY reason, that ISBoxer repeating should be banned or was against the rules. "Muh feelings" and "muh AFK battleship got bombed" don't count. The accelerated gameplay clause had been explained by CCP numerous times in the past to be referring to a per-toon basis. There has also been a lack of knowledge for the general public on the difference between a bot and a multiboxer; the biggest difference is that the multiboxer is sitting behind the keyboard and can adjust to sudden situations like someone ragebumping him with a machariel, while the bot is a "dumb program" running over and over without anyone behind the keyboard. |
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 18:14:58 -
[1793] - Quote
Going back a few pages...
Mike Azariah wrote:
3) Yes there are workarounds, some using ISBoxer, others using scripted mice or keyboard. Some are fair game others skate close enough to the edge that they risk a ban. Basically it comes down to a question of economics. Are you willing to risk ALL your accounts (and assets) being banned by skating on the thin ice knowingly? Risk vs reward in the metagame.
This is very disturbing. For a few reasons. A 1 man team of 10 gets caught... 10 accounts banned? As opposed to the main that is commanding the fleet that is the account that ISboxer is logged into? That is kind of harsh.
Then 10 acct fleet teams up with some buddies for a roam... All parties involved would have to be investigated and I am sure the ban hammer would not spare some of the innocents.
This seems like it would be an administrative nightmare investigating false claims, alt accts replying they were acting independently, and the fleet members that really had nothing to do with any transgression.
In reality the punishment doesn't fit the crime really.
Banning AN account would. Banning all no.
Oh wait then if the TOS / EULA isn't updated to include this and some will say they haven't read THIS forum discussion.. oops they still get banned anyway?
That just doesn't fit right.
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
75
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 18:15:31 -
[1794] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
CCP also stated that cache-scraping was banned but they wouldn't police it. I've also explained *why* this change is illogical just because a few nullbabies cried in a petition that they got bombed sitting on a station AFK. I went to great pains to explain what this change represented in terms the average player could understand and to give an analogy that someone with a triple digit IQ could understand.
And the bolded part which you tried your best to tie to broadcasting keys and mouse movements to ISBoxer makes zero sense when reading the whole sentence. If you need me to spell it out for you, I shall. ISBoxer allows one to reposition multiple clients windows. It also allows one to take portions of client A and place a viewer on client B and allow one to interact through the viewer. This is not banned. Never was.
If you know me, you know that I also hate cache scraping and want to see it removed from EVE as soon as possible. Hopefully, real time market data will soon be available to third party developers for sites like EVE-Central through Auth CREST as soon as Rhea and these sites can stop relying on cache scraping for their data. EVE-Central has already indicated they will stop using cache scraped data as soon as they can implement an Auth CREST solution.
And why wouldn't I tie input broadcasting to ISBoxer? That is one of the software's optional features that makes ISBoxer so appealing to its users. Here is a video that demonstrates an ISBoxer user running a Vanguard site utilitizing input broadcasting/multiplexing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAbDPHnxLU4
I think in both of my previous posts that I've indicated that ISBoxer is not getting banned, just that using some of the optional features will result in bans. And those may not be a concern in the future, as I've seen posts from Joe Thaler, the creator of ISBoxer and owner of Lavish Software, stating he is considering automatically disabling those features that violate the EVE EULA if ISBoxer detects that the game being played is EVE.
Honestly, all I've ever wanted was CCP to enforce a 1 key = 1 action in one client rule. That is what I thought the EULA stated, and that is what the Third Party Policies page implied for over a year. I am glad that CCP is finally explicitly stating this principle and their willingness to enforce that rule.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
844
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 18:23:25 -
[1795] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
It was never against the rules. The most you could argue was that using it to automate flying without any input was and always is against the rules.
it always was, see the 3rd party tools part in connection with accelerated gameplay clause, which always was incorporated in EULA (section 6) - this is why CCP didnt even have to adjust EULA for their new policing, because it always covered isbotter and similar tools.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
I'm accusing you of grasping for a reason, ANY reason, that ISBoxer repeating should be banned or was against the rules.
I'm not grasping at anything, dunno how you concluded that.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
"Muh feelings" and "muh AFK battleship got bombed" don't count.
pls more rant.
Nolak Ataru wrote:The accelerated gameplay clause had been explained by CCP numerous times in the past to be referring to a per-toon basis.
ye, per toon basis. like in case of isbotter. so? what are you trying to point out here?
Nolak Ataru wrote:There has also been a lack of knowledge for the general public on the difference between a bot and a multiboxer; the biggest difference is that the multiboxer is sitting behind the keyboard and can adjust to sudden situations like someone ragebumping him with a machariel, while the bot is a "dumb program" running over and over without anyone behind the keyboard.
there is a difference between a botter ant multiboxer but its lot slimmer than you'd think.
In fact, some (including me) could argue that copycat characters/ships following and replicating your "main" client on their own (without direct player control) would classify as bots. But again, what are you trying to tell me here what hasnt been already discussed billions of times? |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
268
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 18:38:12 -
[1796] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:-snip too many quotes
No, it wasn't. The 3rd party tools part was and has always been talking about bots that require no input. I've told you a dozen times to do your own research yet you continue to ignore it to satisfy some bizarre hateboner against boxers.
I concluded that because you refuse to do even a modicum of research, and you continue to refuse to make a distinction between boxers and bots and classify all boxers on the same level of someone who RMTs or hacked the client to turn him invulnerable.
I'll ignore your pathetic attempt to dismiss my dismissal of 90% of the trolls in the thread who hate boxers simply because they got ganked once.
You just agreed with me that the clause is on a per toon basis. Comparing incursion boxers to a "public" fleet and attempting to say that there is accelerated gameplay is laughable at best, and outright lying at worst. |
Tappits
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
70
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 18:47:51 -
[1797] - Quote
Lee Sin Priest wrote:
Sorry you confused me abit there when you said "probs not no" and then went on to make it sound it it was okay...
My question was whether or not it was okay, because a quick search on the forums says it is
Yer sorry.. but its prob OK as long as your doing something that is already possible without using a G15 or something.
I use a G710+ and a G13 but i only use it to do things that i could do on a $5 keyboard with my own fingers anyway. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 18:47:59 -
[1798] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:-snip too many quotes No, it wasn't. The 3rd party tools part was and has always been talking about bots that require no input. I've told you a dozen times to do your own research yet you continue to ignore it to satisfy some bizarre hateboner against boxers. I concluded that because you refuse to do even a modicum of research, and you continue to refuse to make a distinction between boxers and bots and classify all boxers on the same level of someone who RMTs or hacked the client to turn him invulnerable. I'll ignore your pathetic attempt to dismiss my dismissal of 90% of the trolls in the thread who hate boxers simply because they got ganked once. You just agreed with me that the clause is on a per toon basis. Comparing incursion boxers to a "public" fleet and attempting to say that there is accelerated gameplay is laughable at best, and outright lying at worst.
i understand you get ''pissed'' (frustrated'etc) because of him (Robert Caldara, and you are right, no matter how much times you tell him something he just change direction/dont answer to it:) (ignore as you say, probably right Word) and he trolls a lot -> robert <- (not personal attack, just facts. and i dont talk about anything personal about him, i just see how he behave in this forum :) |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
845
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 18:59:14 -
[1799] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
No, it wasn't. The 3rd party tools part was and has always been talking about bots that require no input. I've told you a dozen times to do your own research yet you continue to ignore it to satisfy some bizarre hateboner against boxers.
it was. 3rd party tool covers pretty single each 3rd party tool out there, this is actually obvious,
and this is why they didnt even have to extend the EULA for new policing. How cant you understand this?
I dont need to do any research, reading and understanding text is enough of skill to understand this.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
I concluded that because you refuse to do even a modicum of research, and you continue to refuse to make a distinction between boxers and bots and classify all boxers on the same level of someone who RMTs or hacked the client to turn him invulnerable.
I'm not talking about boxers at all, I talk about isbotters, in case you missed that.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
I'll ignore your pathetic attempt to dismiss my dismissal of 90% of the trolls in the thread who hate boxers simply because they got ganked once.
more empty accusations and rant please..
Nolak Ataru wrote:
You just agreed with me that the clause is on a per toon basis. Comparing incursion boxers to a "public" fleet and attempting to say that there is accelerated gameplay is laughable at best, and outright lying at worst.
I explained how isbotter is reflecting accelerated gameplay (on per toon basis), go back and read it if you are interested at anything but ranting.
|
Miomeifeng Alduin
Lithonauts Inc.
31
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 19:12:55 -
[1800] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:Going back a few pages... Mike Azariah wrote:
3) Yes there are workarounds, some using ISBoxer, others using scripted mice or keyboard. Some are fair game others skate close enough to the edge that they risk a ban. Basically it comes down to a question of economics. Are you willing to risk ALL your accounts (and assets) being banned by skating on the thin ice knowingly? Risk vs reward in the metagame.
This is very disturbing. For a few reasons. A 1 man team of 10 gets caught... 10 accounts banned? As opposed to the main that is commanding the fleet that is the account that ISboxer is logged into? That is kind of harsh. Then 10 acct fleet teams up with some buddies for a roam... All parties involved would have to be investigated and I am sure the ban hammer would not spare some of the innocents. This seems like it would be an administrative nightmare investigating false claims, alt accts replying they were acting independently, and the fleet members that really had nothing to do with any transgression. In reality the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Banning AN account would. Banning all no. Oh wait then if the TOS / EULA isn't updated to include this and some will say they haven't read THIS forum discussion.. oops they still get banned anyway? That just doesn't fit right. Edit after thought... if a player owns 10 toons and 3 were involved in the transgression.. all 10 are baned?
Thats why there's a month ban first. As stated in the OP. I'm also pretty sure that only those accounts which are actually broadcasting/recieving the broadcasts will get banned, since all detection will be on their servers when commands enter. The other people will not constantly hit every button at the exact same time. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
270
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 19:16:56 -
[1801] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
No, it wasn't. The 3rd party tools part was and has always been talking about bots that require no input. I've told you a dozen times to do your own research yet you continue to ignore it to satisfy some bizarre hateboner against boxers.
it was. 3rd party tool covers pretty single each 3rd party tool out there, this is actually obvious, and this is why they didnt even have to extend the EULA for new policing. How cant you understand this? I dont need to do any research, reading and understanding text is enough of skill to understand this. Nolak Ataru wrote:
I concluded that because you refuse to do even a modicum of research, and you continue to refuse to make a distinction between boxers and bots and classify all boxers on the same level of someone who RMTs or hacked the client to turn him invulnerable.
I'm not talking about boxers at all, I talk about isbotters, in case you missed that. Nolak Ataru wrote:
I'll ignore your pathetic attempt to dismiss my dismissal of 90% of the trolls in the thread who hate boxers simply because they got ganked once.
more empty accusations and rant please.. Nolak Ataru wrote:
You just agreed with me that the clause is on a per toon basis. Comparing incursion boxers to a "public" fleet and attempting to say that there is accelerated gameplay is laughable at best, and outright lying at worst.
I explained how isbotter is reflecting accelerated gameplay (on per toon basis), go back and read it if you are interested at anything but ranting.
It wasn't. Lax talks to devs in order to make sure his tools aren't in violation of the EULA. CCP did nothing but ban a specific part of the program. If it was against the EULA, they would have banned it outright. But since it isn't, they didn't.
A ratting carrier bot or a mining bot is very different from someone behind the keyboard controlling multiple accounts. Stop trying to say they're the same thing when one requires a person to continually input commands and one doesn't.
Deflecting my accusations. How quaint.
As I thought, you have no problem comparing a Honda Civic to a Formula 1 car. You first claimed that the clause was on a per human basis, and when you were informed otherwise, you then changed your claim to say that ISBoxer improves the rate for each toon by comparing someone who has invested billions of isk into his fits, hours of tweaking into his setup, and months in training, to a kitchen sink fleet. You are grasping at straws and moving your goalposts. |
Terino
Widgit Inc
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 19:24:16 -
[1802] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:Going back a few pages...
This is very disturbing. For a few reasons. A 1 man team of 10 gets caught... 10 accounts banned? As opposed to the main that is commanding the fleet that is the account that ISboxer is logged into? That is kind of harsh.
Then 10 acct fleet teams up with some buddies for a roam... All parties involved would have to be investigated and I am sure the ban hammer would not spare some of the innocents.
This seems like it would be an administrative nightmare investigating false claims, alt accts replying they were acting independently, and the fleet members that really had nothing to do with any transgression.
In reality the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
Banning AN account would. Banning all no.
Oh wait then if the TOS / EULA isn't updated to include this and some will say they haven't read THIS forum discussion.. oops they still get banned anyway?
That just doesn't fit right.
Edit after thought... if a player owns 10 toons and 3 were involved in the transgression.. all 10 are baned?
As a normal player, I would see this as CCP looking at the logs and seeing what "toons" were on what "IP" address at the time and probably a machine ID generated by the client when it sends transactions to the servers and those would be the ones cautioned/banned
this is just how I would implement it, CCP have their own guidelines. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 19:24:26 -
[1803] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Sibyyl wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Sentenced 1989 wrote:
You always knew ISBoxer or any other 3rd line program was technically banned, just not enforced. Guessing it's same as with old AP0 hack, CCP now has way to detect it more accurately and will start enforcing the rule.
yep, what he said. if you subscribed on basis of EULA violating gameplay its your fault. Technically banned? CCP has told us in writing this was not the case. not technically banned but against EULA all the time already (accelerated gameplay part).
You have no idea what you're talking about. Just because you have isboxer doesn't mean you're accelerating anything on a single account basis. It doesn't make your ship fly faster it doesn't fire it's weapons with a shorter cycle time. There is absolutely nothing there to accelerate an account. |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation
DemSal Unlimited
2045
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 19:26:36 -
[1804] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:Going back a few pages... Mike Azariah wrote:
3) Yes there are workarounds, some using ISBoxer, others using scripted mice or keyboard. Some are fair game others skate close enough to the edge that they risk a ban. Basically it comes down to a question of economics. Are you willing to risk ALL your accounts (and assets) being banned by skating on the thin ice knowingly? Risk vs reward in the metagame.
This is very disturbing. For a few reasons. A 1 man team of 10 gets caught... 10 accounts banned? As opposed to the main that is commanding the fleet that is the account that ISboxer is logged into? That is kind of harsh. Then 10 acct fleet teams up with some buddies for a roam... All parties involved would have to be investigated and I am sure the ban hammer would not spare some of the innocents. This seems like it would be an administrative nightmare investigating false claims, alt accts replying they were acting independently, and the fleet members that really had nothing to do with any transgression. In reality the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Banning AN account would. Banning all no. Oh wait then if the TOS / EULA isn't updated to include this and some will say they haven't read THIS forum discussion.. oops they still get banned anyway? That just doesn't fit right. Edit after thought... if a player owns 10 toons and 3 were involved in the transgression.. all 10 are baned?
I doubt ten players would suddenly be mustaken for a multicaster. Yes I support all ten accounts of a multiboxer being on the line. Make the call, take the risk.
Or don't
I recommend the latter
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
845
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 19:27:06 -
[1805] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
It wasn't. Lax talks to devs in order to make sure his tools aren't in violation of the EULA. CCP did nothing but ban a specific part of the program. If it was against the EULA, they would have banned it outright. But since it isn't, they didn't.
1) learn quoting to make clear which part of my posting you are adressing.
2) it was. To be clear here, not entire isbotter is illegal as program but its input broadcast functionality was always agains the rules for 2 simple reasons:
- its 3rd party
- it allows accelerated gameplay
Both points are covered by EULA for more than a decade, which is why CCP doesnt need to even extend EULA for new policing.
Nolak Ataru wrote:A ratting carrier bot or a mining bot is very different from someone behind the keyboard controlling multiple accounts. Stop trying to say they're the same thing when one requires a person to continually input commands and one doesn't.
I'm not trying to do that at all. I'm saying the difference is very thin and some could classify self-acting, controlled by isbotter clients as bots.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
As I thought, you have no problem comparing a Honda Civic to a Formula 1 car. You first claimed that the clause was on a per human basis,
where did I do that? Link please.
Nolak Ataru wrote:and when you were informed otherwise, you then changed your claim to say that ISBoxer improves the rate for each toon by comparing someone who has invested billions of isk into his fits, hours of tweaking into his setup, and months in training, to a kitchen sink fleet. You are grasping at straws and moving your goalposts.
what? kitchen sink fleet? oh dear,... you seem confused.
And how the heck is the amount of invested ISK relevant for this discussion? |
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 19:32:15 -
[1806] - Quote
Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:[quote=Cervix Thumper]Going back a few pages...
Thats why there's a month ban first. As stated in the OP. I'm also pretty sure that only those accounts which are actually broadcasting/recieving the broadcasts will get banned, since all detection will be on their servers when commands enter. The other people will not constantly hit every button at the exact same time.
Yes.. but according to that above quote it said ALL accounts. so suppose I am running 3 but own 10. I transgress and since all 10 are under the same user .. that could be a HUGE issue.
Point #2: 3 toons transgress a second time. = 3 permabans. = $300
In fleet 10 toons 10 transgress = 10 permabans. =$1000
scary thought.
Replicator: =$3000 lost instantly for the same transgression as a 3 toon player.
No I can not and will not agree with this.
Rep (sorry for using you as an example) may cost players ISK. Those players are spread out and in turn fuel the market. There is no $1000 ~ $3000 hit to an individual player by any ISboxer out there that I know of. These guys make ppl spend MORE, not less.
Just food for thought. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
845
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 19:35:37 -
[1807] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:
You have no idea what you're talking about. Just because you have isboxer doesn't mean you're accelerating anything on a single account basis. It doesn't make your ship fly faster it doesn't fire it's weapons with a shorter cycle time. There is absolutely nothing there to accelerate an account.
isbotter saves you time processing each client separately and manually, which means each single of isbotted clients targets quicker, fires quicker and for example turn quicker. This is why isbotter is used primarily, otherwise noone would ever pay money for it, right?
ashley Eoner wrote:
There was also nothing automated by the isboxer program. Every command has to be issued by a person at the keyboard.
no. human commands are only issued to the main client, all others are controlled and thus automated by 3rd party software named ISBoxer.
ashley Eoner wrote:
There was nothing in the EULA that was being violated by isboxer or other repeater based systems. That's why they had to make this thread and amend the EULA to begin with. So despite your delusions CCP clearly saw that their own EULA as it stood wasn't banning the repeaters and thus changed it.
they changed EULA? When? Where? Show me.
|
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 19:36:08 -
[1808] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:
1) learn quoting to make clear which part of my posting you are adressing.
2) it was. To be clear here, not entire isbotter is illegal as program but its input broadcast functionality was always agains the rules for 2 simple reasons:
- its 3rd party
- it allows accelerated gameplay
Both points are covered by EULA for more than a decade, which is why CCP doesnt need to even extend EULA for new policing.
Clearly not as CCP wouldn't of needed to make this announcement amending the policy if what you say is true.
It doesn't accelerate per account gameplay. You know this but you don't care because you want to score points by being vague enough to be like "OMG PEOPLE MULTIBOX FASTER SO THAT"S ACCELERATED GAMEPLAY!!". Guess what? owning multiple machines with multiple inputs accelerates gameplay. Having a higher end system that can alt tab faster accelerates gameplay under your definition. So those would be bannable offenses too if CCP took your ridiculous definition as the rule.
Quote:
I'm not trying to do that at all. I'm saying the difference is very thin and some could classify self-acting, controlled by isbotter clients as bots.
Only someone being entirely disingenuous would classify a person controlling a client as being the same as an automated program controlling the client. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
845
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 19:40:22 -
[1809] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:
Clearly not as CCP wouldn't of needed to make this announcement amending the policy if what you say is true.
so, if its true what you say, they would change EULA properly, right? Did that happen? No? Do you know why?
I tell you, because everything in this thread was already covered by it.
They made this announcement because they changed their policing of certain points already covered by EULA.
ashley Eoner wrote:
It doesn't accelerate per account gameplay.
it does. See my previous posting.
Its why people used it in the first line. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 19:42:40 -
[1810] - Quote
Robert Calderaisbotter saves you time processing each client separately and manually, which means each single of isbotted clients targets quicker, fires quicker and for example turn quicker. This is why isbotter is used primarily, otherwise noone would ever pay money for it, right?[/quote wrote: Except you're wrong in that you have to target much slower then normal when isboxing because clients desynch easily. You have to do everything in game slower then you would if you had multiple boxes or were alt tabbing. So on a per account basis you're actually moving slower then you would controlling one account. You don't magically cycle your guns quicker you don't magically reload faster or anything like that. Your coming up with a ridiculous definition for accelerated gameplay that would ban anyone using more then one computer or for using SSDs and such. I paid money because it has a far superior windows management features AND resource management features compared to the stock setup. That alone is worth the piddly sum that he charges.
I don't know if you realize it but using names like "isbotted" "isbotter" just makes your appear childish.
[quote
no. human commands are only issued to the main client, all others are controlled and thus automated by 3rd party software named ISBoxer. Human commands are the source of all the inputs. If you had any clue about how operating systems work you'd realize how stupid your statement is. Technically through your definition every single key command given is automated as it's translated from hardware through the OS to the targeted program.
Quote:
they changed EULA? When? Where? Show me.
First page. If CCP felt the EULA covered this clearly then they wouldn't of made this post. |
|
|
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 19:47:21 -
[1811] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:
Clearly not as CCP wouldn't of needed to make this announcement amending the policy if what you say is true.
so, if its true what you say, they would change EULA properly, right? Did that happen? No? Do you know why? I tell you, because everything in this thread was already covered by it. They made this announcement because they changed their policing of certain points already covered by EULA. ashley Eoner wrote:
It doesn't accelerate per account gameplay.
it does. See my previous posting. Its why people used it in the first line.
It doesn't see reality. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
845
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 19:51:28 -
[1812] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Except you're wrong in that you have to target much slower then normal when isboxing because clients desynch easily. You have to do everything in game slower then you would if you had multiple boxes or were alt tabbing. So on a per account basis you're actually moving slower then you would controlling one account.
lmao, I understand. Isbotters used it just to do everything slower than they would usually without.
Right. hahahah
ashley Eoner wrote:You don't magically cycle your guns quicker you don't magically reload faster or anything like that. Your coming up with a ridiculous definition for accelerated gameplay that would ban anyone using more then one computer or for using SSDs and such.
its not about guns cycling time, its about reaction time, you obtain status faster (in EULA speak, lock is status) to tell one of many.
ashley Eoner wrote:
I paid money because it has a far superior windows management features AND resource management features compared to the stock setup. That alone is worth the piddly sum that he charges.
you might be one of the few who paid money for window management, majority, which this thread is about, did not!
ashley Eoner wrote:
Human commands are the source of all the inputs. If you had any clue about how operating systems work you'd realize how stupid your statement is. Technically through your definition every single key command given is automated as it's translated from hardware through the OS to the targeted program.
go on splitting hairs. Point made is that you dont control clients at your own, and this is the whole purpose of isbotter being used, thats why people paid for it.
ashley Eoner wrote:
First page. If CCP felt the EULA covered this clearly then they wouldn't of made this post.
I didnt ask for any thread pages but for changed EULA, as you claimed before. |
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
6845
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 19:52:41 -
[1813] - Quote
Why do people in this forum think when CCP changes something, everyone involved just says, "Well, I guess that's that then. Might as well stop what I'm doing"
Seriously?
That's never happened before and it won't happen now. You have to know the alliance weasels are already half way to figuring out how to get around this. And you also have to know that the ISBoxer coders are working overtime to make sure they won't be losing any subs over this.
CCP took a bold step. But it's only a step. Not even close to a solution. They've got a long road ahead of them and it's mostly uphill.
Sure, there are some fleets for sale in the CB, but that's still a tiny percentage of the people that are sticking around and adapting.
Mr Epeen
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 20:02:04 -
[1814] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:
lmao, I understand. Isbotters used it just to do everything slower than they would usually without.
Right. hahahah
Okay it's clear you're just a troll. No one can be this unintentionally dense.
Quote:
its not about guns cycling time, its about reaction time, you obtain status faster (in EULA speak, lock is status) to tell one of many.
So anyone reacting quicker then you is cheating. Anyone who has alts is cheating. Anyone with a faster computer is cheating. Anyone that has more then one computer is cheating. etcetcetc
Quote:
you might be one of the few who paid money for window management, majority, which this thread is about, did not!
Irrelevant.
Quote:
go on splitting hairs. Point made is that you dont control clients at your own, and this is the whole purpose of isbotter being used, thats why people paid for it.
Despite me and others clearly telling you otherwise you continue to spout this ignorance. I control my clients just as well without isboxer as with. The only difference is I can run teh clients smoother with isboxer.
Quote:
I didnt ask for any thread pages but for changed EULA, as you claimed before.
This thread changes the EULA hence all the conversation. I would expect there to be changes the actual EULA once CCP figures out how they are going to enforce this incredibly vague change.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
270
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 20:03:44 -
[1815] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:
1) learn quoting to make clear which part of my posting you are adressing.
2) it was. To be clear here, not entire isbotter is illegal as program but its input broadcast functionality was always agains the rules for 2 simple reasons:
- its 3rd party
- it allows accelerated gameplay
Both points are covered by EULA for more than a decade, which is why CCP doesnt need to even extend EULA for new policing.
2. No, it wasn't. You're trying to argue semantics that have already been argued and responded to by CCP stating it wasn't. Stop trying to say it is when a DEV told people it isn't.
Robert Caldera wrote:I'm not trying to do that at all. I'm saying the difference is very thin and some could classify self-acting, controlled by isbotter clients as bots.
One could, with a leap of logic the size of a carrier. With your same leap of logic, we can also carpet-ban drone assist and drone boats simply because they *may* drone assist.
Robert Caldera wrote:where did I do that? Link please.
When you tried to compare ISBoxers to botters.
Robert Caldera wrote:what? kitchen sink fleet? oh dear,... you seem confused.
And how the heck is the amount of invested ISK relevant for this discussion?
You're attempting to compare (for example and in simple terms) a kitchen sink lowsec roam fleet to a HAC fleet of very skilled pilots who have very good skills and reaction times, with interdictors and EWAR support. |
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
isd community communications liaisons
3494
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 20:07:27 -
[1816] - Quote
Closed for even more cleaning.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Challenged
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP
Brave Collective
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 21:33:13 -
[1817] - Quote
Sentenced 1989 wrote:Challenged wrote:
I doubt many players will quit over it, but the amount of accounts subscribed may take a dip.
I have 14 subscribed accounts (im too bad at eve to plex them), as of next month that will drop down to 3, possibly 2, depending on what activities I plan on doing. That's a $1400 - $1900 loss for CCP annually from myself alone.
I never used them for bombing, or to gain advantages in pvp apart from bashing structures.
I believe CCP probably have already factored an ballpark figure of how much money may be lost from this, and since they are going forward, it is probably not high enough to affect them long term.
I find it annoying, but not game breaking. By the looks of replies here overall it's a pretty unpopular thing in general, so probably for the best of the game.
That is loss for them yea, unless you sell your toons who are then again going to be payed. And if you don't, you won't be buying plex which will cause some increase in supply, causing plex to go a bit down in price (10 accounts ins' that much, but lets assume there is 5.000 of cases like this). Since you will then get less ingame ISK for a plex, you might decided to buy more plexes from CCP, in the end evening it out. So yea, generally they won't lose much money if any at all.
Yeah that does make sense, and I wouldn't complain if plex prices dropped a little (850 ea in Amarr as we speak, naice).
See this is why smarter people than myself run economics. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
845
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 21:33:52 -
[1818] - Quote
"ashley Eoner" wrote:
Okay it's clear you're just a troll. No one can be this unintentionally dense.
you're trying to tell me how bad isbotter is haha, really?
I wonder why one would ever pay money for it and why CCP is banning its main functionality in eve.
omg hahaha
"ashley Eoner" wrote:So anyone reacting quicker then you is cheating. Anyone who has alts is cheating. Anyone with a faster computer is cheating. Anyone that has more then one computer is cheating. etcetcetc
if he uses 3rd party tools for that, sure.
"ashley Eoner" wrote:
Despite me and others clearly telling you otherwise you continue to spout this ignorance. I control my clients just as well without isboxer as with. The only difference is I can run teh clients smoother with isboxer.
in a thread about banned isbotter multicast, isbotter users are telling otherwise. Totally unexpected. ^^
"Smoother" means you can pwn people with a fleet of 20, which you never would be able to do without tools like isbotter. Thats it.
"ashley Eoner" wrote:
This thread changes the EULA hence all the conversation. I would expect there to be changes the actual ingame EULA once CCP figures out how they are going to enforce this incredibly vague change.
no, you said they changed it as back up for your false claims, now you're backpedalling
and pointing at this thread, I never asked for. Get yourself sorted. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
845
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 21:34:39 -
[1819] - Quote
"Nolak Ataru" wrote:
No, it wasn't. You're trying to argue semantics that have already been argued and responded to by CCP stating it wasn't. Stop trying to say it is when a DEV told people it isn't.
it always was. CCP just refrained from enforcing the EULA too strictly because they didnt see much harm in isbotter,
now they changed their mind and are goign to ban people who violate EULA in relevant parts.
"Nolak Ataru" wrote:
One could, with a leap of logic the size of a carrier. With your same leap of logic, we can also carpet-ban drone assist and drone boats simply because they *may* drone assist.
one might argue whether automated self-acting clients can be called bots, I do, many people do, isbotter users ofc dont.
"Nolak Ataru" wrote:
You're attempting to compare (for example and in simple terms) a kitchen sink lowsec roam fleet to a HAC fleet of very skilled pilots who have very good skills and reaction times, with interdictors and EWAR support.
I never compared anything like that. |
Mildew Wolf
216
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 21:41:41 -
[1820] - Quote
Thread delivers. Thanks for the laughs |
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25677
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 21:44:48 -
[1821] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Rain6637 wrote:
how many characters do you multibox?
Funny thing. I have just one account active. 99.9% of the time I am on I am on as Mike Azariah. I admire the skill of people who can multibox and, as said before (many times), THAT is not on the chopping block. I just like being a single entity. As to the refund request folks? Probably not, although I do not speak for CCP. If anything I would request a refund from the maker of ISBoxer or whomsoever you bought that software from (or is that a subscription too?) IF they said it would work in a specific way with Eve. Eve did not say it would work with third party software so it is under no obligation to do so nor to refund you if it decides to change how it interacts with third party folks. I won't go all rules lawyery beyond the above. Just say that I am not pushing for a refund for you. Hey, maybe you voted for someone else and he or she will take up your banner. I won't. m
Nah, I'm not the refund crowd, I'm not even the ISBoxer crowd. I was just curious what your play habits were like regarding this situation.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2462
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 21:58:47 -
[1822] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Is it true that during Fanfest, CCP Seagull, you were telling people that multiboxers had nothing to worry about?
And during EVE Vegas, that other devs were telling people that multiboxing was "ok", even if they personally disagreed with it?
And the OP said multi-boxing is fine. Really, I think we all know who the troll is here.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
848
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:09:32 -
[1823] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
"Based on our EULA and Policies we would like to clarify that multiboxing is allowed."
nobody is talking about multiboxing here, welcome in thread, have a nice stay. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1280
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:12:11 -
[1824] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:
"Based on our EULA and Policies we would like to clarify that multiboxing is allowed."
nobody is talking about multiboxing here, welcome in thread, have a nice stay.
We are talking about multiboxing, as you are saying that under certain circumstances it is not allowed. This is currently not the case. The most common use of ISboxer was multiboxing and since tool assisted multiboxing had no individual rules it simply falls under the rules of all multiboxing, which is that it is explicitly allowed. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
848
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:15:47 -
[1825] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:
"Based on our EULA and Policies we would like to clarify that multiboxing is allowed."
nobody is talking about multiboxing here, welcome in thread, have a nice stay. We are talking about multiboxing, as you are saying that under certain circumstances it is not allowed. This is currently not the case. The most common use of ISboxer was multiboxing and since tool assisted multiboxing had no individual rules it simply falls under the rules of all multiboxing, which is that it is explicitly allowed.
this thread is not about multiboxing but about automation tools. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1280
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:18:37 -
[1826] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:
"Based on our EULA and Policies we would like to clarify that multiboxing is allowed."
nobody is talking about multiboxing here, welcome in thread, have a nice stay. We are talking about multiboxing, as you are saying that under certain circumstances it is not allowed. This is currently not the case. The most common use of ISboxer was multiboxing and since tool assisted multiboxing had no individual rules it simply falls under the rules of all multiboxing, which is that it is explicitly allowed. this thread is not about multiboxing but about automation tools. Actually it's about broadcasting tools. The use of automation tools is and has been a bannable offense.
Multiboxing, including tool assisted multiboxing has not been and currently is not a bannable offense. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
270
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:21:11 -
[1827] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:"Nolak Ataru" wrote:
No, it wasn't. You're trying to argue semantics that have already been argued and responded to by CCP stating it wasn't. Stop trying to say it is when a DEV told people it isn't.
it always was. CCP just refrained from enforcing the EULA too strictly because they didnt see much harm in isbotter, now they changed their mind and are goign to ban people who violate EULA in relevant parts. "Nolak Ataru" wrote:
One could, with a leap of logic the size of a carrier. With your same leap of logic, we can also carpet-ban drone assist and drone boats simply because they *may* drone assist.
one might argue whether automated self-acting clients can be called bots, I do, many people do, isbotter users ofc dont. "Nolak Ataru" wrote:
You're attempting to compare (for example and in simple terms) a kitchen sink lowsec roam fleet to a HAC fleet of very skilled pilots who have very good skills and reaction times, with interdictors and EWAR support.
I never compared anything like that.
Mate, at this point, you're just trolling. You've engaged in multiple fallacies including moving goalposts. We've called you out and attempted to educate you but you continue to spout the same debunked nonsense that, at this point, belongs in a meeting of the Flat Earth Society. I've tried to educate you but you insist on keeping your head in the sand screaming "I can't hear you!" when presented with facts. You've continually backpedaled and moved your goalposts so much that I'm fairly certain you're here just to argue and not provide a point of view. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2462
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:24:51 -
[1828] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
this thread is not about multiboxing but about automation tools.
Actually it's about broadcasting tools. The use of automation tools is and has been a bannable offense.
Multiboxing, including tool assisted multiboxing has not been and currently is not a bannable offense.[/quote]
Broadcasting is now considered automation, to quote CCP Falcon,
Quote:Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy.
Based on the discussion in this area and our will to be more clear and concise with the community regarding this part of our rules, we have decided to also apply this two-strike policy to prohibited forms of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing as of January 1st 2015.
The phrase, "...this part of our rules," refers to input automation.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
848
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:27:14 -
[1829] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Actually it's about broadcasting tools. The use of automation tools is and has been a bannable offense.
Multiboxing, including tool assisted multiboxing has not been and currently is not a bannable offense.
said "broadcast tools" are in fact automation tools, why CCP changed their policies regarding it. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1280
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:27:28 -
[1830] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:this thread is not about multiboxing but about automation tools. Actually it's about broadcasting tools. The use of automation tools is and has been a bannable offense. Multiboxing, including tool assisted multiboxing has not been and currently is not a bannable offense.
Broadcasting is now considered automation, to quote CCP Falcon,
Quote:Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy.
Based on the discussion in this area and our will to be more clear and concise with the community regarding this part of our rules, we have decided to also apply this two-strike policy to prohibited forms of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing as of January 1st 2015.
The phrase, "...this part of our rules," refers to input automation.[/quote]Why do I keep getting things attributed to me that I didn't say? Especially things I'm specifically arguing against? |
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2462
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:28:46 -
[1831] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Mate, at this point, you're just trolling. You've engaged in multiple fallacies including moving goalposts. We've called you out and attempted to educate you but you continue to spout the same debunked nonsense that, at this point, belongs in a meeting of the Flat Earth Society. I've tried to educate you but you insist on keeping your head in the sand screaming "I can't hear you!" when presented with facts. You've continually backpedaled and moved your goalposts so much that I'm fairly certain you're here just to argue and not provide a point of view.
Actually Nolak, you are the one who is being deceptive. You are using the following scenario:
10 players each running 1 account vs. 1 player running 10 accounts using ISBoxer.
You're claim is that the 10 players will always acquire more isk than the ISBoxer. When people use the example:
1 player with 10 accounts not using ISBoxer vs. 1 player with 10 accounts using ISBoxer you always fail to point out that you are using different assumptions. You've done this repeatedly. You are being deliberately deceptive, then insulting.
I have issues with your case (10 players vs. 1 player 10 accounts and ISBoxer) as well that I think makes your position untenable. But I know you wont respond to them.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1280
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:29:47 -
[1832] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Actually it's about broadcasting tools. The use of automation tools is and has been a bannable offense.
Multiboxing, including tool assisted multiboxing has not been and currently is not a bannable offense. said "broadcast tools" are in fact automation tools, why CCP changed their policies regarding it. No, they have classified them separately as per the op and acknowledged that they can and have had separate rules but will not do so going from January forward, or until the next time they should change their minds. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2462
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:32:38 -
[1833] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Why do I keep getting things attributed to me that I didn't say? Especially things I'm specifically arguing against?
Because your wrote the following sentence:
Quote:Actually it's about broadcasting tools. The use of automation tools is and has been a bannable offense.
My point is that certain instances of broadcasting are not considered automation and are thus considered in violation of the EULA.
Are we in agreement here? If so, then fine carry on. If not...uhhhmm carry on?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
848
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:34:20 -
[1834] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:]No, they have classified them separately as per the op and acknowledged that they can and have had separate rules but will not do so going from January forward, or until the next time they should change their minds.
whatever speech you prefer.
Isbotter input broadcast and tools of same kind meet the term automation pretty well in context of eve and multiboxing, and thus policed in same way by CCP from 1st of January. Thats exactly the manner I would expect CCP to deal with it. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1280
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:37:18 -
[1835] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Why do I keep getting things attributed to me that I didn't say? Especially things I'm specifically arguing against? Because your wrote the following sentence: Quote:Actually it's about broadcasting tools. The use of automation tools is and has been a bannable offense. My point is that certain instances of broadcasting are not considered automation and are thus considered in violation of the EULA. Are we in agreement here? If so, then fine carry on. If not...uhhhmm carry on? I can only suggest you reread that sentence with context. It seems there was a rather large miss in meaning. If he says that it's about automation and I say no, it's about broadcasting it should be apparent that they are not being used interchangeably or with the same meaning.
Not trying to be rude, but we're on the same side if you actually read my posts.
Edit: Though really this issue is your quote tree getting messed up as what you have me quoted as saying wasn't me at all. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1280
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:41:49 -
[1836] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:]No, they have classified them separately as per the op and acknowledged that they can and have had separate rules but will not do so going from January forward, or until the next time they should change their minds. whatever speech you prefer. Isbotter input broadcast and tools of same kind meet the term automation pretty well in context of eve and multiboxing, and thus policed in same way by CCP from 1st of January. Thats exactly the manner I would expect CCP to deal with it. Great, but that's a personal opinion of effect, and one which I share, but not an equivalent action with actual input automation. Eve has always defined automation as client inputs being initiated by something other than human inputs, but in the case of broadcasting those human inputs were there, just non on a 1:1 client to human ratio. The EULA never specifically required that though.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
1905
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:42:09 -
[1837] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:[quote=Cervix Thumper]Going back a few pages...
Thats why there's a month ban first. As stated in the OP. I'm also pretty sure that only those accounts which are actually broadcasting/recieving the broadcasts will get banned, since all detection will be on their servers when commands enter. The other people will not constantly hit every button at the exact same time. Yes.. but according to that above quote it said ALL accounts. so suppose I am running 3 but own 10. I transgress and since all 10 are under the same user .. that could be a HUGE issue. Point #2: 3 toons transgress a second time. = 3 permabans. = $300 In fleet 10 toons 10 transgress = 10 permabans. =$1000 scary thought. Replicator: =$3000 lost instantly for the same transgression as a 3 toon player. No I can not and will not agree with this. Rep (sorry for using you as an example) may cost players ISK. Those players are spread out and in turn fuel the market. There is no $1000 ~ $3000 hit to an individual player by any ISboxer out there that I know of. These guys make ppl spend MORE, not less. Just food for thought.
How about you do NOT use the damm tool at all? The idea is nto to make afair and balanced punishment for people trying to go aroudn the rules. It is to GET RID OF PEOPLE THAT GO AROUND THE RULES!
DO NOT MAKE THE TRANSGRESSION AT ALL!! THen you have nothign to worry. The fact that you are worried abotu that indicated thatyou INTEND to try it anyway!
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
270
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:42:09 -
[1838] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Actually Nolak, you are the one who is being deceptive. You are using the following scenario:
10 players each running 1 account vs. 1 player running 10 accounts using ISBoxer.
You're claim is that the 10 players will always acquire more isk than the ISBoxer. When people use the example:
1 player with 10 accounts not using ISBoxer vs. 1 player with 10 accounts using ISBoxer you always fail to point out that you are using different assumptions. You've done this repeatedly. You are being deliberately deceptive, then insulting.
I have issues with your case (10 players vs. 1 player 10 accounts and ISBoxer) as well that I think makes your position untenable. But I know you wont respond to them.
I never said the players will earn more isk per toon over the boxer. I said they'd earn equal isk per hour per toon.
You once again attempt to take the accelerated gameplay clause to mean per human when CCP themselves have stated otherwise.
If you have a better scenario, please do put it out there. I was using a scenario that I was familiar with, namely, incursions.
If I come across as insulting, I do apologize. I have a very low level of tolerance for trolls, people who attempt to talk about something they have zero experience with, and people who ask advice and then ignore it. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
848
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:46:26 -
[1839] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
I never said the players will earn more isk per toon over the boxer. I said they'd earn equal isk per hour per toon.
thats plain wrong.
If you dont "waste" time for controlling all of your clients manually (using isbotter), the income per character is
higher since you (lock and) kill rats faster (incursion case). |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
270
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:49:25 -
[1840] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
I never said the players will earn more isk per toon over the boxer. I said they'd earn equal isk per hour per toon.
thats plain wrong. If you dont waste time for controlling all of your clients manually (compared to isbotter), the income per character is higher since you (lock and) kill rats faster (incursion case).
I'm comparing an ISBoxer to a fleet of 10 people. Each fleet still has to lock each target and shoot at them. The ISBoxer doesn't have an advantage of being able to kill them any faster, and indeed must sometimes wait for webs to take effect while non-boxers don't as they can move themselves around in a site. |
|
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
848
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:55:14 -
[1841] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
I'm comparing an ISBoxer to a fleet of 10 people. Each fleet still has to lock each target and shoot at them. The ISBoxer doesn't have an advantage of being able to kill them any faster, and indeed must sometimes wait for webs to take effect while non-boxers don't as they can move themselves around in a site.
in reverse, you basically say that 1 person with isbotter fleet is equally fast as an ideal fleet of 10 separate individuals.
In reality people cant focus fire so an isbotted fleet will still be always more efficient at completing those tasks as it completely removes human deficiencies and errors.
Furthermore, this comparison misses the topic by a mile, you should compare same amount of people with and without multiboxing automation. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1280
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:56:35 -
[1842] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
I never said the players will earn more isk per toon over the boxer. I said they'd earn equal isk per hour per toon.
thats plain wrong. If you dont waste time for controlling all of your clients manually (compared to isbotter), the income per character is higher since you (lock and) kill rats faster (incursion case). I'm comparing an ISBoxer to a fleet of 10 people. Each fleet still has to lock each target and shoot at them. The ISBoxer doesn't have an advantage of being able to kill them any faster, and indeed must sometimes wait for webs to take effect while non-boxers don't as they can move themselves around in a site. Non boxers can only take advantage of simultaneous movement and commands by actually having the necessary extra players there to do so, and this results in a much lower payout per player. If it's a single non-broadcasting player they do not have that advantage without denying themselves the ability to address the other clients at the same time, hence the loss in efficiency.
Either way the per player income won't match the ISBoxer. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2463
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 22:59:40 -
[1843] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Actually Nolak, you are the one who is being deceptive. You are using the following scenario:
10 players each running 1 account vs. 1 player running 10 accounts using ISBoxer.
You're claim is that the 10 players will always acquire more isk than the ISBoxer. When people use the example:
1 player with 10 accounts not using ISBoxer vs. 1 player with 10 accounts using ISBoxer you always fail to point out that you are using different assumptions. You've done this repeatedly. You are being deliberately deceptive, then insulting.
I have issues with your case (10 players vs. 1 player 10 accounts and ISBoxer) as well that I think makes your position untenable. But I know you wont respond to them. I never said the players will earn more isk per toon over the boxer. I said they'd earn equal isk per hour per toon. You once again attempt to take the accelerated gameplay clause to mean per human when CCP themselves have stated otherwise. If you have a better scenario, please do put it out there. I was using a scenario that I was familiar with, namely, incursions. If I come across as insulting, I do apologize. I have a very low level of tolerance for trolls, people who attempt to talk about something they have zero experience with, and people who ask advice and then ignore it.
Now you are just simply lying. I gave a specific example of how ISBoxer could result in more isk/character and you simply reiterated your tiresome quote. So no, I have not ever made the claim per human. You cannot point to any of my posts where I have.
Here it is again, I'll give you another chance.
Will a player with 10 accounts and ISBoxer earn more isk than a player with 10 accounts and not using ISBoxer? Assume the same activities. Assume the same skill points. Assume every thing is equal except for ISBoxer. Further note that the number of characters is the same. The number of players are the same. So I CANNOT be arguing on a per player basis.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2463
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 23:06:16 -
[1844] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
I never said the players will earn more isk per toon over the boxer. I said they'd earn equal isk per hour per toon.
thats plain wrong. If you dont waste time for controlling all of your clients manually (compared to isbotter), the income per character is higher since you (lock and) kill rats faster (incursion case). I'm comparing an ISBoxer to a fleet of 10 people. Each fleet still has to lock each target and shoot at them. The ISBoxer doesn't have an advantage of being able to kill them any faster, and indeed must sometimes wait for webs to take effect while non-boxers don't as they can move themselves around in a site.
Not true. The 10 player fleet CAN have issues. As I noted several pages back that there are two issues the 10 player fleet will always have that an ISBoxer will NEVER have.
A bit of setup...we are talking about a game...and its mechanics. So, this takes us into game theory and mechanism design. The multi-player fleet has two constraints that the ISBoxer does not. The incentive compatibility constraint. That is, you need to structure things so that everyone is working to attain the goal efficiently. Second, you need to ensure participation--i.e. the participation constraint.
When you have 1 player you do NOT have to worry about the incentive or the participation constraint.
So yes, in theory it is possible that the 10 player fleet will attain equal or even greater rewards. HOWEVER, in practice this is far less likely. A guy has to go AFK for a bit, he thinks he is a special snow flake and does his own thing vs. what the FC tells him, or he brings the wrong ship, etc. The ISBoxer does not have these problems. None of his 10 accounts are suddenly going to go, "Phone, BRB!"
Without the other players the ISBoxer is facing a simple optimization problem where as the 10 person fleet is facing a CONSTRAINED optimization problem. They can have the same answer, but that is a special case, not a general result.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
270
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 23:09:17 -
[1845] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
I'm comparing an ISBoxer to a fleet of 10 people. Each fleet still has to lock each target and shoot at them. The ISBoxer doesn't have an advantage of being able to kill them any faster, and indeed must sometimes wait for webs to take effect while non-boxers don't as they can move themselves around in a site.
in reverse, you basically say that 1 person with isbotter should be able to be as fast as a fleet of 10 separate individuals - the wrong is strong and obvious in this statement. In reality people cant even focus fire so an isbotted fleet will still be always more efficient at completing those tasks as it completely removes human deficiencies and errors. Furthermore, this comparison misses the topic by a mile, you should compare same amount of people with and without multiboxing automation.
I'm comparing 10 human beings with 1 account each to 1 human with 10 accounts. If your fleets cannot focus fire, you have my sympathies.
You point out that ISBoxer removes human error, when it comes with it's own version of human error. If I mess up while boxing, that mistake gets replicated 10 times over. Additionally, if a player in a non-boxed fleet disconnects, he can only lose one ship. If a boxer disconnects, he can lose them all. |
Aamina
Data Venia
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 23:10:09 -
[1846] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:I never said the players will earn more isk per toon over the boxer. I said they'd earn equal isk per hour per toon.
You once again attempt to take the accelerated gameplay clause to mean per human when CCP themselves have stated otherwise.
If you have a better scenario, please do put it out there. I was using a scenario that I was familiar with, namely, incursions.
If I come across as insulting, I do apologize. I have a very low level of tolerance for trolls, people who attempt to talk about something they have zero experience with, and people who ask advice and then ignore it.
Nolak Ataru wrote:I'm comparing an ISBoxer to a fleet of 10 people. Each fleet still has to lock each target and shoot at them. The ISBoxer doesn't have an advantage of being able to kill them any faster, and indeed must sometimes wait for webs to take effect while non-boxers don't as they can move themselves around in a site.
Don't give out that bullsh**.
1 man running boxer 10 man fleet in VG, locks stuff at same time, hits F1 at same time, alphaing the target, pressing second time F1 to activate remaining guns to damage or alpha 2nd target. He is doing that without a sweat, he is just running one toon, rest follow and do exactly the same at exactly the same time.
Real 10 man VG fleet takes time to lock stuff, sometimes somebody start locking a bit later, activates gun a bit later, fleet doesn't alpha stuff that often, NPC (especially in OTA) catch reps and build up some shield. Somebody locks wrong NPC, somebody activates guns on wrong primary, things happen.
For 10 man VG fleet to keep same level of expertise that one boxer can keep up easily (lock in same order, primary same stuff, alpha stuff) you need all 10 pilots to by in sync and that kind of running mode you can't sustain for long. Where you just broadcast few commands and vioala...
And for rest of people, if ISBoxer doesn't give that much of advantage, why do you whine about it, stop using it then.
Alt tab takes time, you spend some time issuing for first toon to lock, then you swap and issue commands for 2nd toon to lock. In incursions by the time your second toon has all the locks and guns activated, your first toon is already firing 2nd cycle, so there is unfair advantage you have. So don't give out some preaching how it doesn't help that much.
edit:
Not to mention, non-isboxer has to find the fleet, if he logs in odd time when his channel isn't running, he won't run, you bypass that as well with isboxer. and yea, do prove me wrong and let me see you doing VG sites in competitive time without any 3rd party software or hardware help with your fleet of alts. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
849
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 23:18:14 -
[1847] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
I'm comparing 10 human beings with 1 account each to 1 human with 10 accounts. If your fleets cannot focus fire, you have my sympathies.
after playing this game for 6.5 years and having been in a couple of (top tier) alliances I can tell if there is a thing that players cant do, is focus fire. Sad but true.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
You point out that ISBoxer removes human error, when it comes with it's own version of human error. If I mess up while boxing, that mistake gets replicated 10 times over. Additionally, if a player in a non-boxed fleet disconnects, he can only lose one ship. If a boxer disconnects, he can lose them all.
I'm not talking about fatal errors like warping wrong place or jumping wrong gate, I'm talking about 10 people being distracted each in their own way, locking wrong targets, being slow, forgetting about reload, shooting wrong things - tiny errors real people continuously do and which sum up. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2465
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 23:28:37 -
[1848] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
I'm comparing 10 human beings with 1 account each to 1 human with 10 accounts. If your fleets cannot focus fire, you have my sympathies.
after playing this game for 6.5 years and having been in a couple of (top tier) alliances I can tell if there is a thing that players cant do, is focus fire. Sad but true. Nolak Ataru wrote:
You point out that ISBoxer removes human error, when it comes with it's own version of human error. If I mess up while boxing, that mistake gets replicated 10 times over. Additionally, if a player in a non-boxed fleet disconnects, he can only lose one ship. If a boxer disconnects, he can lose them all.
I'm not talking about fatal errors like warping wrong place or jumping wrong gate, I'm talking about 10 people being distracted each in their own way, locking wrong targets, being slow, forgetting about reload, shooting wrong things - tiny errors real people continuously do and which sum up.
Exactly. Even when incentives are aligned, you can still get problems that are not as large for an ISBoxer.
What is the probability of any single guy in the fleet will have to go AFK?
What is the probability that at least 1 guy in the fleet will have to AFK?
For the ISBoxer, the above probabilities are the same. For the fleet of 10 players they can be very different with the latter being considerably larger.
ISBoxers had a good run....CCP decided to change their policies....and look the PLEX market is down to 855 million/PLEX.
Well done CCP.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
270
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 23:30:10 -
[1849] - Quote
There are many things that can go wrong with a boxer's fleet. You can have crystals fail to reload, guns can "false cycle", you can get jammed and miss your web, you can start targeting your alts, you can fail to lock a target and mess up your webs and thus have to unlock everything and re-lock, etc.
As for the claim of people needing to find a fleet, there are no less than 14 VG groups listed in Incursion Public MOTD. There are probably more out there that declined to be listed. There are also HQ fleets that are running near 24/7. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2465
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 23:32:19 -
[1850] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:There are many things that can go wrong with a boxer's fleet. You can have crystals fail to reload, guns can "false cycle", you can get jammed and miss your web, you can start targeting your alts, you can fail to lock a target and mess up your webs and thus have to unlock everything and re-lock, etc.
As for the claim of people needing to find a fleet, there are no less than 14 VG groups listed in Incursion Public MOTD. There are probably more out there that declined to be listed. There are also HQ fleets that are running near 24/7.
Those can happen to the 10 man fleet too.
What we are talking about is that players themselves screw up, or are even working against the group.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
270
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 23:59:59 -
[1851] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:There are many things that can go wrong with a boxer's fleet. You can have crystals fail to reload, guns can "false cycle", you can get jammed and miss your web, you can start targeting your alts, you can fail to lock a target and mess up your webs and thus have to unlock everything and re-lock, etc.
As for the claim of people needing to find a fleet, there are no less than 14 VG groups listed in Incursion Public MOTD. There are probably more out there that declined to be listed. There are also HQ fleets that are running near 24/7. Those can happen to the 10 man fleet too. What we are talking about is that players themselves screw up, or are even working against the group.
Right. Assuming everyone targets the same ships and F1's at the same time and that NEITHER FLEET MAKES A MISTAKE, there is no arguable difference between the ISK per toon in an ISBoxxed fleet and a shiny fleet. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1716
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 00:05:34 -
[1852] - Quote
Tappits wrote:Lee Sin Priest wrote:In light of the input automation....broadcast....blah blah blah nonsense could I ask (because I've searched on the forums and keep getting confused beyond all measure)
Are keyboards like razer and g15, with the inbuilt functions allowed?
You know the ones that you can make so if you press 1 button it could say...spam f1-f8 for a single client
You know...the ones that have the negative stigma
....the one that starts with Mah and ends in Crow?
Edit : no BS where it mines for 23 hours or anything, the kind of thing I could still do raking my hand across the keyboard, headbashing it or spamming it really fast Prob not no as its possible to do F1-F8 by any abled bodied person already. Its were you program it to do something allot more complicated than activating all your guns or something (you can all ready do with with one key press anyway in-game with stacked guns.)
EULA says it's illegal.
However CCP have indicated they aren't likely to ban you if it's just 'press one button, activate all hardeners at once'. Even though it violates the EULA as written.
Since they are more concerned about more serious behaviour.
But, since it violates the EULA as written CCP can easily change that at their discretion if they find it is causing detection overlaps with ISBoxing and Botting.
Partly why I imagine this change is being made is because it will also make it easier to detect Bots in operation.
And Nolak, you are just making yourself look very very sad with your constant arguing in circles, splitting hairs and other pedantic arguments here. Really, we got your point 40 pages ago, it's time to just let it go. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2465
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 00:05:48 -
[1853] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:There are many things that can go wrong with a boxer's fleet. You can have crystals fail to reload, guns can "false cycle", you can get jammed and miss your web, you can start targeting your alts, you can fail to lock a target and mess up your webs and thus have to unlock everything and re-lock, etc.
As for the claim of people needing to find a fleet, there are no less than 14 VG groups listed in Incursion Public MOTD. There are probably more out there that declined to be listed. There are also HQ fleets that are running near 24/7. Those can happen to the 10 man fleet too. What we are talking about is that players themselves screw up, or are even working against the group. Right. Assuming everyone targets the same ships and F1's at the same time and that NEITHER FLEET MAKES A MISTAKE, there is no arguable difference between the ISK per toon in an ISBoxxed fleet and a shiny fleet.
Sure, now lets ask which is more likely:
10 people play perfectly, vs.
1 guy 10 accounts and ISBoxer plays perfectly?
I'd say that the ISBoxer guy is going to have the higher probability and that will translate into higher earnings.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25677
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 00:07:21 -
[1854] - Quote
ok, command broadcasting was a bit broken, perhaps.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2465
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 00:08:22 -
[1855] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Tappits wrote:Lee Sin Priest wrote:In light of the input automation....broadcast....blah blah blah nonsense could I ask (because I've searched on the forums and keep getting confused beyond all measure)
Are keyboards like razer and g15, with the inbuilt functions allowed?
You know the ones that you can make so if you press 1 button it could say...spam f1-f8 for a single client
You know...the ones that have the negative stigma
....the one that starts with Mah and ends in Crow?
Edit : no BS where it mines for 23 hours or anything, the kind of thing I could still do raking my hand across the keyboard, headbashing it or spamming it really fast Prob not no as its possible to do F1-F8 by any abled bodied person already. Its were you program it to do something allot more complicated than activating all your guns or something (you can all ready do with with one key press anyway in-game with stacked guns.) EULA says it's illegal. However CCP have indicated they aren't likely to ban you if it's just 'press one button, activate all hardeners at once'. Even though it violates the EULA as written. Since they are more concerned about more serious behaviour. But, since it violates the EULA as written CCP can easily change that at their discretion if they find it is causing detection overlaps with ISBoxing and Botting. Partly why I imagine this change is being made is because it will also make it easier to detect Bots in operation. And Nolak, you are just making yourself look very very sad with your constant arguing in circles, splitting hairs and other pedantic arguments here. Really, we got your point 40 pages ago, it's time to just let it go.
Okay, technically it is a EULA violation, but you can do the same since you'll have 2 maybe 3 hardeners...anybody with 2 hands can turn them all on at the same time....without violating the EULA...unless having 8 fingers, 2 thumbs, 2 hands, etc. is a EULA violation....which I doubt.
Lets not take things to the absurd in an attempt to justify automation that actually does use a 3rd party software.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1716
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 00:16:38 -
[1856] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:
Okay, technically it is a EULA violation, but you can do the same since you'll have 2 maybe 3 hardeners...anybody with 2 hands can turn them all on at the same time....without violating the EULA...unless having 8 fingers, 2 thumbs, 2 hands, etc. is a EULA violation....which I doubt.
Lets not take things to the absurd in an attempt to justify automation that actually does use a 3rd party software.
Sure, this is likely why CCP have indicated why they aren't going to ban for that. Like I said.
But it doesn't make it 'legal'. It simply makes it overlooked.
Which means it can't be used as an excuse to then build up to worse forms of automation by saying 'well if that's legal why isn't this'.
And makes it clear that Macro's aren't permitted. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
849
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 00:19:59 -
[1857] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Right. Assuming everyone targets the same ships and F1's at the same time and that NEITHER FLEET MAKES A MISTAKE, there is no arguable difference between the ISK per toon in an ISBoxxed fleet and a shiny fleet.
again, why are you comparing 10 guys to 1 guy with isbotter??
As the original question to answer was whether isbotter provides accelerated gameplay and increased isk/h for a multiboxer or not, you should compare a multiboxer with and without isbotter support. There you go.,. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2466
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 00:28:55 -
[1858] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Right. Assuming everyone targets the same ships and F1's at the same time and that NEITHER FLEET MAKES A MISTAKE, there is no arguable difference between the ISK per toon in an ISBoxxed fleet and a shiny fleet.
again, why are you comparing 10 guys to 1 guy with isbotter?? As the original question to answer was whether isbotter provides accelerated gameplay and increased isk/h for a multiboxer or not, you should compare a multiboxer with and without isbotter support. There you go.,.
I agree with this as well. I think the more accurate comparison is not 10 players vs. 1 ISBoxer with 10 accounts, but 1 ISBoxer 10 accounts vs. 1 non-ISBoxer 10 Accounts.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2467
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 00:40:23 -
[1859] - Quote
FYI, PLEX prices in JITA 849,999,999.97.
Maybe CCP is also doing something to drop PLEX prices, but the coincidence is...rather remarkable.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
270
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 00:43:03 -
[1860] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Right. Assuming everyone targets the same ships and F1's at the same time and that NEITHER FLEET MAKES A MISTAKE, there is no arguable difference between the ISK per toon in an ISBoxxed fleet and a shiny fleet.
again, why are you comparing 10 guys to 1 guy with isbotter?? As the original question to answer was whether isbotter provides accelerated gameplay and increased isk/h for a multiboxer or not, you should compare a multiboxer with and without isbotter support. There you go.,.
Because people were attempting to bend the accelerated gameplay clause to suit their own hatred of ISBoxer, even when devs explained in previous threads that they were wrong. There is nothing a 10-boxer can do that a fleet of 10 people can't do just as well if not better. The best example of this is the video of the guy multiboxing a fleet of Harbingers in PVP and losing all of the hulls.
Teckos Pech wrote:Sure, now lets ask which is more likely:
10 people play perfectly, vs.
1 guy 10 accounts and ISBoxer plays perfectly?
I'd say that the ISBoxer guy is going to have the higher probability and that will translate into higher earnings.
Each time an ISBoxer makes an error it is compounded 10x over, so your argument is moot at best, trolling at worst.
EVE is not the game to argue probability in. |
|
|
Hicksimus
Volatile Instability
Resonance.
439
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 00:43:45 -
[1861] - Quote
On one hand I was enjoying the insane PLEX prices and incredibly low relative costs of items lately but this is for the better as ISboxer was murdering certain aspects of EvE in the same way that bots were 3-4 years ago. Once again CCP is cracking down and I'm damn glad for that because if you want new people to play you don't need a long time player multiplexing 20 accounts doing noob activities. Ex. Running 20 T1 barges with T1 drones in highsec......
Recruitment Officer: What type of a pilot are you?
Me: I've been described as a Ray Charles with Parkinsons and a drinking problem.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2468
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 00:48:18 -
[1862] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Right. Assuming everyone targets the same ships and F1's at the same time and that NEITHER FLEET MAKES A MISTAKE, there is no arguable difference between the ISK per toon in an ISBoxxed fleet and a shiny fleet.
again, why are you comparing 10 guys to 1 guy with isbotter?? As the original question to answer was whether isbotter provides accelerated gameplay and increased isk/h for a multiboxer or not, you should compare a multiboxer with and without isbotter support. There you go.,. Because people were attempting to bend the accelerated gameplay clause to suit their own hatred of ISBoxer, even when devs explained in previous threads that they were wrong. There is nothing a 10-boxer can do that a fleet of 10 people can't do just as well if not better. The best example of this is the video of the guy multiboxing a fleet of Harbingers in PVP and losing all of the hulls. Teckos Pech wrote:Sure, now lets ask which is more likely:
10 people play perfectly, vs.
1 guy 10 accounts and ISBoxer plays perfectly?
I'd say that the ISBoxer guy is going to have the higher probability and that will translate into higher earnings. Each time an ISBoxer makes an error it is compounded 10x over, so your argument is moot at best, trolling at worst. EVE is not the game to argue probability in.
That is the best you got? Trolling? Please, the answer is trivial to anyone with passing familiarity with statistics, mathematics, etc. The 10 man fleet is more likely to make an error.
And I bet somebody at CCP pointed out this problem, and pointed out to using the alternate scenario of 10 accounts ISBoxer vs. 10 Accounts non-ISBoxer. When they looked at that it was obvious...ISBoxer conveys a substantial advantage. Then they talked to the CSM and that was the last nail in the coffin.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
850
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 00:55:11 -
[1863] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Because people were attempting to bend the accelerated gameplay clause to suit their own hatred of ISBoxer, even when devs explained in previous threads that they were wrong. There is nothing a 10-boxer can do that a fleet of 10 people can't do just as well if not better. The best example of this is the video of the guy multiboxing a fleet of Harbingers in PVP and losing all of the hulls.
people are not attempting to bend, they simply point out how the accelerated gameplay is achieved - by eliminating human interaction overhead of manual control over all multiboxed clients, which is a huge advantage in terms of speed and accuracy, compared to someone who is not utilizing tools of such kind. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
270
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 01:07:17 -
[1864] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:That is the best you got? Trolling? Please, the answer is trivial to anyone with passing familiarity with statistics, mathematics, etc. The 10 man fleet is more likely to make an error.
And I bet somebody at CCP pointed out this problem, and pointed out to using the alternate scenario of 10 accounts ISBoxer vs. 10 Accounts non-ISBoxer. When they looked at that it was obvious...ISBoxer conveys a substantial advantage. Then they talked to the CSM and that was the last nail in the coffin.
Yes, since you do nothing to attempt to defend your points besides rehashing and moving goalposts.
The most likely scenario was someone was afk hauling 20b in a freighter, got ganked, and then bitched in alliance chat and at the GM in his petition and posted a tear-filled thread in GD. CCP saw this, or a CSM did, and they are now on some moral crusade against ISBoxer claiming that it's as bad as the botting carriers.
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Because people were attempting to bend the accelerated gameplay clause to suit their own hatred of ISBoxer, even when devs explained in previous threads that they were wrong. There is nothing a 10-boxer can do that a fleet of 10 people can't do just as well if not better. The best example of this is the video of the guy multiboxing a fleet of Harbingers in PVP and losing all of the hulls.
people are not attempting to bend, they simply point out how the accelerated gameplay is achieved - by eliminating human interaction overhead of manual control over all multiboxed clients, which is a huge advantage in terms of speed and accuracy, compared to someone who is not utilizing tools of such kind.
Once again, accelerated gameplay for each character is not proven and has been deemed nonsense by Devs in the past. Right now you're comparing someone making 0 mistakes with ISBoxers with what you perceive to be "human error" in a 10-fleet, which is not good practice when attempting to compare the two. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
850
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 01:19:40 -
[1865] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Once again, accelerated gameplay for each character is not proven and has been deemed nonsense by Devs in the past.
where? would be interesting to read what devs stated in this concern... you got a link? Actually its pretty obvious IMO.
Tell me something, if eliminating human interaction overhead for x-xx clients (extreme potent stuff) is not accelerated play in your opinion, how would you imagine to achieve this at all, without hacking the client or tampering network traffic (which has its own policy)??
Nolak Ataru wrote:Right now you're comparing someone making 0 mistakes with ISBoxers with what you perceive to be "human error" in a 10-fleet, which is not good practice when attempting to compare the two.
no, what I'm comparing is a multiboxer fleet with and without input broadcast, because the
input broadcast is exactly in question, whether it enables accelerated gameplay or not. |
Rox DaFoxx
Deadspace Junkie Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 01:22:46 -
[1866] - Quote
While I understand why this is being done and the effect on PvP game play can be a negative one,
As a disabled gamer who runs PvE missions can not quickly swap tabs, the avvailability of broadcasting instructions between my alts using ISboxer is the only way I can multibox my missions or travel through systems easily, especially with the longer distances involved with the new burner missions
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
272
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 01:48:13 -
[1867] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Once again, accelerated gameplay for each character is not proven and has been deemed nonsense by Devs in the past.
where? would be interesting to read what devs stated in this concern... you got a link? Actually its pretty obvious IMO. Tell me something, if eliminating human interaction overhead for x-xx clients (extreme potent stuff) is not accelerated play in your opinion, how would you imagine to achieve this at all, without hacking the client or tampering network traffic (which has its own policy)??
I'll ignore the first part since I told you before where you can find it.
What is your definition of "human interaction" and "overhead"? I'm used to "overhead" being related to housing and supply costs, so I'm curious to see what you mean for EVE.
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Right now you're comparing someone making 0 mistakes with ISBoxers with what you perceive to be "human error" in a 10-fleet, which is not good practice when attempting to compare the two. no, what I'm comparing is a multiboxer fleet with and without input broadcast, because the input broadcast is exactly in question, whether it enables accelerated gameplay or not.
Many boxers including myself acquired ISBoxer because of the broadcast functionality. It makes it easier to move through systems, swap ships, fix skillqueues, and countless other things.
If we're going to argue semantics, EFT/PYFA can be considered tools to give a player an advantage because they don't have to waste ISK buying and selling modules that do not fit, or ship hulls that don't have the required stats. |
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
555
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 01:53:57 -
[1868] - Quote
EVEMon allows "accelerated game play" by allowing people to more efficiently plan skill queues and check market order status across multiple characters without logging in.
EFT/Pyfa allow "accelerated game play" by allowing theorycrafting of fits for free without having to set them up in game.
Obvious conclusion is that EVEMon, EFT, and Pyfa should all be banned.
EVE has always had a rich set of metagame tools which are available to everyone who wants to use them. ISBoxer was one such tool. It's third party software that makes the game easier and more fun for people who choose to use it. Oddly enough, though, so many people choose not to use it that it becomes not allowed.
Personally I think I'll start a crusade against EFT/Pyfa and the like. People who use them are at a huge advantage compared to people who don't, and therefore they should be banned. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2468
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 02:19:26 -
[1869] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:That is the best you got? Trolling? Please, the answer is trivial to anyone with passing familiarity with statistics, mathematics, etc. The 10 man fleet is more likely to make an error.
And I bet somebody at CCP pointed out this problem, and pointed out to using the alternate scenario of 10 accounts ISBoxer vs. 10 Accounts non-ISBoxer. When they looked at that it was obvious...ISBoxer conveys a substantial advantage. Then they talked to the CSM and that was the last nail in the coffin. Yes, since you do nothing to attempt to defend your points besides rehashing and moving goalposts. The most likely scenario was someone was afk hauling 20b in a freighter, got ganked, and then bitched in alliance chat and at the GM in his petition and posted a tear-filled thread in GD. CCP saw this, or a CSM did, and they are now on some moral crusade against ISBoxer claiming that it's as bad as the botting carriers. Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Because people were attempting to bend the accelerated gameplay clause to suit their own hatred of ISBoxer, even when devs explained in previous threads that they were wrong. There is nothing a 10-boxer can do that a fleet of 10 people can't do just as well if not better. The best example of this is the video of the guy multiboxing a fleet of Harbingers in PVP and losing all of the hulls.
people are not attempting to bend, they simply point out how the accelerated gameplay is achieved - by eliminating human interaction overhead of manual control over all multiboxed clients, which is a huge advantage in terms of speed and accuracy, compared to someone who is not utilizing tools of such kind. Once again, accelerated gameplay for each character is not proven and has been deemed nonsense by Devs in the past. Right now you're comparing someone making 0 mistakes with ISBoxers with what you perceive to be "human error" in a 10-fleet, which is not good practice when attempting to compare the two.
Moving goal posts...I've been arguing the same point for the last 20 pages. You may think this is clever, but such deception only undermines your own credibility.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2468
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 02:20:45 -
[1870] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:EVEMon allows "accelerated game play" by allowing people to more efficiently plan skill queues and check market order status across multiple characters without logging in.
EFT/Pyfa allow "accelerated game play" by allowing theorycrafting of fits for free without having to set them up in game.
Obvious conclusion is that EVEMon, EFT, and Pyfa should all be banned.
EVE has always had a rich set of metagame tools which are available to everyone who wants to use them. ISBoxer was one such tool. It's third party software that makes the game easier and more fun for people who choose to use it. Oddly enough, though, so many people choose not to use it that it becomes not allowed.
Personally I think I'll start a crusade against EFT/Pyfa and the like. People who use them are at a huge advantage compared to people who don't, and therefore they should be banned.
Maybe it did, but here's the thing: it was free. Download it, put in the API key, get the same benefit. ISBoxer has a fee for the platform. That makes it a big difference.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
|
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
288
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 02:28:34 -
[1871] - Quote
Rox DaFoxx wrote:While I understand why this is being done and the effect on PvP game play can be a negative one,
As a disabled gamer who runs PvE missions can not quickly swap tabs, the avvailability of broadcasting instructions between my alts using ISboxer is the only way I can multibox my missions or travel through systems easily, especially with the longer distances involved with the new burner missions
Please keep in mind this tool just makes life a little bit easier for people like me when making a final decission on this issue ty
I would really talk to ccp and ask for an exception to this.
I'd love to talk to you more about your disability and help you anyway possible to work around this policy change by CCP.
Please send me a pm, I'll mail you now either way.
Save the sandbox! Multiboxing is a great part of EVE, dont kill it!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
274
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 02:34:24 -
[1872] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Moving goal posts...I've been arguing the same point for the last 20 pages. You may think this is clever, but such deception only undermines your own credibility.
I may have confused you with the other guy. I'm sorry if I did, but I'm fairly sure I explained why you were wrong as well in one of my previous posts. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1280
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 03:09:50 -
[1873] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:EVEMon allows "accelerated game play" by allowing people to more efficiently plan skill queues and check market order status across multiple characters without logging in.
EFT/Pyfa allow "accelerated game play" by allowing theorycrafting of fits for free without having to set them up in game.
Obvious conclusion is that EVEMon, EFT, and Pyfa should all be banned.
EVE has always had a rich set of metagame tools which are available to everyone who wants to use them. ISBoxer was one such tool. It's third party software that makes the game easier and more fun for people who choose to use it. Oddly enough, though, so many people choose not to use it that it becomes not allowed.
Personally I think I'll start a crusade against EFT/Pyfa and the like. People who use them are at a huge advantage compared to people who don't, and therefore they should be banned. There's a large and fundamental difference between planning tools and input broadcasting.
The most important of which being that the former causes absolutely nothing to happen in game. Evemon/Pyfa/EFT and the like are not tools for accelerating gameplay. They are tailor made interactive references. They provide information in the same way a google search does and assist with manual parsing and calculating, but only outside of the game.
So fundamentally you have equated things like writing a guide or sharing a fit to accelerated gameplay when we look at what these actually are. But this isn't accelerated gameplay. In fact it's not even gameplay. Gathering information from outside resources causes nothing to happen in game, can be done independently of the client, and has no requirement to even have an account with CCP.
There are other functions within those tools that interact with the game world, but only do so by pulling information. Further, that information is made available directly by CCP through a CCP designed and controlled API which still causes no actual gameplay to happen (yet still your posts accuses CCP of cheating).
I suppose the next step is to say google constitutes accelerated gameplay because by looking up the game and reading about it you might learn how to do something faster than having to figure it out from scratch in the client? |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
404 Alliance Not Found
192
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 03:10:17 -
[1874] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:
We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe.
So this guy who sorta opened the way for software input broadcasting/multiplexing would now be legitimately banned.
Cool beans. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25677
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 03:16:58 -
[1875] - Quote
Other than the obvious advantage it provides, I'm not sure ISBoxer or other shortcuts are the problem here. At higher SP levels, the barrier to gameplay is very thin, and is still an issue. The ire toward ISBoxers will probably continue as a result. If you have characters who are capable in a ship, the only thing stopping you from participating in a doctrine or fleet composition is ISK, with or without ISBoxer. Basically I'm not sure this solves anything in the sentiment department for either side, ISBoxers and purists. If this thread is any indication, this change does nothing to relieve tension. If petitions were the main point of contention against ISBoxer, I see it moving to something else, and I definitely see people continuing to file petitions for losses resulting from engagements with multiboxers.
The debate isn't going away. At the most basic level this is a P2W debate, haves and have-nots, blobs etc. But really, everyone has the same options for bringing friends, whether those friends are real people or alts.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
ESN Seeker
The Scope
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 03:24:26 -
[1876] - Quote
I'm sorry, I don't understand the meaning of "input multiplexing" in this context.
Someone asked up-topic about the difference between "input broadcasting" and "input multiplexing". The reply talked about "input broadcasting" and "input multicasting".
Multicasting is not multiplexing, in any other context in which I have seen either term.
In communications, multiplexing refers to transmitting messages from several sources over a single channel to a single destination. At the end of the channel there may be a demultiplexing operation, that separates the messages from the several sources again and sends each message to one or more destinations, depending on the source of the message.
Multicasting, in communications, refers to sending a single message to multiple destinations.
The only possible meaning I have been able to figure out for "input multiplexing", in the context of EVE, is using several different keyboards and/or pointing devices (mice, trackballs, whatever) to send input into a single EVE-instance. By that definition, using a numeric keypad separate from one's alphabetic keyboard would constitute input multiplexing. So would using more than one pointing device. Why CCP would ban such configurations escapes me, since they do not violate the prohibition against a single keystroke or mouse action going to more than one EVE-instance.
I've skimmed about the first 1500 posts in this topic, read all the Dev posts in this topic and read about a dozen of the messages from this topic retrieved by doing a Forum search on "multiplexing", without finding enlightenment. |
Xenuria
The Scope
Gallente Federation
962
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 03:29:12 -
[1877] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Makhpella wrote:Hi CPP if I warp squad do I get banned? Stop being deliberately obtuse. Tool.
Socially Evasive != Deliberately Obtuse
Clearly, this upstanding member of new eden is asking for a friend.
CSM 10 Candidate
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1281
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 03:30:51 -
[1878] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Other than the obvious advantage it provides, I'm not sure ISBoxer or other shortcuts are the problem here. At higher SP levels, the barrier to gameplay is very thin, and is still an issue. The ire toward ISBoxers will probably continue as a result. If you have characters who are capable in a ship, the only thing stopping you from participating in a doctrine or fleet composition is ISK, with or without ISBoxer. Basically I'm not sure this solves anything in the sentiment department for either side, ISBoxers and purists. If this thread is any indication, this change does nothing to relieve tension. If petitions were the main point of contention against ISBoxer, I see it moving to something else, and I definitely see people continuing to file petitions for losses resulting from engagements with multiboxers.
The debate isn't going away. At the most basic level this is a P2W debate, haves and have-nots, blobs etc. But really, everyone has the same options for bringing friends, whether those friends are real people or alts. One problem this creates is perception of barrier to entry. If I were CCP I wouldn't want my game to be the one known for needing 10 clients and ISBoxer just to be competitive, regardless of how true or not it was.
Also, the barier for any group content is as thin as your in game acquaintances make it. Outside of multiboxing, isk/SP gets you to the point where you can do a task, but it's other people that get you actually doing it. That is what ISBoxer (semi)efficiently bypasses. Not everyone will agree that that barrier is important, but it will become more effective to those that used tools like ISBoxer come January.
There is also the fact that a large shared resource pool pf clients feeding a single player provides a strong proportional income advantage for the accounts that aren't income generation dedicated compared to single or even non-tool using multi account holders. but then, you said other than that so... |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25688
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 03:41:05 -
[1879] - Quote
About the squad warp. It's automation that is in the client. other things that are automated:
Orbit
Approach
Keep at range
Drone aggro
CCP you need to do more to address this -thing-
This isn't a console game, and it is not a level playing field. You're straddling a couple fences right now: P2P and F2P, Uniboxing and Multiboxing. Until you do something to truly make it a level playing field for all four categories of players, this will be an issue.
Personally, I'm leaning toward enabling multiple characters per player, with equal sets of tools for everyone with a client install. The other option is attempting to limit each player to just one client. Despite sounding like a good idea, too much utility is lost when a player is limited to one set of eyes with just one client. For starters, the UI needs to be more informative.
EVE needs more definition--it needs to define itself more clearly regarding multiboxing. As it stands, multiboxing is a huge workaround to all types of balancing issues.
The bigger issue is the balance between ships and roles, whether a fleet is individual players per character or not. I'm sure you envision fleets composed of several different ship types and roles, but the reality is fleets are composed of one specific hull, with one specific fit, copy pasted as many times as possible until the fleet tree is full. That is a very big motivation for alting... find one effective tactic, copy paste 10x.
My suggestions for what to do about multiboxing and EVE, and the variable clients problem. My suggestions of going all in, acknowledging multiboxing, and streamling it: Suggestion #1, Suggestion #2.
No ISBoxer or third party applications required. No extra client instances required. The most level playing field you can provide.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
274
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 03:52:59 -
[1880] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:One problem this creates is perception of barrier to entry. If I were CCP I wouldn't want my game to be the one known for needing 10 clients and ISBoxer just to be competitive, regardless of how true or not it was.
Also, the barier for any group content is as thin as your in game acquaintances make it. Outside of multiboxing, isk/SP gets you to the point where you can do a task, but it's other people that get you actually doing it. That is what ISBoxer (semi)efficiently bypasses. Not everyone will agree that that barrier is important, but it will become more effective to those that used tools like ISBoxer come January.
There is also the fact that a large shared resource pool pf clients feeding a single player provides a strong proportional income advantage for the accounts that aren't income generation dedicated compared to single or even non-tool using multi account holders. but then, you said other than that so...
Another thing to consider is EVE has always had a slight pay-2-win aspect to it, whether it be buying PLEX for faction / deadspace, or buying a character off the Character Bazaar. I personally like this aspect of EVE as it tends to lead to ALODs and 150m SP toons running around in a triple-tank Thorax with purple and blue all over.
I haven't PLEXed my accounts in my two yearly billing cycles because I loved the opportunity CCP gave me to fly around with my own little squadron. I wanted to support the game that brought me all of the enjoyment that it did. And I thanked CCP whenever I remembered for letting me have fun even when I was having a bad day.
E: minor disclaimer: I have bought and sold two toons on the CB after I was well into playing EVE because of things I wanted to do in EVE, not as a "pay Blizzard for level 90 character" thing.
Also, I may be slightly biased in terms of the ALOD department as I happened upon one of these loot pinatas myself and profited from it. |
|
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1281
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 04:02:08 -
[1881] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:One problem this creates is perception of barrier to entry. If I were CCP I wouldn't want my game to be the one known for needing 10 clients and ISBoxer just to be competitive, regardless of how true or not it was.
Also, the barier for any group content is as thin as your in game acquaintances make it. Outside of multiboxing, isk/SP gets you to the point where you can do a task, but it's other people that get you actually doing it. That is what ISBoxer (semi)efficiently bypasses. Not everyone will agree that that barrier is important, but it will become more effective to those that used tools like ISBoxer come January.
There is also the fact that a large shared resource pool pf clients feeding a single player provides a strong proportional income advantage for the accounts that aren't income generation dedicated compared to single or even non-tool using multi account holders. but then, you said other than that so... Another thing to consider is EVE has always had a slight pay-2-win aspect to it, whether it be buying PLEX for faction / deadspace, or buying a character off the Character Bazaar. I personally like this aspect of EVE as it tends to lead to ALODs and 150m SP toons running around in a triple-tank Thorax with purple and blue all over. I haven't PLEXed my accounts in my two yearly billing cycles because I loved the opportunity CCP gave me to fly around with my own little squadron. I wanted to support the game that brought me all of the enjoyment that it did. And I thanked CCP whenever I remembered for letting me have fun even when I was having a bad day. Modules with higher performance but greater costs are themselves just a form of risk/reward. In itself it isn't P2W in my mind mostly because everything can be sold or potentially looted, thus causing a definite balance in behavior alongside the performance.
Plex? Sure, We can call that P2W, though really it's more like symbiosis between players enabled by the ability to trade playtime. Either way it's probably the best anti RMT move I've seen an MMO take outside of just selling isk themselves, which wouldn't work here. |
Odysseus Rhodes
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 04:31:21 -
[1882] - Quote
This has been the absolute best of the best forum threads ever in all of EVE Online.
Thank you CCP Falcon. When I get my dread... I shall name it (and all those to come after it).. "Threadnaught Falcon"
I have never seen so many "Buhh buhhh buhh MOM!"s so well written. Such margin making and excuse forging.
Rife and chock full of every conceivable minced word, in so many barely conceivable configurations so as to deflect and passive aggressively defend the narcissistic power mongering.
Though fictional and representing no one person... I think the below sums it up nicely:
"I can't play EVE with only one account running." " I cant win fights unless I can fire 50 simultaneous bombs with one click.", " I can't mine with other players.. that means I have to interact!" "But I need a personal horde of catalyst with 128 guns, so I can be effective in a fight, otherwise I'm unable to be a "High Sec Gank God". "I need 20 Domies so I can finish 8 missions an hour for various nefarious reasons so I can sell some isk and pay my rent!"
Precious!
Make some friends ... form a fleet. Go out and shoot Internet spaceships together!
EVEN If CCP reversed the decision this thread would make it all worth while. Watching the worms being worms, squirming to avoid salted earth that was once their Nuclear death button bringing forth the full weight of the Ban Hammer .
Pure Joy! Bliss, on Tap! Zero sympathy. Welcome to a level playing field.
Happy Thanksgiving
Good Hunting and remember if your quitting, contract your stuffs to a New player like me. |
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
5688
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 04:35:22 -
[1883] - Quote
I would have loved it if the first ten pages was the same Darth Vader No Scream by an ISBoxer user on all of his accounts posted at the exact same time.
Such a missed opportunity.
The Paradox
|
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
556
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 04:35:30 -
[1884] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Chris Winter wrote:EVEMon allows "accelerated game play" by allowing people to more efficiently plan skill queues and check market order status across multiple characters without logging in.
EFT/Pyfa allow "accelerated game play" by allowing theorycrafting of fits for free without having to set them up in game.
Obvious conclusion is that EVEMon, EFT, and Pyfa should all be banned.
EVE has always had a rich set of metagame tools which are available to everyone who wants to use them. ISBoxer was one such tool. It's third party software that makes the game easier and more fun for people who choose to use it. Oddly enough, though, so many people choose not to use it that it becomes not allowed.
Personally I think I'll start a crusade against EFT/Pyfa and the like. People who use them are at a huge advantage compared to people who don't, and therefore they should be banned. Maybe it did, but here's the thing: it was free. Download it, put in the API key, get the same benefit. ISBoxer has a fee for the platform. That makes it a big difference.
There are plenty of tools for EVE that cost money. Excel/Microsoft Office, for one. Should we ban the use of Excel because it costs money?
"No, because there are free alternatives!" you say. But there are also free alternatives to ISBoxer.
As for EVEMon/EFT/Pyfa not affecting game play...what about having a better computer? That "accelerates game play" by allowing you to more easily play, and more easily multibox without isboxer. Should we now ban people with really awesome gaming rigs because they have an unfair advantage over people who play on a potato-class laptop?
For me, I multibox and use isboxer because my playtimes are too random and unpredictable to make a general commitment to a group. If I want to run incursions, I could end up spending two hours waiting for a fleet, and there goes the entirety of my time available that day. That's Not Fun. ISBoxer allows me to play the game when I want without waiting for other people, and yet also have a more difficult (and yes, lucrative) experience than other "solo" content. Basically, I used ISBoxer to provide myself with the "high end solo" content that EVE lacks. It's high risk (if I mess up I lose multiple battleships), fun, and rewarding.
I could go back to just running the same old missions over and over again with a couple accounts, but by comparison it'll be severely boring. |
Odysseus Rhodes
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 04:43:44 -
[1885] - Quote
You use a third party program.
To play a multiplayer game, single player.
Without having to interact, and horde the financial gains.
If you truly grind missions like that... make some friends mission with them you will find it more fun that solo boxing because..
PEOPLE!
13000 Brave Newbies can't all be doing it wrong. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25695
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 04:46:27 -
[1886] - Quote
keep acting like a spaz, it's great.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Odysseus Rhodes
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 05:04:29 -
[1887] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:keep acting like a spaz, it's great.
We cannot all be well versed, grammar attentive, and politically motivated or worry about what others think of our opinion.
Sometime right is ugly and cold and getting back to it can be a very hard step for people who've had a crutch for years. Being able to play EVE essentially alone, aggrandized by the power that ISBox endows, then to have that yanked away... I'm sure its like quitting smoking. People suffer a lot of pain, sweating and anger and unreasonable behavior and say all kinds of thing to get that next drag.
Falcons decision is like rehab for those players.
It hurts, but its good for everyone in the end.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
274
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 05:06:36 -
[1888] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Modules with higher performance but greater costs are themselves just a form of risk/reward. In itself it isn't P2W in my mind mostly because everything can be sold or potentially looted, thus causing a definite balance in behavior alongside the performance.
Plex? Sure, We can call that P2W, though really it's more like symbiosis between players enabled by the ability to trade playtime. Either way it's probably the best anti RMT move I've seen an MMO take outside of just selling isk themselves, which wouldn't work here.
You're quite correct in your statement of modules being risk/reward. I would like to submit that so is multiboxing it's own separate risk/reward.
I was mostly referring to the ability to quickly purchase a 200m sp god-toon in a relatively short amount of time. PLEX in and of itself is not P2W itself. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1281
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 05:22:58 -
[1889] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Modules with higher performance but greater costs are themselves just a form of risk/reward. In itself it isn't P2W in my mind mostly because everything can be sold or potentially looted, thus causing a definite balance in behavior alongside the performance.
Plex? Sure, We can call that P2W, though really it's more like symbiosis between players enabled by the ability to trade playtime. Either way it's probably the best anti RMT move I've seen an MMO take outside of just selling isk themselves, which wouldn't work here. You're quite correct in your statement of modules being risk/reward. I would like to submit that so is multiboxing it's own separate risk/reward. I was mostly referring to the ability to quickly purchase a 200m sp god-toon in a relatively short amount of time. PLEX in and of itself is not P2W itself. From personal experience the risks of multiboxing are often well outshined by the rewards even without assistance from outside tools. Adding those tools, which also expands the number of clients that can be reasonably multiboxed, skews that balance a great deal further. It can't really be reasonably argued that tool assisted multiboxing is riskier or less rewarding than non-assisted multiboxing.
I can see the character thing as well to a point, but characters in this game are less of an automatic win than others, often with advantages that you need to know what you are doing to appreciate. As anything else it's still symbiosis, only now people are paying for past game time(training time) rather than future game time. This trade is considerably better than a module though in that it can't be lost in the same way, so maybe...
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
274
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 05:32:28 -
[1890] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:From personal experience the risks of multiboxing are often well outshined by the rewards even without assistance from outside tools. Adding those tools, which also expands the number of clients that can be reasonably multiboxed, skews that balance a great deal further. It can't really be reasonably argued that tool assisted multiboxing is riskier or less rewarding than non-assisted multiboxing.
I can see the character thing as well to a point, but characters in this game are less of an automatic win than others, often with advantages that you need to know what you are doing to appreciate. As anything else it's still symbiosis, only now people are paying for past game time(training time) rather than future game time. This trade is considerably better than a module though in that it can't be lost in the same way, so maybe...
As you add more clients, I've found that one starts hitting diminishing returns on the rewards vs attention/distractions. Having been on the receiving end of a wardec which I royally derped and lost 4 NMs or so, I can only imagine the damage that can be done with a small batch of talos/cats and some ECM. And you also have to remember connection issues.
e: To steal a phrase from you, up to a point. One can still drop $200 on PLEX and attempt to move it in an Ibis :D |
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25696
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 05:35:57 -
[1891] - Quote
About the narrative, and defining EVE to incorporate multiboxing and alts. The answer is in mindlinks. The Sansha Kuvakei variety. Not just for alts of one player, but fleets of players and alts, with the control structure linked to the fleet leadership tree.
Multiboxers are basically playing Sansha Kuvakei.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
557
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 05:53:21 -
[1892] - Quote
Odysseus Rhodes wrote:You use a third party program.
To play a multiplayer game, single player.
Without having to interact, and horde the financial gains.
If you truly grind missions like that... make some friends mission with them you will find it more fun that solo-player Multi-boxing because..
PEOPLE!
13000 Brave Newbies can't all be doing it wrong.
High end... solo content... is called PVP.
There's not really a ton of "solo" pvp available. I also don't multibox missions--I multibox incursions. I make maybe 60mil per hour per character. That's rather less than what people in actual groups make.
My "financial gains" go to keeping my fleet running. After PLEX and ship replacements, I have basically nothing extra each month. I don't mind. Running a fleet is fun in itself, and I enjoy the challenge.
I also do interact. As is the case with all incursion fleets, I sometimes get contested. I usually lose. So much for your "isboxers have an unfair advantage" claim.
Just a couple days ago a newer player commented on my fleet, I chatted with him for a while, handed him a venture and had him help me with the lyavite in the NMC sites. Interaction and content created. Normal incursion groups don't do that--if you're not in a well equipped BS or logistics cruisers, they're not interested.
Simple fact is that CCP is just giving in to whiners. Unfortunate that they're restricting the sandbox. Next they'll be banning scamming because it makes things harder for new players. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25698
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 06:03:24 -
[1893] - Quote
yeah that's another thing, the input / stimulation. we needs it, precious.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 07:08:15 -
[1894] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Odysseus Rhodes wrote:You use a third party program.
To play a multiplayer game, single player.
Without having to interact, and horde the financial gains.
If you truly grind missions like that... make some friends mission with them you will find it more fun that solo-player Multi-boxing because..
PEOPLE!
13000 Brave Newbies can't all be doing it wrong.
High end... solo content... is called PVP. There's not really a ton of "solo" pvp available. I also don't multibox missions--I multibox incursions. I make maybe 60mil per hour per character. That's rather less than what people in actual groups make. My "financial gains" go to keeping my fleet running. After PLEX and ship replacements, I have basically nothing extra each month. I don't mind. Running a fleet is fun in itself, and I enjoy the challenge. I also do interact. As is the case with all incursion fleets, I sometimes get contested. I usually lose. So much for your "isboxers have an unfair advantage" claim. Just a couple days ago a newer player commented on my fleet, I chatted with him for a while, handed him a venture and had him help me with the lyavite in the NMC sites. Interaction and content created. Normal incursion groups don't do that--if you're not in a well equipped BS or logistics cruisers, they're not interested. Simple fact is that CCP is just giving in to whiners. Unfortunate that they're restricting the sandbox. Next they'll be banning scamming because it makes things harder for new players.
I also multibox, i got 3 accounts. and i do it for the fun and Challenge :), i also help New players'etc give them ships. I do a lot to to (try) to help the community... And its possible that CCP give in for something, i dont know about that... But, Yeah.
(also, people shall be able to as part off the sanbox) :) Not that ccp/people try to limit it :) |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
852
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 07:24:09 -
[1895] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
I'll ignore the first part since I told you before where you can find it.
thought so....
Nolak Ataru wrote:
What is your definition of "human interaction" and "overhead"? I'm used to "overhead" being related to housing and supply costs, so I'm curious to see what you mean for EVE.
Alt-Tabbing/Cycling through clients, moving mouse, clicking, pressing keys.. basically what used had to do if he had no input broadcast, things isbotter removes.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Many boxers including myself acquired ISBoxer because of the broadcast functionality. It makes it easier to move through systems, swap ships, fix skillqueues, and countless other things.
holy ****, why are you posting here then? You know exactly whats te points are being discussed here, stop intentionally derailing the discussion from the discussed, problematic uses of Isboxer to something harmless like window management.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
If we're going to argue semantics, EFT/PYFA can be considered tools to give a player an advantage because they don't have to waste ISK buying and selling modules that do not fit, or ship hulls that don't have the required stats.
here too, totally missing the topic of the thread. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
852
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 07:28:20 -
[1896] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:
I would really talk to ccp and ask for an exception to this.
I'd love to talk to you more about your disability and help you anyway possible to work around this policy change by CCP.
Please send me a pm, I'll mail you now either way.
lol, funny how people are grabbing at straws. Soon, half of isbotter population would have some random disabilities as excuse why they need to keep their isbotter :DDD |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 07:29:36 -
[1897] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
I'll ignore the first part since I told you before where you can find it.
thought so.... Nolak Ataru wrote:
What is your definition of "human interaction" and "overhead"? I'm used to "overhead" being related to housing and supply costs, so I'm curious to see what you mean for EVE.
Alt-Tabbing/Cycling through clients, moving mouse, clicking, pressing keys.. basically what used had to do if he had no input broadcast, things isbotter removes. Nolak Ataru wrote:
Many boxers including myself acquired ISBoxer because of the broadcast functionality. It makes it easier to move through systems, swap ships, fix skillqueues, and countless other things.
holy ****, why are you posting here then? You know exactly whats te points are being discussed here, stop intentionally derailing the discussion from the discussed, problematic uses of Isboxer to something harmless like window management. Nolak Ataru wrote:
If we're going to argue semantics, EFT/PYFA can be considered tools to give a player an advantage because they don't have to waste ISK buying and selling modules that do not fit, or ship hulls that don't have the required stats.
here too, totally missing the topic of the thread.
Btw, speak about human interaction in 1 player corp -> You're in Robert <-. so eather you're an alt or an troll my friend :D Or you just try to annoy people, And people keep telling you info/etc. and you just og totaly away from it, or just give an non sense respnse a lot off times. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 07:30:22 -
[1898] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:
I would really talk to ccp and ask for an exception to this.
I'd love to talk to you more about your disability and help you anyway possible to work around this policy change by CCP.
Please send me a pm, I'll mail you now either way.
lol, funny how people are grabbing at straws. Soon, half of isbotter population would have some random disabilities as excuse why they need to keep their isbotter :DDD
Isboxer* |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 07:36:11 -
[1899] - Quote
https://zkillboard.com/kill/37551561/
https://zkillboard.com/character/1408803754/
-> Robert Caldera <- <- ganker <- Alt? Might be the skanner. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2468
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 07:43:29 -
[1900] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Chris Winter wrote:EVEMon allows "accelerated game play" by allowing people to more efficiently plan skill queues and check market order status across multiple characters without logging in.
EFT/Pyfa allow "accelerated game play" by allowing theorycrafting of fits for free without having to set them up in game.
Obvious conclusion is that EVEMon, EFT, and Pyfa should all be banned.
EVE has always had a rich set of metagame tools which are available to everyone who wants to use them. ISBoxer was one such tool. It's third party software that makes the game easier and more fun for people who choose to use it. Oddly enough, though, so many people choose not to use it that it becomes not allowed.
Personally I think I'll start a crusade against EFT/Pyfa and the like. People who use them are at a huge advantage compared to people who don't, and therefore they should be banned. Maybe it did, but here's the thing: it was free. Download it, put in the API key, get the same benefit. ISBoxer has a fee for the platform. That makes it a big difference. There are plenty of tools for EVE that cost money. Excel/Microsoft Office, for one. Should we ban the use of Excel because it costs money? "No, because there are free alternatives!" you say. But there are also free alternatives to ISBoxer. As for EVEMon/EFT/Pyfa not affecting game play...what about having a better computer? That "accelerates game play" by allowing you to more easily play, and more easily multibox without isboxer. Should we now ban people with really awesome gaming rigs because they have an unfair advantage over people who play on a potato-class laptop? For me, I multibox and use isboxer because my playtimes are too random and unpredictable to make a general commitment to a group. If I want to run incursions, I could end up spending two hours waiting for a fleet, and there goes the entirety of my time available that day. That's Not Fun. ISBoxer allows me to play the game when I want without waiting for other people, and yet also have a more difficult (and yes, lucrative) experience than other "solo" content. Basically, I used ISBoxer to provide myself with the "high end solo" content that EVE lacks. It's high risk (if I mess up I lose multiple battleships), fun, and rewarding. I could go back to just running the same old missions over and over again with a couple accounts, but by comparison it'll be severely boring.
First off, Evemon does not interact with the game, ISBoxer does. Excel same thing. Additionally, with google docs you can do alot of your spreadsheet work for free as well...or are you going to complain that people who pay for their internet service are cheating too? So your attempt to grasp at this straw is a complete failure. Maybe if Evemon, logged into one's account, opened the skill queue and updated it (which is silly in a post-Pheobe game with unlimited skill queues) you might have a leg to stand on here.
As for the rest of your post the summary can be: ISBoxer let me do things a player without ISBoxer would not be able to do...like acquire more isk, items, etc. via automation...i.e. something that has pretty much always been contrary to the EULA but that CCP decided not to enforce. Now they are and you are making silly comparisons such as Excel.
And I have a similar problem, I can't always play Eve when I want to...but somehow I've managed without having to resort to automation.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2468
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 07:47:27 -
[1901] - Quote
Or whoring on a killmail.
Seriously, what is the point of this post?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
260
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 08:08:45 -
[1902] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:
Isboxer*
No, isbotter. You are a botter.
You are controlling 1 account, the other 10 are controlled by your isbotter software
The fact that you aren't afk doesn't make controlling accounts via 3rd party software ok. If a player is legitimately playing Eve on one account it doesn't mean he's suddenly allowed to run 20 botting mission runners in the background. |
Deck Cadelanne
Exigent Circumstances
CAStabouts
74
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 08:08:54 -
[1903] - Quote
What a thread.
1 player using ISBox or some other technology gives 1 command input to multiple characters at the same time. This is what is explicitly no longer allowed and is a bannable offence.
That's pretty clear and concise. No reason for confusion there.
This is not the same as:
1 player alt-tabs between characters on the same PC giving the same command repeatedly but manually each time. OK. Makes it hard to control more than a few characters at any given time. Takes longer to get all the characters acting. Perfectly legal, no automation or multiplexing of the commands there. Hell, you could even use a KVM switch to go from one computer to the next...same deal. Because in each instance you have to input the command to each character manually.
It is also not the same as:
20 players controlling one character each working together in a fleet doing something. That's called teamwork...or multiplayer...or something...
But apparently a lot of the people playing this game are not capable of differentiating. That baffles me.
Maybe a lot of people are actually just mad over this change and are going all emo rage claiming they are either a) going to quit or b) going to flaunt the rule deliberately. When the rule gets enforced they will rage and gnash their teeth and rant against the injustice of it all.
Seriously, this is a video game. This change has obviously been made for a reason. The vast majority of feedback suggests for good reason. CCP and many players obviously expect it to improve the overall health of the game. So if this honestly ruins the game for you and renders you unable to play it and enjoy it...go do something else that makes you happy!
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 08:18:48 -
[1904] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:
Isboxer*
No, isbotter. You are a botter. You are controlling 1 account, the other 10 are controlled by your isbotter software The fact that you aren't afk doesn't make controlling accounts via 3rd party software ok. If a player is legitimately playing Eve on one account it doesn't mean he's suddenly allowed to run 20 botting mission runners in the background.
omg, its not botting. And and i only have 3 accounts too, im not controlling any other 10. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 08:24:59 -
[1905] - Quote
Deck Cadelanne wrote:What a thread.
1 player using ISBox or some other technology gives 1 command input to multiple characters at the same time. This is what is explicitly no longer allowed and is a bannable offence.
That's pretty clear and concise. No reason for confusion there.
This is not the same as:
1 player alt-tabs between characters on the same PC giving the same command repeatedly but manually each time. OK. Makes it hard to control more than a few characters at any given time. Takes longer to get all the characters acting. Perfectly legal, no automation or multiplexing of the commands there. Hell, you could even use a KVM switch to go from one computer to the next...same deal. Because in each instance you have to input the command to each character manually.
It is also not the same as:
20 players controlling one character each working together in a fleet doing something. That's called teamwork...or multiplayer...or something...
But apparently a lot of the people playing this game are not capable of differentiating. That baffles me.
Maybe a lot of people are actually just mad over this change and are going all emo rage claiming they are either a) going to quit or b) going to flaunt the rule deliberately. When the rule gets enforced they will rage and gnash their teeth and rant against the injustice of it all.
Seriously, this is a video game. This change has obviously been made for a reason. The vast majority of feedback suggests for good reason. CCP and many players obviously expect it to improve the overall health of the game. So if this honestly ruins the game for you and renders you unable to play it and enjoy it...go do something else that makes you happy!
I do play With other players in this game, but they're not too mutch online. and also i like the Challenge that come With controlling multiple accounts. its not like its easy, its hard compare to controlling 1 accounts alone. and anyone who think its that easy, you're wrong.
Edit: its still allowed till that date. |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6025
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 08:31:20 -
[1906] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Sal Landry wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:
Isboxer*
No, isbotter. You are a botter. You are controlling 1 account, the other 10 are controlled by your isbotter software The fact that you aren't afk doesn't make controlling accounts via 3rd party software ok. If a player is legitimately playing Eve on one account it doesn't mean he's suddenly allowed to run 20 botting mission runners in the background. omg, its not botting. And and i only have 3 accounts , amd im not controlling any other 10.
Actually, this is the correct argument to be made against the use of isboxer. If you are firing three ships worth of bombs with the click of a single button, you are indeed using input automation, which is the definition of botting. I never really cared one way or the other myself, because three guys using one ship each will always be superior to one guy using three. However, if you were being honest with yourself instead of trying to justify your lies, you would understand what is wrong with input automation. Bottom line, if you're one guy, taking on one guy, then why should you be allowed to have more than one ship to take him on with? This is an MMO, and make some friends if you wanna upgrade your numbers against your opponents. And even if we're talking about PVE, we're still talking about PVP to an extent, because everything you do impacts the game for someone else to some degree or another.
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
|
Prisoner11213
iMmortal Wings
Most Valuable Player
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 08:41:19 -
[1907] - Quote
Deck Cadelanne wrote:What a thread.
1 player using ISBox or some other technology gives 1 command input to multiple characters at the same time. This is what is explicitly no longer allowed and is a bannable offence.
That's pretty clear and concise. No reason for confusion there.
This is not the same as:
1 player alt-tabs between characters on the same PC giving the same command repeatedly but manually each time. OK. Makes it hard to control more than a few characters at any given time. Takes longer to get all the characters acting. Perfectly legal, no automation or multiplexing of the commands there. Hell, you could even use a KVM switch to go from one computer to the next...same deal. Because in each instance you have to input the command to each character manually.
It is also not the same as:
20 players controlling one character each working together in a fleet doing something. That's called teamwork...or multiplayer...or something...
But apparently a lot of the people playing this game are not capable of differentiating. That baffles me.
Maybe a lot of people are actually just mad over this change and are going all emo rage claiming they are either a) going to quit or b) going to flaunt the rule deliberately. When the rule gets enforced they will rage and gnash their teeth and rant against the injustice of it all.
Seriously, this is a video game. This change has obviously been made for a reason. The vast majority of feedback suggests for good reason. CCP and many players obviously expect it to improve the overall health of the game. So if this honestly ruins the game for you and renders you unable to play it and enjoy it...go do something else that makes you happy!
I agree to you the change was made for a reason but it doesnt change a thing for multiboxers.
Example what one multiboxer linked me the last time i confronted him whit that : http://isboxer.com/wiki/Round-robin
Only meaning that they have an delay by now ? Im not even sure why miners whit less then 10 boxes are complaining becuase only the undock and the first actiavation of the lasers will be multicastet the rest will be done whit VIdeo FX. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
852
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 08:50:29 -
[1908] - Quote
Prisoner11213 wrote:I agree to you the change was made for a reason but it doesnt change a thing for multiboxers. Example what one multiboxer linked me the last time i confronted him whit that : http://isboxer.com/wiki/Round-robin
Only meaning that they have an delay by now ? Im not even sure why miners whit less then 10 boxes are complaining becuase only the undock and the first actiavation of the lasers will be multicastet the rest will be done whit VIdeo FX.
if you want to resort to the they-cant-catch-me narrative, go ahead.
I'm sure they can and they will, regardless of your attempts to hide or obfuscate your illegal tools. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 08:52:13 -
[1909] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:Sal Landry wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:
Isboxer*
No, isbotter. You are a botter. You are controlling 1 account, the other 10 are controlled by your isbotter software The fact that you aren't afk doesn't make controlling accounts via 3rd party software ok. If a player is legitimately playing Eve on one account it doesn't mean he's suddenly allowed to run 20 botting mission runners in the background. omg, its not botting. And and i only have 3 accounts , amd im not controlling any other 10. Actually, this is the correct argument to be made against the use of isboxer. If you are firing three ships worth of bombs with the click of a single button, you are indeed using input automation, which is the definition of botting. I never really cared one way or the other myself, because three guys using one ship each will always be superior to one guy using three. However, if you were being honest with yourself instead of trying to justify your lies, you would understand what is wrong with input automation. Bottom line, if you're one guy, taking on one guy, then why should you be allowed to have more than one ship to take him on with? This is an MMO, and make some friends if you wanna upgrade your numbers against your opponents. And even if we're talking about PVE, we're still talking about PVP to an extent, because everything you do impacts the game for someone else to some degree or another.
I have friends, but they're not active enough, and its still the player who click to make it happend tho, if no input from player and it uncloak and fire bomb without no human intervention = botting. But thats not the case With isboxer + brodcasting. and it is not easy at all. and ''then why should you be allowed to have more than one ship to take him on with'' This have been allways allowed anyway, as far as i know. And why not? everyone can do it. And there are limitasions what an human can possibily Control before it get totaly unnefective'etc (to some extends) and 1 player who Control a lot off accounts need to lay a lot off time, a lot off isk (becous for each charater he need to buy 1 ship too) and its not like thats free. So if that player do mistakes'etc the loss can be Huge, compare to not having to worry about more than 1 ship. Yeah.. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
852
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 08:59:43 -
[1910] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:
I have friends, but they're not active enough,
so? Then join a better corp.
kraken11 jensen wrote:
and its still the player who click to make it happend tho, if no input from player and it uncloak and fire bomb without no human intervention = botting. But thats not the case With isboxer + brodcasting.
there is no input from player on isbotted clients, just on the main one, the others are acting on themselves controlled by 3rd party software, which is pretty much botting.
kraken11 jensen wrote:
and it is not easy at all. and ''then why should you be allowed to have more than one ship to take him on with'' This have been allways allowed anyway, as far as i know. And why not? everyone can do it. And there are limitasions what an human can possibily Control before it get totaly unnefective'etc (to some extends)
yeah exactly this is and should be the natural limiting factor when multiboxing, your human capabilities. You are removing it by input broadcast tools, which is wrong in my opinion, in opinion of hundreds of other people and now in opinion of CCP.
kraken11 jensen wrote:
and 1 player who Control a lot off accounts need to lay a lot off time, a lot off isk (becous for each charater he need to buy 1 ship too) and its not like thats free. So if that player do mistakes'etc the loss can be Huge, compare to not having to worry about more than 1 ship. Yeah..
doesnt matter how much isk or time it costs, ISK is not a balancing factor at all and time, well, if you isbotters take the time to setup the whole things, its probably worth the time because you receive more advantages from it than disadvantages, otherwise you wouldnt do it, right? |
|
|
Heinrich Rotwang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:15:24 -
[1911] - Quote
After reading 80+ Pages of sophisticated argument explaining that ISboxing offers zero advantage over multiboxing/alt-tabing multiple instances of the client, I got to wonder why that piece of software ever existed. |
Prince Kobol
2373
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:23:09 -
[1912] - 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.
Show me where in the definition of [quote]Input Automation[quote] it mentions "multiple instances"
Oh that's right it doesn't...
Hence the problem.
I couldn't give a damn about ISBoxer but I would still like to know if using keyboard / mouse software to map multiple keyboard commands to 1 key is still allowed.
I even raised a petition asking for clarification and the reply I got was basically, if you are unsure, stop.
I do not see why it is so difficult to give a simple yes and no to a easy question. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
852
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:26:13 -
[1913] - Quote
Heinrich Rotwang wrote:After reading 80+ Pages of sophisticated argument explaining that ISboxing offers zero advantage over multiboxing/alt-tabing multiple instances of the client, I got to wonder why that piece of software ever existed.
haha yeah so true.
Its always the same about people raging and claiming certain nerf doesnt impact them at all, and how things dont deserve getting nerfed because they are actually totally pointless anyways and you dont need them at all and can play as good without them, yet they keep raging and crying :D |
Prisoner11213
iMmortal Wings
Most Valuable Player
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:26:44 -
[1914] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Prisoner11213 wrote:I agree to you the change was made for a reason but it doesnt change a thing for multiboxers. Example what one multiboxer linked me the last time i confronted him whit that : http://isboxer.com/wiki/Round-robin
Only meaning that they have an delay by now ? Im not even sure why miners whit less then 10 boxes are complaining becuase only the undock and the first actiavation of the lasers will be multicastet the rest will be done whit VIdeo FX. if you want to resort to the they-cant-catch-me narrative, go ahead. I'm sure they can and they will, regardless of your attempts to hide or obfuscate your illegal tools.
Thats the point ! The tool itself it isnt banned and its not a multiplexing command. Every Command its done by the player so each weapon activation is a input for the person itself and its not breaking the new rule.
Remember :
"Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game."
It is not broadcasting u are chaning windows whit a button and giving out an command.
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:32:31 -
[1915] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:
I have friends, but they're not active enough,
so? Then join a better corp. kraken11 jensen wrote:
and its still the player who click to make it happend tho, if no input from player and it uncloak and fire bomb without no human intervention = botting. But thats not the case With isboxer + brodcasting.
there is no input from player on isbotted clients, just on the main one, the others are acting on themselves controlled by 3rd party software, which is pretty much botting. kraken11 jensen wrote:
and it is not easy at all. and ''then why should you be allowed to have more than one ship to take him on with'' This have been allways allowed anyway, as far as i know. And why not? everyone can do it. And there are limitasions what an human can possibily Control before it get totaly unnefective'etc (to some extends)
yeah exactly this is and should be the natural limiting factor when multiboxing, your human capabilities. You are removing it by input broadcast tools, which is wrong in my opinion, in opinion of hundreds of other people and now in opinion of CCP. kraken11 jensen wrote:
and 1 player who Control a lot off accounts need to lay a lot off time, a lot off isk (becous for each charater he need to buy 1 ship too) and its not like thats free. So if that player do mistakes'etc the loss can be Huge, compare to not having to worry about more than 1 ship. Yeah..
doesnt matter how much isk or time it costs, ISK is not a balancing factor at all and time, well, if you isbotters take the time to setup the whole things, its probably worth the time because you receive more advantages from it than disadvantages, otherwise you wouldnt do it, right?
1. No
2. Its the player input, and it's totally fine at the moment.
3. You are not to believe, i see that you have never used / researched it if you dont see what im talking about.
4. Does not an player who use shitload of time and their own time and Money deserve an advantage(more than players who spend like 0 time, sure) like the industrial giant producers With 40-50 accounts, they have no issue With it. and a Clear advantage over players With just one? Yeah? Eve is not fair, like. And an heavy skilled character is an Clear advantage, for having multiple accounts.
And that's fair, Because they can, And its nothing stopping the industrial manufacturers/reashearces. and nothing is stopping anyone else for trying doing it. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
852
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:32:33 -
[1916] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:
Show me where in the definition of Input Automation it mentions "multiple instances"
CCP classifies bots as input automation, which generate input without player presence.
General definition of "automation", why many incl. me classify isbotters input broadcast feature as such, is
when you use tools or methods to reduce your workload of controlling complex machinery or
software (20 eve clients for instance).
CCP is going to police both of these things in the same harsh way of 2 strike bans.
Prince Kobol wrote:
I couldn't give a damn about ISBoxer but I would still like to know if using keyboard / mouse software to map multiple keyboard commands to 1 key is still allowed.
I even raised a petition asking for clarification and the reply I got was basically, if you are unsure, stop.
I do not see why it is so difficult to give a simple yes and no to a easy question.
keep it simple: if you plan to use 3rd party tools for reducing your work or make it easier controlling eve, you're running
at risk of getting banned.
Prisoner11213 wrote:
Thats the point ! The tool itself it isnt banned and its not a multiplexing command. Every Command its done by the player so each weapon activation is a input for the person itself and its not breaking the new rule.
Remember :
"Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game."
It is not broadcasting u are chaning windows whit a button and giving out an command.
you can see it that way and prey CCP does see it same way too. your business, you dont have to
proove it for me that what you're doing is legal but to CCP. good luck. |
leiutenant George
Thrall Nation
Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:33:35 -
[1917] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:Sal Landry wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:
Isboxer*
No, isbotter. You are a botter. You are controlling 1 account, the other 10 are controlled by your isbotter software The fact that you aren't afk doesn't make controlling accounts via 3rd party software ok. If a player is legitimately playing Eve on one account it doesn't mean he's suddenly allowed to run 20 botting mission runners in the background. omg, its not botting. And and i only have 3 accounts , amd im not controlling any other 10. Actually, this is the correct argument to be made against the use of isboxer. If you are firing three ships worth of bombs with the click of a single button, you are indeed using input automation, which is the definition of botting. I never really cared one way or the other myself, because three guys using one ship each will always be superior to one guy using three. However, if you were being honest with yourself instead of trying to justify your lies, you would understand what is wrong with input automation. Bottom line, if you're one guy, taking on one guy, then why should you be allowed to have more than one ship to take him on with? This is an MMO, and make some friends if you wanna upgrade your numbers against your opponents. And even if we're talking about PVE, we're still talking about PVP to an extent, because everything you do impacts the game for someone else to some degree or another. I have friends, but they're not active enough, and its still the player who click to make it happend tho, if no input from player and it uncloak and fire bomb without no human intervention = botting. But thats not the case With isboxer + brodcasting. and it is not easy at all. and ''then why should you be allowed to have more than one ship to take him on with'' This have been allways allowed anyway, as far as i know. And why not? everyone can do it. And there are limitasions what an human can possibily Control before it get totaly unnefective'etc (to some extends) and 1 player who Control a lot off accounts need to lay a lot off time, a lot off isk (becous for each charater he need to buy 1 ship too) and its not like thats free. So if that player do mistakes'etc the loss can be Huge, compare to not having to worry about more than 1 ship. Yeah..
"Broadcasting" to multiple accounts is a bannable offence, it is that simple.
If you are using some form of software like ISBoxer, then granted, you are not AFK, but, you are only controlling one character and the software is broadcasting to the other 'X' characters.
So essentially, you are relying on the software to control your other characters through broadcasting.
Why are people having such difficulty in comprehending this?
|
Deck Cadelanne
Exigent Circumstances
CAStabouts
76
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:37:48 -
[1918] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:
I do play With other players in this game, but they're not too mutch online. and also i like the Challenge that come With controlling multiple accounts. its not like its easy, its hard compare to controlling 1 accounts alone. and anyone who think its that easy, you're wrong.
Edit: its still allowed till that date.
So control your three accounts without using input multiplexing a la ISBoxer. Problem solved, you are not risking a ban, all is well.
It seems that so many people can't fathom that this rule isn't about multiboxing, it isn't about having multiple accounts. It is simply about using an out-of-game tool to make it possible for one player to replicate one command input to multiple accounts.
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Why, in a multiplayer game that is at it's heart about PVP, should one player be able to fly 5 or 10 or 20 spaceships at once? That doesn't even make sense, frankly. All these ludicrous arguments based on PLEX price or ISK grinding or "I have no friends" are pretty much irrelevant.
Trying to claim that input multiplexing via ISBox or whatever is actually worse or more difficult than manually controlling more than one ship or offers no advantage...well, that is such obvious nonsense it doesn't even warrant a response.
Yep, one player ganking a freighter with a dozen Catalysts is no longer workable. One player bombing that enemy fleet with 20 bombers is also right out. Same goes for one player camping a gate with 15 Tornados. You will have to go recruit some friends to help if you want to do that.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
852
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:38:25 -
[1919] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:
1. No
so then its your problem actually
kraken11 jensen wrote:
2. Its the player input, and it's totally fine at the moment.
its only player input at your main client, all others receive commands from a 3rd party software
kraken11 jensen wrote:
3. You are not to believe, i see that you have never used / researched it if you dont see what im talking about.
not relevant for this topic.
kraken11 jensen wrote:
4. Does not an player who use shitload of time and their own time and Money deserve an advantage(more than players who spend like 0 time, sure) like the industrial giant producers With 40-50 accounts, they have no issue With it.
sure you deserve and receive advantages, but its ok just as long as you utilize ingame available methods,
no 3rd party tools.
kraken11 jensen wrote:
and a Clear advantage over players With just one? Yeah? Eve is not fair, like. And an heavy skilled character is an Clear advantage, for having multiple accounts.
And that's fair, Because they can, And its nothing stopping the industrial manufacturers/reashearces. and nothing is stopping anyone else for trying doing it.
what? learn english, I cant understand your point at all |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:40:19 -
[1920] - Quote
"Broadcasting" to multiple accounts is a bannable offence, it is that simple.
If you are using some form of software like ISBoxer, then granted, you are not AFK, but, you are only controlling one character and the software is broadcasting to the other 'X' characters.
So essentially, you are relying on the software to control your other characters through broadcasting.
Why are people having such difficulty in comprehending this?
[/quote]
Not bannable atm, and i Control my charaters mutch themself too, like activating Shield booster(s) , (where it's needed, dragging in drones if some take damge. So, Yeah. |
|
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
852
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:42:33 -
[1921] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:
Not bannable atm, and i Control my charaters mutch themself too, like activating Shield booster(s) , (where it's needed, dragging in drones if some take damge. So, Yeah.
why are you then here? You are not affected by this policy change then at all, right?
If you are not using input broadcast feature of isbotter, you're perfectly fine and in legal area.
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:44:04 -
[1922] - Quote
Posted - 2010.04.23 15:51:00
Hello there,
To make a long story short, automation of gameplay is not permitted; players must be manually issuing the commands to control their character(s) at all times.
Our stance on programs such as Synergy and hardware/software combination such as the G15 keyboard is that they can be legitimately used as long as gameplay isn't automated. Synergy allows you to move your mouse cursor to multiple different monitors which are hooked up to different computers and we do not have any qualms with players using the program for this purpose. If Synergy was used in some way to control your accounts for you without a need for you to be at your keyboard, then that would not be allowed, but I am not aware of such a functionality with this program. If Synergy is used in conjunction with some other program to automate gameplay, it would not be permitted. G15 "macros" which allow you to group different commands into one keypress are allowed. For example, setting your G1 key to press F1, F2, F3 and so on for you with one key press is allowed (although this specific command is not as useful as it was before now that we have weapon grouping).
An exceedingly complex G15 macro which would effectively automate gameplay, such as mining, without a need for the player to be present at his keyboard would be against the EULA, regardless of whether the player utilizing said macro is sitting at his keyboard at the time!
Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA.
I hope this clears up this matter.
Best regards,
Senior GM Lelouch
EVE Online Customer Support
from:
https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/oldrigs |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6028
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:46:17 -
[1923] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:Sal Landry wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:
Isboxer*
No, isbotter. You are a botter. You are controlling 1 account, the other 10 are controlled by your isbotter software The fact that you aren't afk doesn't make controlling accounts via 3rd party software ok. If a player is legitimately playing Eve on one account it doesn't mean he's suddenly allowed to run 20 botting mission runners in the background. omg, its not botting. And and i only have 3 accounts , amd im not controlling any other 10. Actually, this is the correct argument to be made against the use of isboxer. If you are firing three ships worth of bombs with the click of a single button, you are indeed using input automation, which is the definition of botting. I never really cared one way or the other myself, because three guys using one ship each will always be superior to one guy using three. However, if you were being honest with yourself instead of trying to justify your lies, you would understand what is wrong with input automation. Bottom line, if you're one guy, taking on one guy, then why should you be allowed to have more than one ship to take him on with? This is an MMO, and make some friends if you wanna upgrade your numbers against your opponents. And even if we're talking about PVE, we're still talking about PVP to an extent, because everything you do impacts the game for someone else to some degree or another. and its still the player who click to make it happend tho,
You click ONCE to make something happen on multiple ships.
What you need to be doing is clicking once for EACH ship.
Capiche?
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
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
853
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:47:52 -
[1924] - Quote
so what? CCP changed their stance, after isbotter abuse was about getting out of hand.
Why do you quote old statements, they are by now invalid. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:48:51 -
[1925] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:so what? CCP changed their stance, after isbotter abuse was about getting out of hand.
Why do you quote old statements, they are by now invalid.
They explain what means what there, read it please.
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6028
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:49:27 -
[1926] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:
Posted - 2010.04.23 15:51:00
Quote of old rulings
Yeah, cuz CCP have never changed the rules before based on data. You've got us there bruh, you win.
Actually, I was being sarcastic. Read the OP. Out with the old, in with the new.
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
6028
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:50:14 -
[1927] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:so what? CCP changed their stance, after isbotter abuse was about getting out of hand.
Why do you quote old statements, they are by now invalid. They explain what means what there, read it please.
No, they didn't explain botting at all, they explained what was against the rules AT THE TIME. The rules are changing.
Hope that clears things up for you.
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
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
633
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:51:53 -
[1928] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:
Show me where in the definition of Input Automation it mentions "multiple instances"
Oh that's right it doesn't...
Hence the problem.
I couldn't give a damn about ISBoxer but I would still like to know if using keyboard / mouse software to map multiple keyboard commands to 1 key is still allowed.
I even raised a petition asking for clarification and the reply I got was basically, if you are unsure, stop.
I do not see why it is so difficult to give a simple yes and no to a easy question.
CCP Falcon wrote:
Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy.
Input Automation has always been against the rules. How many "instances" doesn't matter.
Its Input Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing that (as of 01/01/15) will also be against the rules.
CCP Falcon wrote:
Input Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing
Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game.
As to using a keyboard/mouse to map multiple keyboards commands to one key. As long as the commands go to one client you will be ok.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
853
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:57:22 -
[1929] - Quote
why cant people play the f****ing game as is??
Clicking or mashing butans seems to be too hard for them so they want to automate, macro or remap all things constantly. goddamn. |
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
558
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:58:18 -
[1930] - Quote
What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it? |
|
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
853
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 09:59:39 -
[1931] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it?
because I knew its wrong and gonna get banned at some point in the future. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:00:20 -
[1932] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:so what? CCP changed their stance, after isbotter abuse was about getting out of hand.
Why do you quote old statements, they are by now invalid. They explain what means what there, read it please. No, they didn't explain botting at all, they explained what was against the rules AT THE TIME. The rules are changing. Hope that clears things up for you.
It explains that its not botting if an player is at the keyboard doing the commands. Automation without an player at the keyboard doing a **** = booting.
even if it's through synergy or whatever. if an player send the inputs its not botting.
That was my point to him.
Even if it's going to be banned or not, its still not botting. just against the upcoming eula changes. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
853
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:04:39 -
[1933] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:
It explains that its not botting if an player is at the keyboard doing the commands. Automation without an player at the keyboard doing a **** = booting.
it is their stance now, they just dont call it that way.
We here in forums express our opinions like everyone else and mine is that isbotter is basically botting,
I explained a million of times already, why.
kraken11 jensen wrote:
even if it's through synergy or whatever. if an player send the inputs its not botting.
That was my point to him.
Even if it's going to be banned or not, its still not botting. just against the upcoming eula changes.
in your opinion its not botting, in mine it is, because there are eve clients played by 3rd party tool,
basically you got 10 software controlled chars running after you doing same things as you do. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:05:48 -
[1934] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it? because I knew its wrong and gonna get banned at some point in the future.
There are that people who just starting to complain about something,
Even if they are not directly affected or not. some peopel dont have anything better to do (i dont talk about everyone) But there're some people like that... |
leiutenant George
Thrall Nation
Brave Collective
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:05:59 -
[1935] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Posted - 2010.04.23 15:51:00 Hello there, To make a long story short, automation of gameplay is not permitted; players must be manually issuing the commands to control their character(s) at all times. Our stance on programs such as Synergy and hardware/software combination such as the G15 keyboard is that they can be legitimately used as long as gameplay isn't automated. Synergy allows you to move your mouse cursor to multiple different monitors which are hooked up to different computers and we do not have any qualms with players using the program for this purpose. If Synergy was used in some way to control your accounts for you without a need for you to be at your keyboard, then that would not be allowed, but I am not aware of such a functionality with this program. If Synergy is used in conjunction with some other program to automate gameplay, it would not be permitted. G15 "macros" which allow you to group different commands into one keypress are allowed. For example, setting your G1 key to press F1, F2, F3 and so on for you with one key press is allowed (although this specific command is not as useful as it was before now that we have weapon grouping). An exceedingly complex G15 macro which would effectively automate gameplay, such as mining, without a need for the player to be present at his keyboard would be against the EULA, regardless of whether the player utilizing said macro is sitting at his keyboard at the time! Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA. I hope this clears up this matter. Best regards, Senior GM Lelouch EVE Online Customer Support from: https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/oldrigs
As you have qutoed, "Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA."
Therefore you are issuing commands and the automation is done by the multiboxing software through broadcasting, effectively automating those commands through "X" clients, and, to be perfectly honest, you will have plenty of time to argue that point after Jan 1st, while waiting to hear back from your petition to get you accounts unbanned.
I hope I have cleared that up :) |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6030
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:07:47 -
[1936] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:so what? CCP changed their stance, after isbotter abuse was about getting out of hand.
Why do you quote old statements, they are by now invalid. They explain what means what there, read it please. No, they didn't explain botting at all, they explained what was against the rules AT THE TIME. The rules are changing. Hope that clears things up for you. It explains that its not botting if an player is at the keyboard doing the commands. Automation without an player at the keyboard doing a **** = booting. even if it's through synergy or whatever. if an player send the inputs its not botting. That was my point to him. Even if it's going to be banned or not, its still not botting. just against the upcoming eula changes.
No it doesn't explain that at all. Now pay attention and stop making excuses - if a player sends one command, and a script replicates that command to be carried out across other clients, that is botting. CCP didn't define botting, they defined what they were and weren't going to allow in the game at the time. Nowhere in what you posted did CCP say "Botting is...". What they said was, "here is a clarification of the EULA". Are you high or something? How are you not getting this? Is it wilful ignorance or are you just huffing glue today?
Let me simplify this for you.
Pushing a button to send a command to one ship = not botting.
Manually pushing that button five times to send commands to five ships = not botting.
Pushing one button to send five commands to five ships = botting.
Botting is defined by input automation. The third item on that list is input automation. What you are doing, if you do this, is botting. Previously, this kind of botting has been allowed by CCP. Now, no longer.
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
|
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
558
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:08:07 -
[1937] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it? because I knew its wrong and gonna get banned at some point in the future.
Bull. It wasn't "wrong." It was explicitly allowed. Also, this is EVE. People playing EVE do everything they can to get ahead.
The only possible explanation for why people who claim ISBoxer is overpowered weren't using it is because they were too lazy to learn how to set it up and how to use it. Which I guess disproves the "it makes things easy" argument since it was too hard for you. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
633
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:09:08 -
[1938] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:why cant people play the f****ing game as is??
Clicking or mashing butans seems to be too hard for them so they want to automate, macro or remap all things constantly. goddamn.
Some people have disabilities. Do you think people with only one functioning hand should be allowed to play Eve?
There are many reasons why control interfaces need to be changed to allow individuals to use them. Don't tar them all with the same brush please. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
854
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:10:06 -
[1939] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:
Even if they are not directly affected or not. some peopel dont have anything better to do (i dont talk about everyone) But there're some people like that...
Oh, I wasnt doing it myself but I never denied I wasnt affected by them.
One of my freighters got ganked by a fleet of isbotted catalysts, not holding grudges or anything, I was carrying little too much but still I think it shouldnt be possible for 1 person, if you multibox then please do all of the work required by yourself.
Then, there are lots of guys do bomber wings on their own, alone, basically negating entire fleet doctrines of being flown in null.
Here again, I think it shouldnt be possible in that easy way.
Now CCP finally realized how gamebreaking isbotter acually, and took actions and changed policies. For good. |
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
1461
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:10:55 -
[1940] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it?
It was allowed by CCP WITH the caveat that their policies on the matter may/could change in the future.
Guess what they did, you where warned.
Damn these inbox users sound like drug users going cold turkey.
And why I didn't use it, simple didn't need it I can steer 3 accounts all by myself no bot software needed.
Now go play the game as it was designed to be played.
Why is that so hard? |
|
|
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
558
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:11:56 -
[1941] - Quote
leiutenant George wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:Posted - 2010.04.23 15:51:00 Hello there, To make a long story short, automation of gameplay is not permitted; players must be manually issuing the commands to control their character(s) at all times. Our stance on programs such as Synergy and hardware/software combination such as the G15 keyboard is that they can be legitimately used as long as gameplay isn't automated. Synergy allows you to move your mouse cursor to multiple different monitors which are hooked up to different computers and we do not have any qualms with players using the program for this purpose. If Synergy was used in some way to control your accounts for you without a need for you to be at your keyboard, then that would not be allowed, but I am not aware of such a functionality with this program. If Synergy is used in conjunction with some other program to automate gameplay, it would not be permitted. G15 "macros" which allow you to group different commands into one keypress are allowed. For example, setting your G1 key to press F1, F2, F3 and so on for you with one key press is allowed (although this specific command is not as useful as it was before now that we have weapon grouping). An exceedingly complex G15 macro which would effectively automate gameplay, such as mining, without a need for the player to be present at his keyboard would be against the EULA, regardless of whether the player utilizing said macro is sitting at his keyboard at the time! Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA. I hope this clears up this matter. Best regards, Senior GM Lelouch EVE Online Customer Support from: https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/oldrigs As you have qutoed, "Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA." Therefore you are issuing commands and the automation is done by the multiboxing software through broadcasting, effectively automating those commands through "X" clients, and, to be perfectly honest, you will have plenty of time to argue that point after Jan 1st, while waiting to hear back from your petition to get you accounts unbanned. I hope I have cleared that up :)
Can you even read? The quote you pasted says explicitly that programs which let you "issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed." AKA, broadcasting. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:13:30 -
[1942] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:so what? CCP changed their stance, after isbotter abuse was about getting out of hand.
Why do you quote old statements, they are by now invalid. They explain what means what there, read it please. No, they didn't explain botting at all, they explained what was against the rules AT THE TIME. The rules are changing. Hope that clears things up for you. It explains that its not botting if an player is at the keyboard doing the commands. Automation without an player at the keyboard doing a **** = booting. even if it's through synergy or whatever. if an player send the inputs its not botting. That was my point to him. Even if it's going to be banned or not, its still not botting. just against the upcoming eula changes. No it doesn't explain that at all. Now pay attention and stop making excuses - if a player sends one command, and a script replicates that command to be carried out across other clients, that is botting. CCP didn't define botting, they defined what they were and weren't going to allow in the game at the time. Nowhere in what you posted did CCP say "Botting is...". What they said was, "here is a clarification of the EULA". Are you high or something? How are you not getting this? Is it wilful ignorance or are you just huffing glue today? Let me simplify this for you. Pushing a button to send a command to one ship = not botting. Manually pushing that button five times to send commands to five ships = not botting. Pushing one button to send five commands to five ships = botting. Botting is defined by input automation. The third item on that list is input automation. What you are doing, if you do this, is botting. Previously, this kind of botting has been allowed by CCP. Now, no longer.
Input Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing
Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game.
It dont state that it's botting.
And it dont happend automated without an player.
It's not botting. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
855
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:13:47 -
[1943] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:
Bull. It wasn't "wrong." It was explicitly allowed. Also, this is EVE. People playing EVE do everything they can to get ahead.
in my personal opinion it was and still is wrong. You cant deny me my attitude toward certain things.
Happily, CCP sees it same way by now.
|
Heckar Ottig
Star Frontiers
Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:14:27 -
[1944] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:why cant people play the f****ing game as is??
Clicking or mashing butans seems to be too hard for them so they want to automate, macro or remap all things constantly. goddamn.
Sorry for not being hardcore enough. Also sorry for ccp being to illuminati on macro keys matter now after they were pretty straightforward with it being ok back in the day. |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6031
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:14:33 -
[1945] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it?
For one, I'm not some silly whelp that thinks I need multiple accounts to enjoy a video game. For another, EVE isn't a second job so I'm not gonna treat it like one by working 8 hours a week multiboxing mining barges just to plex my PVP account because I'm not a cheap schlub that can't afford the very low cost of a subscription.
For another, if I'm pvp'ing against one person, why does that one person get to fight me with multiple ships using a single command relayed across all of them with a script? I don't care if he wants to try to multibox a logi or two, but I'll be damned if I'll be beat by some script-kiddie with 20 stealth bombers all slaved to one keypress.
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
6031
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:16:05 -
[1946] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it? because I knew its wrong and gonna get banned at some point in the future. People playing EVE do everything they can to get ahead.
Everything WITHIN THE RULES, and no, some people don't do that at all. Some of us actually just enjoy a video game, whether we're 'ahead' or not. Ahead of what exactly? Oh you have more pixels than me? Who gives a ****, I'm having fun while you're slaving over a second job.
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
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:17:08 -
[1947] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it? For one, I'm not some silly whelp that thinks I need multiple accounts to enjoy a video game. For another, EVE isn't a second job so I'm not gonna treat it like one by working 8 hours a week multiboxing mining barges just to plex my PVP account because I'm not a cheap schlub that can't afford the very low cost of a subscription. For another, if I'm pvp'ing against one person, why does that one person get to fight me with multiple ships using a single command relayed across all of them with a script? I don't care if he wants to try to multibox a logi or two, but I'll be damned if I'll be beat by some script-kiddie with 20 stealth bombers all slaved to one keypress.
lol, 11 accounts, + drones = assist 50 drones + the person who drones was assisted to = 55 drones. = you die <3. With 2 click, f1 for civ gun, and f for main charater drones <3 |
leiutenant George
Thrall Nation
Brave Collective
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:17:57 -
[1948] - Quote
[/quote]
Can you even read? The quote you pasted says explicitly that programs which let you "issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed." AKA, broadcasting.[/quote]
Can you even read?
Have you read the original post?
"Input Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing
Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game.
Going Forward
As of 15th of March 2013 we have been policing input automation based on a two-strike policy
GÇó 1st strike for input automation is a 30 day ban
GÇó 2nd strike for input automation is a permanent ban
Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy.
Based on the discussion in this area and our will to be more clear and concise with the community regarding this part of our rules, we have decided to also apply this two-strike policy to prohibited forms of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing as of January 1st 2015."
good luck with any future petitions :)
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
855
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:19:18 -
[1949] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:
lol, 11 accounts, + drones = assist 50 drones + the person who drones was assisted to = 55 drones. = you die <3. With 2 click, f1 for civ gun, and f for main charater drones <3
yeah then feel free to use drones and stop crying. I'm fine with drones, they are part of the game, if I wasnt I would complain by myself in forums and you could come flame my thread. But I don't. |
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
559
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:20:36 -
[1950] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:
For another, if I'm pvp'ing against one person, why does that one person get to fight me with multiple ships using a single command relayed across all of them with a script? I don't care if he wants to try to multibox a logi or two, but I'll be damned if I'll be beat by some script-kiddie with 20 stealth bombers all slaved to one keypress.
Because you were allowed to do the exact same thing. It's not the isboxer's fault that you choose to gimp yourself with only one account despite repeated CCP promotions encouraging multiboxing. |
|
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6031
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:21:41 -
[1951] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it? For one, I'm not some silly whelp that thinks I need multiple accounts to enjoy a video game. For another, EVE isn't a second job so I'm not gonna treat it like one by working 8 hours a week multiboxing mining barges just to plex my PVP account because I'm not a cheap schlub that can't afford the very low cost of a subscription. For another, if I'm pvp'ing against one person, why does that one person get to fight me with multiple ships using a single command relayed across all of them with a script? I don't care if he wants to try to multibox a logi or two, but I'll be damned if I'll be beat by some script-kiddie with 20 stealth bombers all slaved to one keypress. lol, 11 accounts, + drones = assist 50 drones + the person who drones was assisted to = 55 drones. = you die <3. With 2 click, f1 for civ gun, and f for main charater drones <3
And if he's doing it all manually, and he considers me scary enough to have to use so much firepower, then kudos for him.
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
|
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
559
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:21:51 -
[1952] - Quote
leiutenant George wrote:Quote:
Can you even read? The quote you pasted says explicitly that programs which let you "issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed." AKA, broadcasting.
Can you even read? Have you read the original post? "Input Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game. Going Forward As of 15th of March 2013 we have been policing input automation based on a two-strike policy GÇó 1st strike for input automation is a 30 day ban GÇó 2nd strike for input automation is a permanent ban Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy. Based on the discussion in this area and our will to be more clear and concise with the community regarding this part of our rules, we have decided to also apply this two-strike policy to prohibited forms of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing as of January 1st 2015." good luck with any future petitions :)
And the previous GM statement you quoted predates that announcement by several years. |
Sentenced 1989
Quantum Anomaly Corporation
136
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:22:28 -
[1953] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:There are many things that can go wrong with a boxer's fleet. You can have crystals fail to reload, guns can "false cycle", you can get jammed and miss your web, you can start targeting your alts, you can fail to lock a target and mess up your webs and thus have to unlock everything and re-lock, etc.
As for the claim of people needing to find a fleet, there are no less than 14 VG groups listed in Incursion Public MOTD. There are probably more out there that declined to be listed. There are also HQ fleets that are running near 24/7.
So this is your only argument? You think ISBoxer is ok because if you **** up your lose more?
This problem arises from usage of ISBoxer, if you didn't use it as the rest of normal players, you wouldn't had this problem. Statistically you make way more ISK with way less risk, since otherwise why would you spend billion of ISK buying alts and 50$ for ISBoxer per yea if it didn't give you any advantage...
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6031
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:25:41 -
[1954] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:
For another, if I'm pvp'ing against one person, why does that one person get to fight me with multiple ships using a single command relayed across all of them with a script? I don't care if he wants to try to multibox a logi or two, but I'll be damned if I'll be beat by some script-kiddie with 20 stealth bombers all slaved to one keypress.
Because you were allowed to do the exact same thing.
I'm allowed to do a lot of things that I choose not to, and I'm not gimping myself at all. Challenging oneself =/= gimping oneself. As a result of challenging myself, I have grown stronger and smarter as a PVP'er. I guarantee you anyone using multiple accounts for PVP would be incapable of doing any good with only one of them. Hell I don't even use scouts unless I've got friends around.
CCP encourages multiboxing because they make more money from it. Players then dupe themselves into thinking they need to multibox to 'do well' in the game. I'm evidence that you only need the one to enjoy it AND do well.
Heil Sansha. Whelp.
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
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:27:59 -
[1955] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Chris Winter wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:
For another, if I'm pvp'ing against one person, why does that one person get to fight me with multiple ships using a single command relayed across all of them with a script? I don't care if he wants to try to multibox a logi or two, but I'll be damned if I'll be beat by some script-kiddie with 20 stealth bombers all slaved to one keypress.
Because you were allowed to do the exact same thing. I'm allowed to do a lot of things that I choose not to, and I'm not gimping myself at all. Challenging oneself =/= gimping oneself. As a result of challenging myself, I have grown stronger and smarter as a PVP'er. I guarantee you anyone using multiple accounts for PVP would be incapable of doing any good with only one of them. Hell I don't even use scouts unless I've got friends around. CCP encourages multiboxing because they make more money from it. Players then dupe themselves into thinking they need to multibox to 'do well' in the game. I'm evidence that you only need the one to enjoy it AND do well. Heil Sansha. Whelp.
I enjoy multiboxing :D And i dont even do well :D Pay With real Money for my accounts :D So what? just more targets for you to shoot, right? :P |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6031
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:29:59 -
[1956] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Chris Winter wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:
For another, if I'm pvp'ing against one person, why does that one person get to fight me with multiple ships using a single command relayed across all of them with a script? I don't care if he wants to try to multibox a logi or two, but I'll be damned if I'll be beat by some script-kiddie with 20 stealth bombers all slaved to one keypress.
Because you were allowed to do the exact same thing. I'm allowed to do a lot of things that I choose not to, and I'm not gimping myself at all. Challenging oneself =/= gimping oneself. As a result of challenging myself, I have grown stronger and smarter as a PVP'er. I guarantee you anyone using multiple accounts for PVP would be incapable of doing any good with only one of them. Hell I don't even use scouts unless I've got friends around. CCP encourages multiboxing because they make more money from it. Players then dupe themselves into thinking they need to multibox to 'do well' in the game. I'm evidence that you only need the one to enjoy it AND do well. Heil Sansha. Whelp. I enjoy multiboxing :D And i dont even do well :D Pay With real Money for my accounts :D So what? just more targets for you to shoot, right? :P
Good for you. Now learn to do it manually, or not 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
|
Rawthorm
D.M.T inc
Circle-Of-Two
26
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:35:06 -
[1957] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:so what? CCP changed their stance, after isbotter abuse was about getting out of hand.
Why do you quote old statements, they are by now invalid. They explain what means what there, read it please. No, they didn't explain botting at all, they explained what was against the rules AT THE TIME. The rules are changing. Hope that clears things up for you. It explains that its not botting if an player is at the keyboard doing the commands. Automation without an player at the keyboard doing a **** = booting. even if it's through synergy or whatever. if an player send the inputs its not botting. That was my point to him. Even if it's going to be banned or not, its still not botting. just against the upcoming eula changes. No it doesn't explain that at all. Now pay attention and stop making excuses - if a player sends one command, and a script replicates that command to be carried out across other clients, that is botting. CCP didn't define botting, they defined what they were and weren't going to allow in the game at the time. Nowhere in what you posted did CCP say "Botting is...". What they said was, "here is a clarification of the EULA". Are you high or something? How are you not getting this? Is it wilful ignorance or are you just huffing glue today? Let me simplify this for you. Pushing a button to send a command to one ship = not botting. Manually pushing that button five times to send commands to five ships = not botting. Pushing one button to send five commands to five ships = botting. Botting is defined by input automation. The third item on that list is input automation. What you are doing, if you do this, is botting. Previously, this kind of botting has been allowed by CCP. Now, no longer.
Not to spoil your ranting or anything, but CCP did in the first post clearly differentiate between Input Automation and Input Multiplexing.
While both now illegal, they are still vastly different things. The first is almost the definition of botting, the latter isn't and will never be botting no matter how you want to spin it.
As a side note for thought, the fact you can't click on 2 or more clients at once is really down to UI design of your OS, not EvE. I've seen some custom semi-transparent UI designs (think focusless windows) on intergrated information systems that allow you to click through stacked windows.
Now lets pretend I find a way to do this in Linux or WIndows, and I can stack 10 semi-transparent clients on top of eachother perectly aligned. (Yes visually it will look horrible)
Now I remove the concept of window focus from my OS (So the OS no longer only interacts with the top window, but now everything in the stack) when I click an EvE client that click effects them all.
At this point am I still input multiplexing? No extra software is duplicating my input, its just me natively clicking 10 eve clients at once. Splitting hairs I know, but if this was how we'd grown up being used to working with an OS UI would we even be having this argument now? |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
855
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:53:38 -
[1958] - Quote
Rawthorm wrote:
Not to spoil your ranting or anything, but CCP did in the first post clearly differentiate between Input Automation and Input Multiplexing.
they did.
Rawthorm wrote:
While both now illegal, they are still vastly different things. The first is almost the definition of botting, the latter isn't and will never be botting no matter how you want to spin it.
CCP does probably have their reasons to call things how they call them.
On the other hand there is our common sense which tells us if a character is acting on its own, in this
simplified case just running together with you, imitating you - it borders on being a bot.
Rawthorm wrote:
If Multiplexing an input was botting, how would you explain away me duct-taping say 8 mice together and controlling 8 clients that way? Am I suddenly a bot?
hard to tell, in this special case you would issue all commands by yourself on all clients, not some 3rd party tool running in backgrounds distributing your input. In this special case I would even laugh at you for all that work and hassle of glueing mices together and not even further bother, not in case of isbotter tho... which allows too much power for at little effort.
Rawthorm wrote:
As a side note for thought, the fact you can't click on 2 or more clients at once is really down to UI design of your OS, not EvE. I've seen some custom semi-transparent UI designs (think focusless windows) on intergrated information systems that allow you to click through stacked windows.
Now lets pretend I find a way to do this in Linux or WIndows, and I can stack 10 semi-transparent clients on top of eachother perectly aligned. (Yes visually it will look horrible)
Now I remove the concept of window focus from my OS (So the OS no longer only interacts with the top window, but now everything in the stack) when I click an EvE client that click effects them all.
but its not how our windows work, so its pointless to argue how a OS could possibly function to support your needs.
How is this relevant? I'm sure in that case CCP would prevent Eve from being multicasted by OS anyways.
Rawthorm wrote:
At this point am I still input multiplexing? No extra software is duplicating my input, its just me natively clicking 10 eve clients at once. Splitting hairs I know, but if this was how we'd grown up being used to working with an OS UI would we even be having this argument now?
in your imaginary case, yes you'd still multiplex input, not by 3rd party tool but by different means but still. |
Prince Kobol
2373
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:54:17 -
[1959] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:
Show me where in the definition of Input Automation it mentions "multiple instances"
Oh that's right it doesn't...
Hence the problem.
I couldn't give a damn about ISBoxer but I would still like to know if using keyboard / mouse software to map multiple keyboard commands to 1 key is still allowed.
I even raised a petition asking for clarification and the reply I got was basically, if you are unsure, stop.
I do not see why it is so difficult to give a simple yes and no to a easy question.
CCP Falcon wrote:
Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy.
Input Automation has always been against the rules. How many "instances" doesn't matter. Its Input Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing that (as of 01/01/15) will also be against the rules. CCP Falcon wrote:
Input Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing
Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game.
As to using a keyboard/mouse to map multiple keyboards commands to one key. As long as the commands go to one client you will be ok.
That is the view I will be taking and I will continue to keep using key maps I have created until CCP explicitly tell me to stop. |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6031
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 10:58:38 -
[1960] - Quote
Rawthorm wrote:Splitting hairs I know
Then let's stick to the issue at hand, because that's not how most peoples' OS UIs work at all. In fact, it's speculative and irrelevant.
IMO, anything automated here is as good as and on par with botting. Say I concede, however, that botting is specifically defined as software doing literally everything with no input required. This is not a justification for automation. And yes, multiplexing is automation. It automatically sends the same command to multiple accounts that without it would require as many commands as there were accounts.
Now if you wanna tape a bunch of mice together, be my guest. It sounds like an awful lot of useless effort just to play a game that you really only need one account for, and I bet you'll be replacing the tape plenty as the sweat from your palms causes it to lose adhesiveness, which would likely suck right in the middle of a fight.... but I digress.
At the end of the day, the issue at hand is the rules are changing, and some people seem to be struggling to come to terms with the very clear and concise explanation given. As I stated earlier, this is probably the result of them having grown used to having things so easy and now they have something new to adapt to. Which is why single-account users are, at this very moment, all of us, having the time of our lives watching the lot of them stumble over self-justifications, excuses, and threats to qq.
Also, I suggest you examine the definition of 'rant'. Rant =/= succinct, well-articulated explanatory prose.
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
|
|
|
RUS Comannder
Tremor Recorded
Variable Enterprise Training Standards
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 11:11:54 -
[1961] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:RUS Comannder wrote:Altrue wrote:RUS Comannder wrote:
I only have-á12 accounts
That kind of quote makes me laugh A long time ago when I started playing in 2004, no one knew this game would be around for long, so I specialized players to trade, to mine to pvp and to build. There was no Eve approved way to change one player to another person or even ot have three trained up to do three different jobs and just logon and logoff to whichever of them was needed you could not train more than one per account, and 15 buck for an account is nothing to me. If I had full use of the limbs I have, my monthly eve costs would not cover one green's fee where I used to play several time a week. Even though Ebay was then full of ships, characters and accounts, it was against the rules and I am a rule follower, not breaker. So in the interest of time savings and meeting the tasks needed to be a well rounded player, I built a corp for myself, while having one player in a corp with 70 or so other friends. Let me see if there is anything about you I can laugh about - oh wait, I don't do that. I literally laugh at anyone that thinks they need more than one account to be a 'well rounded player'. To me, they're basically scamming themselves. I've never enjoyed a game more than EVE Online and I've only needed one account to do so.
**************************************************************************************
I celebtrate your happiness of playing with one character
Is it beyond you to be happy that I can be happy playing within the rules and being happy with 12 characters, as frankly, I would fall asleep playing with only one character. The adventure of hopping from character to character is exhiliarating to me. 12 is all I can handle, but there was a time when I thought 8 was as much as I could do.
I use ISBoxer to log in and do housecleaning activities. This change will not affect my style of play in any way. |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6031
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 11:20:10 -
[1962] - Quote
RUS Comannder wrote:
**************************************************************************************
I celebtrate your happiness of playing with one character
Is it beyond you to be happy that I can be happy playing within the rules and being happy with 12 characters, as frankly, I would fall asleep playing with only one character. The adventure of hopping from character to character is exhiliarating to me. 12 is all I can handle, but there was a time when I thought 8 was as much as I could do.
I use ISBoxer to log in and do housecleaning activities. This change will not affect my style of play in any way.
This isn't what I'm addressing at all. Go ahead and have as many accounts as you want. It's entirely your prerogative, your wallet, your game time, and not my problem.
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
|
handige harrie
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
281
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 11:31:52 -
[1963] - Quote
Rawthorm wrote:
Not to spoil your ranting or anything, but CCP did in the first post clearly differentiate between Input Automation and Input Multiplexing.
While both now illegal, they are still vastly different things. The first is almost the definition of botting, the latter isn't and will never be botting no matter how you want to spin it.
If Multiplexing an input was botting, how would you explain away me duct-taping say 8 mice together and controlling 8 clients that way? Am I suddenly a bot?
As a side note for thought, the fact you can't click on 2 or more clients at once is really down to UI design of your OS, not EvE. I've seen some custom semi-transparent UI designs (think focusless windows) on intergrated information systems that allow you to click through stacked windows.
Now lets pretend I find a way to do this in Linux or WIndows, and I can stack 10 semi-transparent clients on top of eachother perectly aligned. (Yes visually it will look horrible)
Now I remove the concept of window focus from my OS (So the OS no longer only interacts with the top window, but now everything in the stack) when I click an EvE client that click effects them all.
At this point am I still input multiplexing? No extra software is duplicating my input, its just me natively clicking 10 eve clients at once. Splitting hairs I know, but if this was how we'd grown up being used to working with an OS UI would we even be having this argument now?
It doesn't matter how you do it, so you can play pretend to dodge the rules all you want but as stated in the OP:
CCP Falcon wrote:
We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe.
Baddest poster ever
|
Darth Schweinebacke
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 11:49:31 -
[1964] - Quote
I am definetly happy that at least multiplexing will be gone, I would not go as far as calling it botting, but i definetly call it cheating.
I would have been happier if software like ISboxer would be complety forbidden, since as people have discribed even without multiplexing it is 3rd party software that allows you, to run your accounts a lot more efficient than it would be possible without it.
I run multiple clients myself, but would never even think of software that makes it easier. If I can not handle as many accounts without the help of 3rd party software I simply should just downsize my fleet. In my opinion using any kind of software that is able to directly interact with a game client is cheating.
For me there is no difference here to people who use aimbots, wallhacks or whatever in FPS games. And I have a real grudge against anything like that. First of all I do not see the point in playing a game, which is supposed to be a challenge and then using software to make it less of a challenge. That kinda completly defeats the purpose of playing games in the first place.
Secondly I have a problem with people who cheat, because my own gaming experience in the past was heavily influenced thanks to people who are willing to cheat:
Many years ago I used to play the good old counter strike and was a 1v1 League ESL player and did spend many hours training and because of that became really good at the game. Thanks to the fact that crap like aimbots even existed I got banned from 100s of public servers, just because I regularly got stats that were compareable to people using cheats. I worked really hard to get to that level, just to be thrown into one pool with that kind of people and that completly ruined the game for me.
And the situation here is not really different for people who multibox without the help of additional software. People can not see if you actually use that kind of software and will very fast make accusations against you. Surely I have the choice to ignore those accusations, but over time it becomes really tiring to be compared to people who actually cheat.
If you can train yourself to efficiently use 20 accounts that is totally fine with me. If you have to use 3rd party software to be able to do it you are simply cheating, for all I care ccp could even require people to run programms like punkbuster that will detect if certain software is running on my system or not and ban anyone who gets caught cheating.
And for people who will repy with things like: "It does not give you such a big advantage"... Do not even bother typing it, because no argument you will provide will convince me. If there is no advantage in using it, you would not use it and you would definetly not pay for it. |
Rawthorm
D.M.T inc
Circle-Of-Two
27
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 11:53:05 -
[1965] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Rawthorm wrote:Splitting hairs I know Then let's stick to the issue at hand, because that's not how most peoples' OS UIs work at all. In fact, it's speculative and irrelevant. IMO, anything automated here is as good as and on par with botting. Say I concede, however, that botting is specifically defined as software doing literally everything with no input required. This is not a justification for automation. And yes, multiplexing is automation. It automatically sends the same command to multiple accounts that without it would require as many commands as there were accounts. Now if you wanna tape a bunch of mice together, be my guest. It sounds like an awful lot of useless effort just to play a game that you really only need one account for, and I bet you'll be replacing the tape plenty as the sweat from your palms causes it to lose adhesiveness, which would likely suck right in the middle of a fight.... but I digress. At the end of the day, the issue at hand is the rules are changing, and some people seem to be struggling to come to terms with the very clear and concise explanation given. As I stated earlier, this is probably the result of them having grown used to having things so easy and now they have something new to adapt to. Which is why single-account users are, at this very moment, all of us, having the time of our lives watching the lot of them stumble over self-justifications, excuses, and threats to qq. Also, I suggest you examine the definition of 'rant'. Rant =/= succinct, well-articulated explanatory prose.
Speculation perhaps, but lets face it, the EvE playerbase are an industrious bunch. I'm sure someone out there could make their own barebones Linux fork that does what I describe if there was incentive enough, so may as well have these abstract debates now rather than later.
Could CCP then ban the use of said distro? Might fall afoul of some EU anti-competition law.
As for my mice idea, it way too much effort for me, but I can see a lot of people might go down that route (or would have had CCP not thought ahead and explicitly stated they are banning both software AND hardware multiplexing.) and I don't see how given the end result is the same that you'd be fine with the mouse idea but not ISBoxer.
The fact that you and most people championing this policy change just seem to have a stick up your butt about ISBoxer and don't actually care about what it does (as you yourself just admitted by not caring about the mouse thing.) |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
855
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 12:10:21 -
[1966] - Quote
Rawthorm wrote:and I don't see how given the end result is the same that you'd be fine with the mouse idea but not ISBoxer.
The fact that you and most people championing this policy change just seem to have a stick up your butt about ISBoxer and don't actually care about what it does (as you yourself just admitted by not caring about the mouse thing.) is what gets to me.
lets say, I dont like isbotter for the same reason, why isbotters like it. Just the opposite.
for the same reason why I dislike ratting bots or aimbots in FPS. Quite simple.
They want easy multiboxing, I dont because I feel its game breaking for way too little effort. |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6032
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 12:18:37 -
[1967] - Quote
Rawthorm wrote:
The fact that you and most people championing this policy change just seem to have a stick up your butt about ISBoxer and don't actually care about what it does (as you yourself just admitted by not caring about the mouse thing.) is what gets to me.
The fact that you can't distinguish between a problem with ISboxer, and a problem with automation, and feel the need to accuse me of having a stick up my butt doesn't get to me at all, but if you want to act like a child that's your prerogative.
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
|
Bagatur I
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 12:26:50 -
[1968] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:
Posted - 2010.04.23 15:51:00
Can you even read? The quote you pasted says explicitly that programs which let you "issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed." AKA, broadcasting.
And you? Can you even read? I left the important part only. 2010! It is 2015 soon, times are changing, and so are the CCP rules. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 12:32:34 -
[1969] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it? For one, I'm not some silly whelp that thinks I need multiple accounts to enjoy a video game. For another, EVE isn't a second job so I'm not gonna treat it like one by working 8 hours a week multiboxing mining barges just to plex my PVP account because I'm not a cheap schlub that can't afford the very low cost of a subscription. For another, if I'm pvp'ing against one person, why does that one person get to fight me with multiple ships using a single command relayed across all of them with a script? I don't care if he wants to try to multibox a logi or two, but I'll be damned if I'll be beat by some script-kiddie with 20 stealth bombers all slaved to one keypress. lol, 11 accounts, + drones = assist 50 drones + the person who drones was assisted to = 55 drones. = you die <3. With 2 click, f1 for civ gun, and f for main charater drones <3 And if he's doing it all manually, and he considers me scary enough to have to use so much firepower, then kudos for him.
lol, it dont all goes around you, you know.
And if you think so, thats fine.
:P |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6032
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 12:38:33 -
[1970] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:
lol, it dont all goes around you, you know.
And if you think so, thats fine.
:P
It what? Is that even English?
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
|
|
|
Insomiaa
Cooperative Intention
Easily Offended
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 12:41:18 -
[1971] - Quote
So i dont get it wrong i can ISBoxer still use to use Multiple Monitors for Multiple Clients as long as i pusch and klick for any client seperate ? |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 12:44:08 -
[1972] - Quote
Insomiaa wrote:So i dont get it wrong i can ISBoxer still use to use Multiple Monitors for Multiple Clients as long as i pusch and klick for any client seperate ?
short answer : yes
Long answer: as long you dont use the broadcast (control all at same time in a way that 1 do all do) (easily explained, but it's much more advanced) :) (i know you know)
So, yeah. |
Insomiaa
Cooperative Intention
Easily Offended
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 12:49:23 -
[1973] - Quote
So nothing changed :) Thanks for Awnser :) |
Seven Seas
F-I-N-K PROPERTY
Northern Associates.
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 13:13:17 -
[1974] - Quote
This thread has lost it's momentum.
PS... Hi Rawthorm :) |
Nidal Fervor
State War Academy
Caldari State
42
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 13:14:51 -
[1975] - Quote
The following screenshot is a good example of why input broadcasting had to be banned: http://i.imgur.com/fJMNIWi.jpg
It is an image taken from a hi-sec anomaly. There was around 75 miners present, 50 of them controlled by one person using input broadcasting, with immersion breaking names such as isbotter1, isbotter2, isbotter3, all the way up to isbotter 50. 15 were controlled by another person using input broadcasting, the rest were some small groups of people and a few randoms.
The 50 man isbotter had his freighters and orcas bumped away, but he said this doesn't bother him, and continued to strip mine the belt dry in no time at all. He admitted to having a second 50 man group of skiffs, currently actively in nullsec.
EVE does not benefit from having this kind of player in the game. They drive other players out of content and out of the game, while contributing nothing financially themselves. Input broadcasting should have been banned a long time ago. |
Rawthorm
D.M.T inc
Circle-Of-Two
29
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 13:17:22 -
[1976] - Quote
Seven Seas wrote:This thread has lost it's momentum.
PS... Hi Rawthorm :)
It ever had momentum?  It was a done deal from post 1
Ps **Shakes fist** |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6033
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 13:25:36 -
[1977] - Quote
Nidal Fervor wrote:The following screenshot is a good example of why input broadcasting had to be banned: http://i.imgur.com/fJMNIWi.jpg
It is an image taken from a hi-sec anomaly. There was around 75 miners present, 50 of them controlled by one person using input broadcasting, with immersion breaking names such as isbotter1, isbotter2, isbotter3, all the way up to isbotter 50. 15 were controlled by another person using input broadcasting, the rest were some small groups of people and a few randoms. The 50 man isbotter had his freighter and orca bumped away, but said this doesn't bother him, and continued to strip mine the belt dry in no time at all. He admitted to having a second 50 man group of skiffs, currently actively in nullsec. EVE does not benefit from having this kind of player in the game. They drive other players out of content and out of the game, while contributing nothing financially themselves. Input broadcasting should have been banned a long time ago. Part of what contributed to this is allowing people to pay for gametime with isk by purchasing PLEX from the market. It meant that some people created far more accounts than they would otherwise have made if they had to pay real money to subscribe each account. I wonder what would happen if CCP removed the ability to use plex to cover subscription costs. PLEX has many uses now, they could keep PLEX, but just remove the function PLEX has to add subscription time to your account. This would mean all players must contribute financially to EVE in order to play it, in the form of subscription time, all the while keeping the PLEX system in place with all its other uses as a means to generate extra income for CCP.
When I see images like that, literally the first thing that pops into my head is, "target rich environment". I agree with the sentiment against the ease with which automated gameplay allows multiboxers to remove content from other players. I disagree with removing the game time function from PLEX though. The primary reason that exists is to nullify or mitigate the effects of RMT.
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
|
Seven Seas
F-I-N-K PROPERTY
Northern Associates.
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 13:33:27 -
[1978] - Quote
"target rich environment" exactly. |
Nidal Fervor
State War Academy
Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 13:33:33 -
[1979] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Nidal Fervor wrote:The following screenshot is a good example of why input broadcasting had to be banned: http://i.imgur.com/fJMNIWi.jpg
It is an image taken from a hi-sec anomaly. There was around 75 miners present, 50 of them controlled by one person using input broadcasting, with immersion breaking names such as isbotter1, isbotter2, isbotter3, all the way up to isbotter 50. 15 were controlled by another person using input broadcasting, the rest were some small groups of people and a few randoms. The 50 man isbotter had his freighter and orca bumped away, but said this doesn't bother him, and continued to strip mine the belt dry in no time at all. He admitted to having a second 50 man group of skiffs, currently actively in nullsec. EVE does not benefit from having this kind of player in the game. They drive other players out of content and out of the game, while contributing nothing financially themselves. Input broadcasting should have been banned a long time ago. Part of what contributed to this is allowing people to pay for gametime with isk by purchasing PLEX from the market. It meant that some people created far more accounts than they would otherwise have made if they had to pay real money to subscribe each account. I wonder what would happen if CCP removed the ability to use plex to cover subscription costs. PLEX has many uses now, they could keep PLEX, but just remove the function PLEX has to add subscription time to your account. This would mean all players must contribute financially to EVE in order to play it, in the form of subscription time, all the while keeping the PLEX system in place with all its other uses as a means to generate extra income for CCP. When I see images like that, literally the first thing that pops into my head is, "target rich environment". I agree with the sentiment against the ease with which automated gameplay allows multiboxers to remove content from other players. I disagree with removing the game time function from PLEX though. The primary reason that exists is to nullify or mitigate the effects of RMT. It's a necessary evil, and a highly effective one too.
True that is a purpose of PLEX, but if one function of PLEX is removed, yet PLEX remain in game and retain enough of their value, then won't PLEX still serve that purpose?
|
Rawthorm
D.M.T inc
Circle-Of-Two
29
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 13:50:43 -
[1980] - Quote
Nidal Fervor wrote:
True that is a purpose of PLEX, but if one function of PLEX is removed, yet PLEX remain in game and retain enough of their value, then won't PLEX still serve that purpose?
I don't doubt they'd still be useful, but the price would crash big time, and being worth less ISK, I'd imagine less people would purchase them from CCP.
Also, removing plex would suddenly make large numbers of alts the domain of the RL rich. At least with the ability to buy game time with ISK your status in RL doesn't become a factor in if and how you play. |
|
|
Nidal Fervor
State War Academy
Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 13:53:06 -
[1981] - Quote
Rawthorm wrote:Nidal Fervor wrote:
True that is a purpose of PLEX, but if one function of PLEX is removed, yet PLEX remain in game and retain enough of their value, then won't PLEX still serve that purpose?
I don't doubt they'd still be useful, but the price would crash big time, and being worth less ISK, I'd imagine less people would purchase them from CCP. Also, removing plex would suddenly make large numbers of alts the domain of the RL rich. At least with the ability to buy game time with ISK your status in RL doesn't become a factor in if and how you play.
Less people will purchase plex to sell on the market, true, and this will help to stabilize prices, I don't see prices getting too low. More people will purchase subscriptions to play, countering the reduction in plex purchases. It's hard to say which system would be better.
I wouldn't think it would be that bad. One player paying for one account could also purchase 2 plex, so he has 2 extra alts. 3 accounts? 8 alts. |
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 14:10:43 -
[1982] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
The most likely scenario was someone was afk hauling 20b in a freighter, got ganked, and then bitched in alliance chat and at the GM in his petition and posted a tear-filled thread in GD. CCP saw this, or a CSM did, and they are now on some moral crusade against ISBoxer claiming that it's as bad as the botting carriers.
Prob not...
In actuality people that have petitioned that they lost their ship(s) to boxers have had a very good success rate of getting them back. Maybe the CSMs were tired of the super ganks happening and declared it unfair. We'll never know the actual reason but the super gank seems the most plausible.
|
Rawthorm
D.M.T inc
Circle-Of-Two
29
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 14:20:17 -
[1983] - Quote
Nidal Fervor wrote:Rawthorm wrote:Nidal Fervor wrote:
True that is a purpose of PLEX, but if one function of PLEX is removed, yet PLEX remain in game and retain enough of their value, then won't PLEX still serve that purpose?
I don't doubt they'd still be useful, but the price would crash big time, and being worth less ISK, I'd imagine less people would purchase them from CCP. Also, removing plex would suddenly make large numbers of alts the domain of the RL rich. At least with the ability to buy game time with ISK your status in RL doesn't become a factor in if and how you play. Less people will purchase plex to sell on the market, true, and this will help to stabilize prices, I don't see prices getting too low. More people will purchase subscriptions to play, countering the reduction in plex purchases. It's hard to say which system would be better. I wouldn't think it would be like that with only RL rich having alts. One player paying for one account could also purchase 2 plex from the market, so he has 2 extra alts. 3 accounts? 8 alts.
The in game ramifications are not really anything I'd worry about, but out of game I don't think every plex'd alt would magically become a subscription.
Take me for example, I have at any time 8 to 20 accounts active, most of them with plex. (Before anyone asks, I don't automate, multiplex, Isbox or so much as run a stored keyboard shortcut on any of them.) It's no ones business but mine that I decide to run this many, but I do it because I place a higher premium on my time than ISK.
If seeding a toon in a location to do a given activity prevents me having to run about the galaxy to change activity then that's what I do.
Dropping plex game time would instantly make most of those accounts unaffordable for me as I can't think of any game I'd want to pay -ú300 a month for.
Now granted that's my problem and you shouldn't care less, I imagine there are a lot of people in the same boat as me, even with far lower numbers of accounts. That's a lot less plex bought, less demand means lower price, lower price means less incentive for others to buy plex to sell in the first place.
End result is lost revenue for CCP and a whole bunch of players taking on a much smaller fraction of what EvE has to offer. Given that EvE is a fairly monotonous game as it is the last thing we want to do is further limit people's ease of access to content. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2469
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 14:24:37 -
[1984] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it?
I was doing stuff where it wouldn't really help.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Medalyn Isis
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
446
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 14:48:17 -
[1985] - Quote
Great announcement, surprised I missed it until now.
Also for those thinking about continuing hoping CCP won't notice, I don't think this would be hard to detect at all, just look for characters in the same system who are all pressing buttons at exactly the same time. Should be very easy to detect actually. Goodbye Isboxer. |
Volcane Nephilim
The Magic Roundabout Initiative
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 14:48:34 -
[1986] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it?
Everyone could bump titans with the cyno thing that later became an exploit. Obvious advantages to doing so but not everyone did, why? Because it was against the spirit of the game design.
This is no different. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
276
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 15:01:31 -
[1987] - Quote
Volcane Nephilim wrote:Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it? Everyone could bump titans with the cyno thing that later became an exploit. Obvious advantages to doing so but not everyone did, why? Because it was against the spirit of the game design. This is no different.
Except it is. That was declared against the EULA because they couldn't figure out how to code jump bridges / jumping to take into account the POS code. A while back, you used to be able to warp a titan into a POS you didn't have the PW to, and it'd bump you out and anything in your way. Same thing with MJDs. They fixed those so you couldn't enter a POS unless you had the PW, even if you tried MJDing in. |
Rawthorm
D.M.T inc
Circle-Of-Two
30
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 15:08:06 -
[1988] - Quote
Volcane Nephilim wrote:Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it? Everyone could bump titans with the cyno thing that later became an exploit. Obvious advantages to doing so but not everyone did, why? Because it was against the spirit of the game design. This is no different.
This is EvE. The vast majority of people who claim to be taking the moral high ground are actually people who just can't be bothered to go to the effort of doing the thing in question. If it was there and instantly accessible, most people wouldn't hesitate to go for it regardless of how morally ambiguous it was
ISBox is one of those things. Until this policy change anyone could use it, perfectly legally. Most of those who didn't just didn't have a use for it, or couldn't be bothered to set it up. I personally fall into the lazy category
Also helps that CCP themselves actively green lit use of the software, so at that point what I thought was irrelevant. Not using it was my choice and I didn't feel the need to hate on those that chose differently. |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
76
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 15:15:42 -
[1989] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Volcane Nephilim wrote:Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it? Everyone could bump titans with the cyno thing that later became an exploit. Obvious advantages to doing so but not everyone did, why? Because it was against the spirit of the game design. This is no different. Except it is. That was declared against the EULA because they couldn't figure out how to code jump bridges / jumping to take into account the POS code. A while back, you used to be able to warp a titan into a POS you didn't have the PW to, and it'd bump you out and anything in your way. Same thing with MJDs. They fixed those so you couldn't enter a POS unless you had the PW, even if you tried MJDing in.
And ISBoxer was declared to violate the EULA for over a year (see the previous version of the Third Party Policies under the Client Modification section), but CCP just stated they would not enforce the EULA. Now, after CCP Falcon's post about the new interpretation of the EULA and ToS, players can use ISBoxer as long as they turn off all features that can be considered input broadcasting or input multiplexing.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
110
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 15:29:37 -
[1990] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Volcane Nephilim wrote:Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it? Everyone could bump titans with the cyno thing that later became an exploit. Obvious advantages to doing so but not everyone did, why? Because it was against the spirit of the game design. This is no different. Except it is. That was declared against the EULA because they couldn't figure out how to code jump bridges / jumping to take into account the POS code. A while back, you used to be able to warp a titan into a POS you didn't have the PW to, and it'd bump you out and anything in your way. Same thing with MJDs. They fixed those so you couldn't enter a POS unless you had the PW, even if you tried MJDing in. And ISBoxer was declared to violate the EULA for over a year (see the previous version of the Third Party Policies under the Client Modification section), but CCP just stated they would not enforce the EULA. Now, after CCP Falcon's post about the new interpretation of the EULA and ToS, players can use ISBoxer as long as they turn off all features that can be considered input broadcasting or input multiplexing.
ccp has never declared a specific program as illegal they only ever declare functions as illegal. They specifically don't mention any programs as they don't want to green light something that someone could than change the functionality of to make it illegal . |
|
|
Rawthorm
D.M.T inc
Circle-Of-Two
30
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 15:33:20 -
[1991] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Volcane Nephilim wrote:Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it? Everyone could bump titans with the cyno thing that later became an exploit. Obvious advantages to doing so but not everyone did, why? Because it was against the spirit of the game design. This is no different. Except it is. That was declared against the EULA because they couldn't figure out how to code jump bridges / jumping to take into account the POS code. A while back, you used to be able to warp a titan into a POS you didn't have the PW to, and it'd bump you out and anything in your way. Same thing with MJDs. They fixed those so you couldn't enter a POS unless you had the PW, even if you tried MJDing in. And ISBoxer was declared to violate the EULA for over a year (see the previous version of the Third Party Policies under the Client Modification section), but CCP just stated they would not enforce the EULA. Now, after CCP Falcon's post about the new interpretation of the EULA and ToS, players can use ISBoxer as long as they turn off all features that can be considered input broadcasting or input multiplexing.
No, your interpretation declared it to violate the EULA. CCP correspondence if to be believed stated that manual issue of the same command to multiple game clients at the same time was allowed. I'd say that a statement given by senior employees trumps anyone's personal interpretation of some vague EULA terms. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 15:35:21 -
[1992] - Quote
Nidal Fervor wrote:The following screenshot is a good example of why input broadcasting had to be banned: http://i.imgur.com/fJMNIWi.jpg
It is an image taken from a hi-sec anomaly. There was around 75 miners present, 50 of them controlled by one person using input broadcasting, with immersion breaking names such as isbotter1, isbotter2, isbotter3, all the way up to isbotter 50. 15 were controlled by another person using input broadcasting, the rest were some small groups of people and a few randoms. The 50 man isbotter had his freighter and orca bumped away, but said this doesn't bother him, and continued to strip mine the belt dry in no time at all. He admitted to having a second 50 man group of skiffs, currently actively in nullsec. EVE does not benefit from having this kind of player in the game. They drive other players out of content and out of the game, while contributing nothing financially themselves. This means they have the same detrimental effect on the game as botters. Input broadcasting should have been banned a long time ago. Part of what contributed to this is allowing people to pay for gametime with isk by purchasing PLEX from the market. It meant that some people created far more accounts than they would otherwise have made if they had to pay real money to subscribe each account. I wonder what would happen if CCP removed the ability to use plex to cover subscription costs. PLEX has many uses now, they could keep PLEX, but just remove the function PLEX has to add subscription time to your account. This would mean all players must contribute financially to EVE in order to play, in the form of subscription time. All the while, keeping the PLEX system in place with all its other uses as a means to generate extra income for CCP.
Broadcasting is not botting, he use his own time, and he probably used 3-4 months to get the characters ready. + not to speak off the setup. I think he can do all that without broadcasting. Isboxer give you an ability to stack Windows nicely (not thats it's needed.. but Nice to have) think about how long time it take for him to make all that accounts. lol. Also, if getting recorses into market is not constructive.. then i don't know, because industrialists buy them. and make ships etc to players. both old and New. Everyone can do it. it's a lot off ice belts in eve now. you can og somewhere else to mine if he's an that big off an issue. and if you dont feel that work. get 5-6 friends. and use smart bombs. (battleships) if not more. |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
76
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 15:47:58 -
[1993] - Quote
Rawthorm wrote:Rosewalker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Volcane Nephilim wrote:Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it? Everyone could bump titans with the cyno thing that later became an exploit. Obvious advantages to doing so but not everyone did, why? Because it was against the spirit of the game design. This is no different. Except it is. That was declared against the EULA because they couldn't figure out how to code jump bridges / jumping to take into account the POS code. A while back, you used to be able to warp a titan into a POS you didn't have the PW to, and it'd bump you out and anything in your way. Same thing with MJDs. They fixed those so you couldn't enter a POS unless you had the PW, even if you tried MJDing in. And ISBoxer was declared to violate the EULA for over a year (see the previous version of the Third Party Policies under the Client Modification section), but CCP just stated they would not enforce the EULA. Now, after CCP Falcon's post about the new interpretation of the EULA and ToS, players can use ISBoxer as long as they turn off all features that can be considered input broadcasting or input multiplexing. No, your interpretation declared it to violate the EULA. CCP correspondence if to be believed stated that manual issue of the same command to multiple game clients at the same time was allowed. I'd say that a statement given by senior employees trumps anyone's personal interpretation of some vague EULA terms.
So the correspondence someone posted from 2010 trumps CCP's stated policy first published in the spring of 2013 and not taken down until Tuesday?
You're just trolling, aren't you. 8/10
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2711
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 15:59:50 -
[1994] - Quote
I do not use ISboxer, but I believe many ISboxers can now hear The Fat Lady Singing.
As ever when CCP make a change, most will not care, some will rage quit, some will threaten to rage quit, (it influnened and got CCP to mitiigate the proposed Jump Changes) some will rage quit and some will adapt.
The game will continue.
This is not a signature.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
276
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 16:06:01 -
[1995] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Broadcasting is not botting, he use his own time, and he probably used 3-4 months to get the characters ready. + not to speak off the setup. I think he can do all that without broadcasting. Isboxer give you an ability to stack Windows nicely (not thats it's needed.. but Nice to have) think about how long time it take for him to make all that accounts. lol. Also, if getting recorses into market is not constructive.. then i don't know, because industrialists buy them. and make ships etc to players. both old and New. Everyone can do it. it's a lot off ice belts in eve now. you can og somewhere else to mine if he's an that big off an issue. and if you dont feel that work. get 5-6 friends. and use smart bombs. (battleships) if not more.
This. Even though smartbombs were nerfed slightly from some of the old videos, you can still get good mileage out of a talos or a few catalysts. Not every problem has to be fixed by CCP because players are too lazy to think for themselves and too carebear to buy a talos and use it. |
Recyclers
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 16:34:53 -
[1996] - Quote
I understand why many are happy about this. As with anything taken to the extreme it can ruin the game for others.
Perhaps there was a better way to deal with it thou?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25712
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 16:38:58 -
[1997] - Quote
I'm trying to figure out what else could be made policy through petition spam
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
276
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 16:42:05 -
[1998] - Quote
Recyclers wrote:I understand why many are happy about this. As with anything taken to the extreme it can ruin the game for others.
Perhaps there was a better way to deal with it thou?
I don't buy it. CODE took miner ganking and bumping to an extreme and there hasn't been a response by CCP on that.
Rain6637 wrote: I'm trying to figure out what else could be made policy through petition spam
Wasn't the drone assist limit the result of mass petitions? I forget exactly how it came about since I wasn't in a null bloc at the time. |
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3496
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 16:42:56 -
[1999] - Quote
Removed some off topic posts, some trolling, some GM correspondence, and made a post saying the thread has been cleaned up.
Again.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Longtooth
Lugus Foundry
The Explicit Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 16:45:35 -
[2000] - Quote
confirming 7 accounts not being resubbed. Time to find a game with Devs who are a bit more level headed. Thanks for 8 years of wasting time. o7
|
|
|
Recyclers
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 16:52:34 -
[2001] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Recyclers wrote:I understand why many are happy about this. As with anything taken to the extreme it can ruin the game for others.
Perhaps there was a better way to deal with it thou? I don't buy it. CODE took miner ganking and bumping to an extreme and there hasn't been a response by CCP on that. Rain6637 wrote: I'm trying to figure out what else could be made policy through petition spam Wasn't the drone assist limit the result of mass petitions? I forget exactly how it came about since I wasn't in a null bloc at the time.
Execllent point 
Well I just unsubed all 9 of my accounts. Not just because of the multiboxing thing.
CPP ramming way to many changes at once.
I play games if there fun. When there not.... oh well
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25712
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 16:55:07 -
[2002] - Quote
I'm kinda burned out from the lack of communication myself. I hear devs participate on Reddit, though. whoop
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Tiberius Zol
turaagaq
GANOR INC.
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 17:09:08 -
[2003] - Quote
Longtooth wrote:confirming 7 accounts not being resubbed. Time to find a game with Devs who are a bit more level headed. Thanks for 8 years of wasting time. o7
and
Recyclers wrote:
Well I just unsubed all 9 of my accounts. Not just because of the multiboxing thing.
CPP ramming way to many changes at once.
I play games if there fun. When there not.... oh well
Your're welcome. Hope you enjoyed it.
Just send me a nice little contract with your stuff. I will take care of it. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
276
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 17:16:34 -
[2004] - Quote
https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthread.php?551097-Continued-discussion-from-SHIELD-transcript-RE-Raids-and-the-future&p=7190231#post7190231
Interesting post by LOTRO regarding who posts on their forums / complains the loudest. I wonder if this holds true for EVE... |
Deck Cadelanne
Exigent Circumstances
CAStabouts
76
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 17:28:14 -
[2005] - Quote
Recyclers wrote:
Well I just unsubed all 9 of my accounts. Not just because of the multiboxing thing.
CPP ramming way to many changes at once.
I play games if there fun. When there not.... oh well
If even one more subscription *paying* player replaces you, that is a net win. And you have just reduced the demand for PLEX ever so slightly, so even good for your fellow non-sub-paying brethren.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
278
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 17:35:36 -
[2006] - Quote
Deck Cadelanne wrote:Recyclers wrote:
Well I just unsubed all 9 of my accounts. Not just because of the multiboxing thing.
CPP ramming way to many changes at once.
I play games if there fun. When there not.... oh well
If even one more subscription *paying* player replaces you, that is a net win. And you have just reduced the demand for PLEX ever so slightly, so even good for your fellow non-sub-paying brethren.
Are you another one of those people who think using PLEX to sub somehow takes away from CCP's revenue? Because that's wrong. CCP / a CSM explained that PLEX is under the "deferred income" tab, not "expenses". |
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 17:44:17 -
[2007] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Deck Cadelanne wrote:Recyclers wrote:
Well I just unsubed all 9 of my accounts. Not just because of the multiboxing thing.
CPP ramming way to many changes at once.
I play games if there fun. When there not.... oh well
If even one more subscription *paying* player replaces you, that is a net win. And you have just reduced the demand for PLEX ever so slightly, so even good for your fellow non-sub-paying brethren. Are you another one of those people who think using PLEX to sub somehow takes away from CCP's revenue? Because that's wrong. CCP / a CSM explained that PLEX is under the "deferred income" tab, not "expenses".
don't be dense... if they unsubscribed they stopped paying the re-subscription cost. That is real life money. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
278
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 17:51:50 -
[2008] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:don't be dense... if they unsubscribed they stopped paying the re-subscription cost. That is real life money.
Think we just tried to say the same thing but I think I derped. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 17:58:56 -
[2009] - Quote
Recyclers wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Recyclers wrote:I understand why many are happy about this. As with anything taken to the extreme it can ruin the game for others.
Perhaps there was a better way to deal with it thou? I don't buy it. CODE took miner ganking and bumping to an extreme and there hasn't been a response by CCP on that. Rain6637 wrote: I'm trying to figure out what else could be made policy through petition spam Wasn't the drone assist limit the result of mass petitions? I forget exactly how it came about since I wasn't in a null bloc at the time. Execllent point Well I just unsubed all 9 of my accounts. Not just because of the multiboxing thing. CPP ramming way to many changes at once. I play games if there fun. When there not.... oh well
Im sorry for feeling this way, I understand that you feel it and i thought about unsubbing myself. But idk. I wont right now, but who knows.. that ccp make players unable to play the way they always have played since start etc. or make them unable to og the path they want.
I wish you all well <3
And hope Things get better so you can join again, and you are very much welcome always <3 :) |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 18:01:55 -
[2010] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Recyclers wrote:I understand why many are happy about this. As with anything taken to the extreme it can ruin the game for others.
Perhaps there was a better way to deal with it thou? I don't buy it. CODE took miner ganking and bumping to an extreme and there hasn't been a response by CCP on that. Rain6637 wrote: I'm trying to figure out what else could be made policy through petition spam Wasn't the drone assist limit the result of mass petitions? I forget exactly how it came about since I wasn't in a null bloc at the time.
Goonswarm = Pention swarm lol, i just have to say this. Blame goonswarm ! <3 :P, hehe :) i have heard that they get their ships replaced by sending pertision if players like Replicator killed them. (not suprised) lol 0.0 |
|
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
62
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 18:03:02 -
[2011] - Quote
Goon tears have major influence on CPP.
...
Which just makes them tastier when they don't!
Seriously though, this thread demonstrates just how much are they used to getting things by overheating Rapid Tear Launchers.
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.
|
Deck Cadelanne
Exigent Circumstances
CAStabouts
76
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 18:03:51 -
[2012] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Deck Cadelanne wrote:Recyclers wrote:
Well I just unsubed all 9 of my accounts. Not just because of the multiboxing thing.
CPP ramming way to many changes at once.
I play games if there fun. When there not.... oh well
If even one more subscription *paying* player replaces you, that is a net win. And you have just reduced the demand for PLEX ever so slightly, so even good for your fellow non-sub-paying brethren. Are you another one of those people who think using PLEX to sub somehow takes away from CCP's revenue? Because that's wrong. CCP / a CSM explained that PLEX is under the "deferred income" tab, not "expenses".
This is really straightforward:
People willing to spend RL money to avoid in game grinding for ISK buy PLEX and sell it in game for ISK.
Players with more time than money spend the ISK they grind in game for PLEX to keep playing.
There is a straight up supply v. demand balance that drives the ISK cost of PLEX in game.
You unsub the nine characters you are currently using in-game ISK to pay for, all that happens is you reduce the demand for PLEX ever so slightly.
There is only so much money you can squeeze out of selling PLEX to the relatively small group of players that pay real-life cash for them. I am guessing that not only has that revenue stream peaked, it may in fact even be going down; that would explain why in-game PLEX price is rising steadily despite the alleged growth in numbers of accounts. That makes all the recent changes suddenly make sense. It means a big part of the problem for CCP is the lack of growth in *paying subscriptions.*
That's a real-life revenue problem for those too slow to keep up. More *players* will generate more revenue, which means changes to the game to make it easier for newer players to do stuff. Which is likely the biggest single driver behind a lot of the recent changes to game mechanics and will drive more to come.
Reducing the number of single-player-fifty-ship mining blobs eating all the minerals...reducing the number of single-player-twenty-bomber-blitzes...reducing the ability of groups of veterans to blob halfway across the galaxy to wipe almost anybody but their fellow veterans out of existence...these are good for the game, as they make it easier for single players - newer players - to get involved. Which means more money in the long run for CCP.
Get it?
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 18:04:40 -
[2013] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Goon tears have major influence on CPP. ... Which just makes them tastier when they don't! Seriously though, this thread demonstrates just how much are they used to getting things by overheating Rapid Tear Launchers.
I feel ya there :) |
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 18:14:57 -
[2014] - Quote
Deck Cadelanne wrote:[quote=Nolak Ataru]
You unsub the nine characters you are currently using in-game ISK to pay for, all that happens is you reduce the demand for PLEX ever so slightly.
no actually that is backasswards.
You have have toons on subscription. when you unsubscribe them they rely on in game currency (Isk) to purchase Plex to extend the monthly play time. This drives the price of plex UP because they are no longer on subscription terms. O_o
Some of the gob that spews on this forum is just incredible.
unsubscribing is not the same as quitting... make no mistake about it. They are just not going to pay real hard currency into CCP's wallet anymore. |
Miomeifeng Alduin
Lithonauts Inc.
31
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 18:31:47 -
[2015] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:Deck Cadelanne wrote:[quote=Nolak Ataru]
You unsub the nine characters you are currently using in-game ISK to pay for, all that happens is you reduce the demand for PLEX ever so slightly.
no actually that is backasswards. You have have toons on subscription. when you unsubscribe them they rely on in game currency (Isk) to purchase Plex to extend the monthly play time. This drives the price of plex UP because they are no longer on subscription terms. O_o Some of the gob that spews on this forum is just incredible. unsubscribing is not the same as quitting... make no mistake about it. They are just not going to pay real hard currency into CCP's wallet anymore.
Price of subscription: 10-15 euro. Price of plex: 20 euro. How do you figure they will continue playing without paying real hard currency? Someone else might pay for them through plex, but someone pays aslong as they play, and with plex they pay even more than they would by "dropping real hard currency into ccp's wallet". |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
273
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 18:49:09 -
[2016] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I'm trying to figure out what else could be made policy through petition spam
AFK cloaking?
Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
|
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 18:51:42 -
[2017] - Quote
Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:
Price of subscription: 10-15 euro. Price of plex: 20 euro. How do you figure they will continue playing without paying real hard currency? Someone else might pay for them through plex, but someone pays aslong as they play, and with plex they pay even more than they would by "dropping real hard currency into ccp's wallet".
again that is incorrect terms of the topic of this thread.
A player can earn enough ISK to purchase a subscription for 1 month (plex) via ISK on the market within 1 month, is that correct?
Thus if someone can unsubscribe AND earn enough ISK to pay for that account for the month they are playing for free.
Now comes the sticky part... do boxers have enough advantage to earn that amount of ISK per character to unsubscribe and go completely independent? Possibly, depending on their skill level, game play style and actual game input time.
It takes a lot of guts to unsub. Kudos for that. There will always be ppl selling Plex because they purchased it and want to buy the bigger shinier thing.
I have seen boxers boast 1 bill ISK in a day or less... so what? I'm not at that level and 1 bill in a day divided by 10 accts = 100,000,000 . Yea that is doable but not at my level. If the person will unsub and can accomplish this across 9 toons... more power to them. That is well within their right to do so. To bash a person for doing so... that is just bad form. |
Miomeifeng Alduin
Lithonauts Inc.
31
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 19:08:37 -
[2018] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:
Price of subscription: 10-15 euro. Price of plex: 20 euro. How do you figure they will continue playing without paying real hard currency? Someone else might pay for them through plex, but someone pays aslong as they play, and with plex they pay even more than they would by "dropping real hard currency into ccp's wallet".
again that is incorrect terms of the topic of this thread. A player can earn enough ISK to purchase a subscription for 1 month (plex) via ISK on the market within 1 month, is that correct? Thus if someone can unsubscribe AND earn enough ISK to pay for that account for the month they are playing for free. Now comes the sticky part... do boxers have enough advantage to earn that amount of ISK per character to unsubscribe and go completely independent? Possibly, depending on their skill level, game play style and actual game input time. It takes a lot of guts to unsub. Kudos for that. There will always be ppl selling Plex because they purchased it and want to buy the bigger shinier thing. I have seen boxers boast 1 bill ISK in a day or less... so what? I'm not at that level and 1 bill in a day divided by 10 accts = 100,000,000 . Yea that is doable but not at my level. If the person will unsub and can accomplish this across 9 toons... more power to them. That is well within their right to do so. To bash a person for doing so... that is just bad form.
Who do you think puts PLEX on the market? Players who bought it. It is impossible to play for free in this game. Someone always pays. CCP does NOT put plex on the market for free, it isn't seeded in stations or anything like that. Every plex that gets bought by someone "unsubscribing" (which isn't even correct), is paid for by another player who has paid 20 euro for it (or a bit less in the case of sales or certain deals).
If you can't understand that ...
Edit: its not because they dont pay for themselves, that they dont pay. (hell, they indirectly pay CCP more by buying plex off the market than they would by subscribing) |
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 19:18:57 -
[2019] - Quote
I understand that and I do buy plex from CCP and sell it on the market on a regular basis.
As stated in my position above... O_o
loosing 9 subscriptions (which is a regular revenue stream) does not equate to someone buying and selling plex because they want the isk to buy shiny toys (inconsistent revenue stream).
And it is because they don't pay for themselves that they don't pay. Someone else is paying for them to play. Someone has to keep this company alive.
I am not going to say all, or a few, or some, or the majority... but boxers DO pay subscriptions. and We do buy and sell plex to buy things and replace losses just like everyone else. On a per capita basis I'd bet we inject 5x more hard currency into this game than the average player (all things being equal).
|
MrBowers
PH0ENIX COMPANY HOLDINGS
Phoenix Company Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 19:27:13 -
[2020] - Quote
Eve just needs to design program which makes it easier to switch between my screen with out broadcasting tool needed. |
|
|
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 19:38:58 -
[2021] - Quote
dude just get an ultra wide for $300 it will replace 2 of your standard screens. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4334
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 19:58:39 -
[2022] - Quote
MrBowers wrote:Eve just needs to design program which makes it easier to switch between my screen with out broadcasting tool needed.
I just alt tab. Running in fixed window, rather than full screen, makes this simple.
(or just spread 3 clients over three monitors)
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Distaa
Dain Bramage Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 20:11:33 -
[2023] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Deck Cadelanne wrote:Recyclers wrote:
Well I just unsubed all 9 of my accounts. Not just because of the multiboxing thing.
CPP ramming way to many changes at once.
I play games if there fun. When there not.... oh well
If even one more subscription *paying* player replaces you, that is a net win. And you have just reduced the demand for PLEX ever so slightly, so even good for your fellow non-sub-paying brethren. Are you another one of those people who think using PLEX to sub somehow takes away from CCP's revenue? Because that's wrong. CCP / a CSM explained that PLEX is under the "deferred income" tab, not "expenses". don't be dense... if they unsubscribed they stopped paying the re-subscription cost. That is real life money.
How was plex paid for? Monopoly money?
6 month @ 12.95 per month = 77.7 USD
6 plex @ 16.96 = 101.7 USD
Plex nets CCP an extra 24.96 per six months per player.
I have 5 accounts, so 24.96 x 5 = 124.45 USD per 6 months.
The changes to multi-boxing probably won't effect the majority of the IsBoxer community. But it will effect the people within the community that have taken it to an extreme.
o7 |
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
560
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 21:15:34 -
[2024] - Quote
Can CCP please clarify to their GMs that this new policy isn't going to be in effect until Jan 1st? There are reports of multiboxers already being banned for broadcasting, and re-petitions being closed... |
Distaa
Dain Bramage Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 21:22:17 -
[2025] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Can CCP please clarify to their GMs that this new policy isn't going to be in effect until Jan 1st? There are reports of multiboxers already being banned for broadcasting, and re-petitions being closed...
I feel sure that some kind of internal memo has made the rounds at CCP, if banning really is taking place I would attribute it to other reasons.
o7 |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 21:25:33 -
[2026] - Quote
Distaa wrote:Chris Winter wrote:Can CCP please clarify to their GMs that this new policy isn't going to be in effect until Jan 1st? There are reports of multiboxers already being banned for broadcasting, and re-petitions being closed... I feel sure that some kind of internal memo has made the rounds at CCP, if banning really is taking place I would attribute it to other reasons. o7
''sure''
When they do an change like this, who knows what they will do, or going to do?  |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
62
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 22:34:16 -
[2027] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Can CCP please clarify to their GMs that this new policy isn't going to be in effect until Jan 1st? There are reports of multiboxers already being banned for broadcasting, and re-petitions being closed...
That would literally be "Christmas came early", won't it?
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.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
278
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 22:50:14 -
[2028] - Quote
Distaa wrote:Chris Winter wrote:Can CCP please clarify to their GMs that this new policy isn't going to be in effect until Jan 1st? There are reports of multiboxers already being banned for broadcasting, and re-petitions being closed... I feel sure that some kind of internal memo has made the rounds at CCP, if banning really is taking place I would attribute it to other reasons. o7
If CCP Seagull was willing to blatantly lie to people at Fanfest regarding multiboxing, and other devs were happy to lie at EVE Vegas about multiboxing, and if the evidence against CCP regarding reimbursements of multiboxer ganks wasn't there, then yes, I would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Back on topic: Most if not all of the boxers I've talked to subscribed on a per-month basis for each toon. They pushed back their "pay date" with PLEX, with the understanding that there may be months where they were not able to PLEX their accounts and thus they'd pay RL cash. I was personally happy doing a yearly deal because I didn't see any problems with mutlboxing as 1) Anyone could do it, i.e. it wasn't some super secret club like SA, and 2) I saw a post by a CCP Dev stating that multiboxing was not breaking the "accelerated gameplay" clause close to when I started, and was repeated / quoted by multiple Devs or GMs as I continued my EVE career.
Now what's happening is people are removing their payment plans from their accounts, and are going to attempt to PLEX without broadcasting. If they cannot, they've stated in chats that they will sell all their assets from their alts, sell the toons (if possible), stash some PLEX on their primary account, and either take a break, or attempt to play EVE while singleboxing. Again, this is just from the few I've talked to (around ten or so). Judging from this thread and the reddit thread, there's anywhere from 20-40 more who I've not talked to. Some of us are just going to try to find a new game, while others will become "that bittervet in local".
I don't exactly understand CCP's reasoning that multiboxing is somehow more toxic or damaging to the community (especially miners and indy toons) than CODE, but then again, I've seen more complaints about CODE in chats than I have against multiboxing, especially when I've had a chance to convo someone who complains about my multiboxing and I explain the downsides to it in detail. |
Wander Prian
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
45
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 23:02:56 -
[2029] - Quote
You do realize that multiboxing is completely ok now and will be ok come January? The only thing being banned is your ability to control the swarm with one click.
Multiboxing = OK
Input broadcasting= NOT OK
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
278
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 23:12:12 -
[2030] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:You do realize that multiboxing is completely ok now and will be ok come January? The only thing being banned is your ability to control the swarm with one click.
Multiboxing = OK
Input broadcasting= NOT OK
You do realize that driving is completely ok now and will be ok come January? The only thing being banned is your ability to go over 50mph/80kmh.
Driving = OK.
Driving over 50mph/80kmh = NOT OK. |
|
|
Wander Prian
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
45
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 23:15:25 -
[2031] - Quote
So you are mad that there are now *gasp* RULES that you must follow? The goverment changed the speedlimit and you can't use all those horsepowers you have? |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
278
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 23:22:39 -
[2032] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:So you are mad that there are now *gasp* RULES that you must follow? The goverment changed the speedlimit and you can't use all those horsepowers you have?
Except that in our eyes, the government suddenly limited EVERYONE to 50mph, even on highways, interstate parkways, racetracks, and private go-kart courses, simply because one very biased study with a very limited and very selective query pool found that people going over 50mph were at an elevated risk of causing an accident. The study was financed by people with a provable vested interest in having people drive slower and waste gas, and it conveniently ignored extenuating circumstances such as drunk drivers, icy roads, white-out conditions, hail, earthquakes, drag-racers, illegally modified cars, and one-in-a-million strokes of back luck. |
Yuri Thorpe
Positive Failure
Black Legion.
38
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 23:37:58 -
[2033] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Wander Prian wrote:So you are mad that there are now *gasp* RULES that you must follow? The goverment changed the speedlimit and you can't use all those horsepowers you have? Except that in our eyes, the government suddenly limited EVERYONE to 50mph, even on highways, interstate parkways, racetracks, and private go-kart courses, simply because one very biased study with a very limited and very selective query pool found that people going over 50mph were at an elevated risk of causing an accident. The study was financed by people with a provable vested interest in having people drive slower and waste gas, and it conveniently ignored extenuating circumstances such as drunk drivers, icy roads, white-out conditions, hail, earthquakes, drag-racers, illegally modified cars, and one-in-a-million strokes of back luck.
I have never seen a person control 10 cars all at once to ram into 1 car. .. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
278
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 23:43:35 -
[2034] - Quote
Yuri Thorpe wrote:I have never seen a person control 10 cars all at once to ram into 1 car. ..
You can wire up multiple cars to receive the same signal from a single "source", affecting acceleration, speed, braking, turning, and windows. |
Wander Prian
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
47
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 23:43:44 -
[2035] - Quote
I am fine in losing my ship to 10 guys being MANUALLY controlled by 1 pilot.
I am NOT fine with losing my ship to a swarm that is being controlled with 1 click with zero delay and zero chance of human error. |
Yuri Thorpe
Positive Failure
Black Legion.
38
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 23:46:33 -
[2036] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Yuri Thorpe wrote:I have never seen a person control 10 cars all at once to ram into 1 car. .. You can wire up multiple cars to receive the same signal from a single "source", affecting acceleration, speed, braking, turning, and windows.
Just throwing it out there, you do know that you can still alt tab and do everything by hand. Using software to do it for you gives you an edge over someone without it. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
278
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 23:51:03 -
[2037] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:I am fine in losing my ship to 10 guys being MANUALLY controlled by 1 pilot.
I am NOT fine with losing my ship to a swarm that is being controlled with 1 click with zero delay and zero chance of human error.
Once again, there is always human error as long as there is a person behind the keyboard, whether it be one or ten. Zero chance of human error implies that the person is not behind the keyboard and is in fact a bot which thinks for itself and requires zero interaction at any point in time.
Want to cause damage to a multiboxer? Get a bunch of Catalysts, Talos, or Tornados. It really isn't rocket science people. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
278
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 23:53:26 -
[2038] - Quote
Yuri Thorpe wrote:Using software to do it for you gives you an edge over someone without it.
Implying that the software is not readily available and requires filling out a 500 page application and costs $5,000.
Using hardware to improve your FPS, or changing your GFX settings to their lowest, or even paying for better internet gives you a measurable advantage over people with slow computers because you are able to receive information at an increased rate than they are and are able to react faster. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2471
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:03:16 -
[2039] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
If CCP Seagull was willing to blatantly lie to people at Fanfest regarding multiboxing, and other devs were happy to lie at EVE Vegas about multiboxing, and if the evidence against CCP regarding reimbursements of multiboxer ganks wasn't there, then yes, I would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Multiboxing is legal and ITT CCP reaffirms that position.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Yuri Thorpe
Positive Failure
Black Legion.
38
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:03:16 -
[2040] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Yuri Thorpe wrote:Using software to do it for you gives you an edge over someone without it. Implying that the software is not readily available and requires filling out a 500 page application and costs $5,000. Using hardware to improve your FPS, or changing your GFX settings to their lowest, or even paying for better internet gives you a measurable advantage over people with slow computers because you are able to receive information at an increased rate than they are and are able to react faster.
Implying that there is multiboxing software for Linux |
|
|
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7339
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:03:19 -
[2041] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Can CCP please clarify to their GMs that this new policy isn't going to be in effect until Jan 1st? There are reports of multiboxers already being banned for broadcasting, and re-petitions being closed...
Would these "reports" also be coming from players who claim they will send you 100mil isk if you just send then 50mil first?
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'.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2471
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:05:51 -
[2042] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Yuri Thorpe wrote:Using software to do it for you gives you an edge over someone without it. Implying that the software is not readily available and requires filling out a 500 page application and costs $5,000. Using hardware to improve your FPS, or changing your GFX settings to their lowest, or even paying for better internet gives you a measurable advantage over people with slow computers because you are able to receive information at an increased rate than they are and are able to react faster.
And yet none of these things violate the EULA. You keep grasping at straws hoping something will work. Being older helps too, a younger person who has not yet encountered the concept of opportunity cost let alone understood it may run around doing dumb things in Eve that an older person...or an economist would not make. Are we to ban the economists too? Please point to that part of the EULA that is being violated in this case or any of the ones you have cited.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2471
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:08:42 -
[2043] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Wander Prian wrote:I am fine in losing my ship to 10 guys being MANUALLY controlled by 1 pilot.
I am NOT fine with losing my ship to a swarm that is being controlled with 1 click with zero delay and zero chance of human error. Once again, there is always human error as long as there is a person behind the keyboard, whether it be one or ten. Zero chance of human error implies that the person is not behind the keyboard and is in fact a bot which thinks for itself and requires zero interaction at any point in time. Want to cause damage to a multiboxer? Get a bunch of Catalysts, Talos, or Tornados. It really isn't rocket science people.
We have already gone over this. More humans => greater chance of human error. That one dude who lemmings in and lets the ratter know there is a gang coming for him, for example.
Seriously, do not make me get out the binomial distribution and go through the math.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2471
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:10:22 -
[2044] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Wander Prian wrote:So you are mad that there are now *gasp* RULES that you must follow? The goverment changed the speedlimit and you can't use all those horsepowers you have? Except that in our eyes, the government suddenly limited EVERYONE to 50mph, even on highways, interstate parkways, racetracks, and private go-kart courses, simply because one very biased study with a very limited and very selective query pool found that people going over 50mph were at an elevated risk of causing an accident. The study was financed by people with a provable vested interest in having people drive slower and waste gas, and it conveniently ignored extenuating circumstances such as drunk drivers, icy roads, white-out conditions, hail, earthquakes, drag-racers, illegally modified cars, and one-in-a-million strokes of back luck.
This is intriguing...are you saying there is a study about the effects of ISBoxer?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Yuri Thorpe
Positive Failure
Black Legion.
38
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:10:30 -
[2045] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Wander Prian wrote:I am fine in losing my ship to 10 guys being MANUALLY controlled by 1 pilot.
I am NOT fine with losing my ship to a swarm that is being controlled with 1 click with zero delay and zero chance of human error. Once again, there is always human error as long as there is a person behind the keyboard, whether it be one or ten. Zero chance of human error implies that the person is not behind the keyboard and is in fact a bot which thinks for itself and requires zero interaction at any point in time. Want to cause damage to a multiboxer? Get a bunch of Catalysts, Talos, or Tornados. It really isn't rocket science people. We have already gone over this. More humans => greater chance of human error. That one dude who lemmings in and lets the ratter know there is a gang coming for him, for example. Seriously, do not make me get out the binomial distribution and go through the math.
So help me god I will pull out my old notes from prob & stats :P |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
76
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:15:29 -
[2046] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Wander Prian wrote:So you are mad that there are now *gasp* RULES that you must follow? The goverment changed the speedlimit and you can't use all those horsepowers you have? Except that in our eyes, the government suddenly limited EVERYONE to 50mph, even on highways, interstate parkways, racetracks, and private go-kart courses, simply because one very biased study with a very limited and very selective query pool found that people going over 50mph were at an elevated risk of causing an accident. The study was financed by people with a provable vested interest in having people drive slower and waste gas, and it conveniently ignored extenuating circumstances such as drunk drivers, icy roads, white-out conditions, hail, earthquakes, drag-racers, illegally modified cars, and one-in-a-million strokes of back luck. This is intriguing...are you saying there is a study about the effects of ISBoxer?
Yes. CCP monitored ISBoxer use and the CSM was presented the results at the Summer Summit. It was in the minutes, although few details were given.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
278
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:16:02 -
[2047] - Quote
Multibox on linux: Run Keyclone in WINE. Documented on the dual-boxing forums with 6 seconds of google time.
Human error: If the one player controlling the box makes an error, that's 10x ships that are put in danger, and 10x the isk of a single person running a ship put in danger. Additionally, don't bring noobs to gank fleets if you're worried about something as trivial as saying "Gate is red".
None of those violate the EULA yet, but they are ways one can gain a measurable advantage over another player without risking in-game ISK. If I'm running 10x accounts, that's 10x the ISK that I've put on the line, and there have been innumerable studies done regarding the effects of multitasking and distraction and your subsequent efficiency at a task. |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation
DemSal Unlimited
2049
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:16:54 -
[2048] - Quote
Here, let me. Kinda is my job.
suppose human error means you screw up 1/20 times 5% in other words. If multicasting then you have a 5% chance of failure since all the ships follow you.
In a fleet of ten guys it becomes .95^10 chance of getting it right. That means 0.5987 or just UNDER 60% that things will go right. In a bombing fleet this is usually a decloak followed by death.
Let me anticipate the reply, Yes if a multicaster screws up ALL his ships do as well whereas in a fleet one derp does not derp everybody. Except sometimes it does.
I love math. I like Eve.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2472
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:17:18 -
[2049] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:
Price of subscription: 10-15 euro. Price of plex: 20 euro. How do you figure they will continue playing without paying real hard currency? Someone else might pay for them through plex, but someone pays aslong as they play, and with plex they pay even more than they would by "dropping real hard currency into ccp's wallet".
again that is incorrect terms of the topic of this thread. A player can earn enough ISK to purchase a subscription for 1 month (plex) via ISK on the market within 1 month, is that correct? Thus if someone can unsubscribe AND earn enough ISK to pay for that account for the month they are playing for free. Now comes the sticky part... do boxers have enough advantage to earn that amount of ISK per character to unsubscribe and go completely independent? Possibly, depending on their skill level, game play style and actual game input time. It takes a lot of guts to unsub. Kudos for that. There will always be ppl selling Plex because they purchased it and want to buy the bigger shinier thing. I have seen boxers boast 1 bill ISK in a day or less... so what? I'm not at that level and 1 bill in a day divided by 10 accts = 100,000,000 . Yea that is doable but not at my level. If the person will unsub and can accomplish this across 9 toons... more power to them. That is well within their right to do so. To bash a person for doing so... that is just bad form.
See here is somebody who does not grasp the concept of opportunity cost and that his "free time"--i.e. leisure--is actually worth something (it is in fact worth his hourly wage rate). For example, if it takes a single player with a single account 20 hours to earn enough isk to get that PLEX that implies he values his time at $1/hour. Granted, he might really, really enjoy that grinding...but then it isn't really grinding for him and somebody that finds ratting, missions, and (urk) mining that much fun....might need to see a doctor.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2472
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:18:16 -
[2050] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Wander Prian wrote:So you are mad that there are now *gasp* RULES that you must follow? The goverment changed the speedlimit and you can't use all those horsepowers you have? Except that in our eyes, the government suddenly limited EVERYONE to 50mph, even on highways, interstate parkways, racetracks, and private go-kart courses, simply because one very biased study with a very limited and very selective query pool found that people going over 50mph were at an elevated risk of causing an accident. The study was financed by people with a provable vested interest in having people drive slower and waste gas, and it conveniently ignored extenuating circumstances such as drunk drivers, icy roads, white-out conditions, hail, earthquakes, drag-racers, illegally modified cars, and one-in-a-million strokes of back luck. This is intriguing...are you saying there is a study about the effects of ISBoxer? Yes. CCP monitored ISBoxer use and the CSM was presented the results at the Summer Summit. It was in the minutes, although few details were given.
Too bad...would love to see some actual numbers and details on this.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
278
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:22:13 -
[2051] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Here, let me. Kinda is my job.
suppose human error means you screw up 1/20 times 5% in other words. If multicasting then you have a 5% chance of failure since all the ships follow you.
In a fleet of ten guys it becomes .95^10 chance of getting it right. That means 0.5987 or just UNDER 60% that things will go right. In a bombing fleet this is usually a decloak followed by death.
Let me anticipate the reply, Yes if a multicaster screws up ALL his ships do as well whereas in a fleet one derp does not derp everybody. Except sometimes it does.
I love math. I like Eve.
m
Having derped an entire fleet on multiple occasions (and friends have as well), I can say that there is no way multiboxing is 100% safe.
One example: Running incursions. 8 nm, 2 guardians. Niarja spawns, jams one logi, heavy spawn shoots the other. You have a very, very small window of opportunity to un-mess your situation. This is one instance where public fleets have an advantage as they can lock each other with spare highslot reps much easier and with much less danger of shooting each other than a VG boxer. They also don't have to deal with multitasking 10 separate accounts and staying alive. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2472
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:25:03 -
[2052] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Here, let me. Kinda is my job.
suppose human error means you screw up 1/20 times 5% in other words. If multicasting then you have a 5% chance of failure since all the ships follow you.
In a fleet of ten guys it becomes .95^10 chance of getting it right. That means 0.5987 or just UNDER 60% that things will go right. In a bombing fleet this is usually a decloak followed by death.
Let me anticipate the reply, Yes if a multicaster screws up ALL his ships do as well whereas in a fleet one derp does not derp everybody. Except sometimes it does.
I love math. I like Eve.
m
To expand on Mike's fine post....
Yes, about a 60% of having things go "right"--i.e. now screw ups. However, that 40% is not just 1 pilot screwing up it is:
1 pilot screwing up + 2 pilots screwing up + ... + all pilots screwing up.
And it means that the group of 10 is not as efficient over the long haul (where we can appeal to the law of large numbers) which ensures that the ISBoxer will be getting 95% of doing it "right" rewards plus whatever payouts accrue when not doing it "right". Whereas the 10 players will only get 60% of doing it right plus whatever "payouts" they accrue for not doing it "right".
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2472
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:26:19 -
[2053] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:Here, let me. Kinda is my job.
suppose human error means you screw up 1/20 times 5% in other words. If multicasting then you have a 5% chance of failure since all the ships follow you.
In a fleet of ten guys it becomes .95^10 chance of getting it right. That means 0.5987 or just UNDER 60% that things will go right. In a bombing fleet this is usually a decloak followed by death.
Let me anticipate the reply, Yes if a multicaster screws up ALL his ships do as well whereas in a fleet one derp does not derp everybody. Except sometimes it does.
I love math. I like Eve.
m Having derped an entire fleet on multiple occasions (and friends have as well), I can say that there is no way multiboxing is 100% safe. One example: Running incursions. 8 nm, 2 guardians. Niarja spawns, jams one logi, heavy spawn shoots the other. You have a very, very small window of opportunity to un-mess your situation. This is one instance where public fleets have an advantage as they can lock each other with spare highslot reps much easier and with much less danger of shooting each other than a VG boxer. They also don't have to deal with multitasking 10 separate accounts and staying alive.
Yes, that is precisely what Mike wrote. See, I'll quote it again:
Quote:Let me anticipate the reply, Yes if a multicaster screws up ALL his ships do as well.....
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Yuri Thorpe
Positive Failure
Black Legion.
38
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:26:45 -
[2054] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Multibox on linux: Run Keyclone in WINE. Documented on the dual-boxing forums with 6 seconds of google time.
Last time I checked Keyclone costs money...
TL;DR Pay2Win... |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
278
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:28:25 -
[2055] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:To expand on Mike's fine post....
Yes, about a 60% of having things go "right"--i.e. now screw ups. However, that 40% is not just 1 pilot screwing up it is:
1 pilot screwing up + 2 pilots screwing up + ... + all pilots screwing up.
And it means that the group of 10 is not as efficient over the long haul (where we can appeal to the law of large numbers) which ensures that the ISBoxer will be getting 95% of doing it "right" rewards plus whatever payouts accrue when not doing it "right". Whereas the 10 players will only get 60% of doing it right plus whatever "payouts" they accrue for not doing it "right".
You're failing to take into account the literal hours of effort that goes into setting up ISBoxer and making sure nothing is off by a single pixel. ISBoxer is not something you can "plug and play". Any variation in your windows or settings will cause problems with anything you do. If we take the hours taken to set up ISBoxer and "convert" it into raw hours of experience and playtime for each player, then we'd probably see the gap narrow by a significant margin. |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
76
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:29:43 -
[2056] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Rosewalker wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Wander Prian wrote:So you are mad that there are now *gasp* RULES that you must follow? The goverment changed the speedlimit and you can't use all those horsepowers you have? Except that in our eyes, the government suddenly limited EVERYONE to 50mph, even on highways, interstate parkways, racetracks, and private go-kart courses, simply because one very biased study with a very limited and very selective query pool found that people going over 50mph were at an elevated risk of causing an accident. The study was financed by people with a provable vested interest in having people drive slower and waste gas, and it conveniently ignored extenuating circumstances such as drunk drivers, icy roads, white-out conditions, hail, earthquakes, drag-racers, illegally modified cars, and one-in-a-million strokes of back luck. This is intriguing...are you saying there is a study about the effects of ISBoxer? Yes. CCP monitored ISBoxer use and the CSM was presented the results at the Summer Summit. It was in the minutes, although few details were given. Too bad...would love to see some actual numbers and details on this.
Apparently there is a split between those who use it for the input broadcasting and those who use it for just the Windows FX thingy to help them manage their characters while in space. The Windows FX is a big help to FCs, so that helps the people providing content to others, while the people using the input broadcasting are doing things like running massive ice harvesting fleets, mining fleets, and incursion fleets, which means they are taking content away from others. If you think about it that way, it makes sense that CCP isn't banning ISBoxer entirely, just the part that denies a lot of other people content.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
278
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:31:51 -
[2057] - Quote
Yuri Thorpe wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Multibox on linux: Run Keyclone in WINE. Documented on the dual-boxing forums with 6 seconds of google time.
Last time I checked Keyclone costs money...
It doesn't, at least not from the link I found. There are also cracks available for KC, as well as cracks for ISBoxer, though I didn't crack it. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2472
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:33:29 -
[2058] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:To expand on Mike's fine post....
Yes, about a 60% of having things go "right"--i.e. now screw ups. However, that 40% is not just 1 pilot screwing up it is:
1 pilot screwing up + 2 pilots screwing up + ... + all pilots screwing up.
And it means that the group of 10 is not as efficient over the long haul (where we can appeal to the law of large numbers) which ensures that the ISBoxer will be getting 95% of doing it "right" rewards plus whatever payouts accrue when not doing it "right". Whereas the 10 players will only get 60% of doing it right plus whatever "payouts" they accrue for not doing it "right". You're failing to take into account the literal hours of effort that goes into setting up ISBoxer and making sure nothing is off by a single pixel. ISBoxer is not something you can "plug and play". Any variation in your windows or settings will cause problems with anything you do. If we take the hours taken to set up ISBoxer and "convert" it into raw hours of experience and playtime for each player, then we'd probably see the gap narrow by a significant margin.
No I'm not, that is a fixed cost and as such is not that important....except to note that it is yet another barrier to entry for many players meaning that it is a subset of the community that benefits. This is why the whining about Evemon and Fleet warping have gotten so tiresome for me. The latter 2 are easy to set up (fleet warp is so easy you don't even have to set it up) and there is no additional RL monetary cost.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2472
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:36:57 -
[2059] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:
Apparently there is a split between those who use it for the input broadcasting and those who use it for just the Windows FX thingy to help them manage their characters while in space. The Windows FX is a big help to FCs, so that helps the people providing content to others, while the people using the input broadcasting are doing things like running massive ice harvesting fleets, mining fleets, and incursion fleets, which means they are taking content away from others. If you think about it that way, it makes sense that CCP isn't banning ISBoxer entirely, just the part that denies a lot of other people content.
Let me clarify, I'm quite happy with CCP's decision. In this case its looking more and more like they got it exactly right. Basiclly, I agree with you.
For those who are using it to acquire isk and not run PvP fleets, I'd like to see the numbers to see was all I was saying (and not very well). That we probably wont is likely due to customer confidentiality and that is understandable.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
275
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:40:30 -
[2060] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Wander Prian wrote:I am fine in losing my ship to 10 guys being MANUALLY controlled by 1 pilot.
I am NOT fine with losing my ship to a swarm that is being controlled with 1 click with zero delay and zero chance of human error. Once again, there is always human error as long as there is a person behind the keyboard, whether it be one or ten. Zero chance of human error implies that the person is not behind the keyboard and is in fact a bot which thinks for itself and requires zero interaction at any point in time. Want to cause damage to a multiboxer? Get a bunch of Catalysts, Talos, or Tornados. It really isn't rocket science people.
Some people seem to be under the illusion, multi boxing = indy, pve only.
If that were the case multi boxing software would not have become and issue, minimal automation of mundane tasks encourages the mundane tasks to be undertaken.
Multi boxing (IS Boxer) mining is not simply point and click, you can automate some of the instructions but unless you want your 30 Macks all pulling the same rock, you need to manually lock each rock.
1 man HQ squads; The amount of effort put into IS Boxer HQ's is a lot more than many realize. For instance, your logi can't be controlled by the same clicks as your DPS.
I've seen a guy lose half his fleet due to a mis-click in a nulsec HQ, I've seen multiple macks sitting idle while the rest of his fleet is happily mining away. Human error? not really, just a lack of paying attention. Automated input is pretty much immune to human error, hence the name "Automated"
The problem with multi boxing software is the, guy with a 1 man fleet of 30 bombers. No amount of catalysts, tornado's or talos's is gong to have any effect on him. He carefully picks his targets with minimal chance of loss.
Seeing as CCP can't say, ok ISBoxer is ok to use for PVE activities but not PVP and ISBoxer has become an issue in PVP, it has to go.
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
|
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2472
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:51:02 -
[2061] - Quote
Interesting, based on the comments about the discussion of ISBoxer in the CSM minutes, I found this:
Quote:CCP Peligro: This is more or less CCPGÇÖs stance on multiboxing, if you filed a ticket asking if you can multibox, in a nutshell it says that CCP will never sanction or authorize use of a third party program because we donGÇÖt have control over the feature set. ThatGÇÖs why there might be some confusion because there is a sort of grey area. We will action on it if [GǪ] This is the stance outlined on the third party policy page on our website. So this is the amount of accounts we have flagged [GǪ] ISboxers will frequently contact us because it is a grey area [GǪ] We have stats on what ISboxers are doing [GǪ] but thereGÇÖs no standard ISboxer. Peligro's edit: Refer to http://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/third-partypolicies/
Xander Phoena: DoesnGÇÖt using ISboxer break the EULA? Ali Aras: An issue thatGÇÖs come up a lot in the player base is using a fleet of stealth bombers. CCP Peligro: So thatGÇÖs input duplication right? Whether or not thatGÇÖs a breach of section 6-b is a bit of a grey area, itGÇÖs not clear cut. I donGÇÖt see us sanctioning it [input duplication] though, but it is something IGÇÖd like input from you guys on. --emphasis added, pages 101 and 102
The notion that ISBoxer has been explicitly sanctioned by CCP appears to be quite false. The notion that CCP was tolerating ISBoxer and similar programs appears to be more accurate.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Bobbyd
Kenshin.
Northern Coalition.
72
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:56:58 -
[2062] - Quote
So I've read the OP post and its not clear on what is banned on IS boxer,
It is a well developed tool and suits using multiple clients,
So automation is banned, seems fair and it should be!
Broadcasting multiple clicks is banned, seems to go against using multiple clients if I click one or three I don't see the harm, not everyone has multiple screens so can be a handy feature if you are using a few toons to mine,
Now here is what I want to know! Can we still use ISboxer to overlay controls of other clients over our main client so we can manually click each module on the other client that's not on the screen, It will be broadcast to that client but not in the client on the top screen
By definition it will be broadcast by third party software but only to one client at a time, Is this allowed?
Can a Dev please clear this up for me, I do not want to break the ELUA but I would also like the convenience of using this tool.
here is an example of what I mean http://i.imgur.com/kT9qs.jpg |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25726
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:57:32 -
[2063] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: Most if not all of the boxers I've talked to subscribed on a per-month basis for each toon. They pushed back their "pay date" with PLEX, with the understanding that there may be months where they were not able to PLEX their accounts and thus they'd pay RL cash.
There are more factors involved than just this broadcasting change, and I devised this plan of consolidation over the cost of medical clones. The main factor being the type of gameplay I'm involved in, which is subcap fleets in null. With the organization named under my avatar.
There's no need for me to bring more than two characters on an outing. I could do three, without being a detriment to my fleet, but that's pushing it and it's fine to just bring one.
I'm not upset by this change regarding broadcasting, it doesn't affect me. I play clients manually.
But while I was out today in fleet, scrambling to duplicate my commands on two characters, it occurred to me that the support I receive for multiple characters (and multiple subscriptions) is basically zero. From CCP.
Along with my recent loss of love for the game over my medical clone costs thread which received -no- feedback from CCP, and realizing that I'm in a big group now, and don't need to field a complete fleet composition on my own, I decided the proper thing to do as a customer (albeit a demanding one) in a situation like this is to pull back my support. That's just how this exchange works--you pay for what you like, and you keep paying if it's what you want.
I will continue my plan of consolidating characters onto just a few accounts, from each having an account of their own. The simple fact is I don't receive enough support for CCP in the client for this to continue being fun.
That's basically it. I want more support for these extra accounts that I maintain. Support in the client, so I don't have to resort to ISBoxer to function as a small gang, which I've paid to be.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Kajurei Delainen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 01:17:13 -
[2064] - Quote
Kaaeliaa wrote:Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D Who cares? They're the kind of people EVE doesn't want because they screw things up for everyone else. CCP, congratulations on having the stones to put your foot down and tell these types to get out. Maybe we can finally have nice things again.
Those kinds of people are goons...they're getting banned? JOY!!! |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
278
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 01:56:06 -
[2065] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:To expand on Mike's fine post....
Yes, about a 60% of having things go "right"--i.e. now screw ups. However, that 40% is not just 1 pilot screwing up it is:
1 pilot screwing up + 2 pilots screwing up + ... + all pilots screwing up.
And it means that the group of 10 is not as efficient over the long haul (where we can appeal to the law of large numbers) which ensures that the ISBoxer will be getting 95% of doing it "right" rewards plus whatever payouts accrue when not doing it "right". Whereas the 10 players will only get 60% of doing it right plus whatever "payouts" they accrue for not doing it "right". You're failing to take into account the literal hours of effort that goes into setting up ISBoxer and making sure nothing is off by a single pixel. ISBoxer is not something you can "plug and play". Any variation in your windows or settings will cause problems with anything you do. If we take the hours taken to set up ISBoxer and "convert" it into raw hours of experience and playtime for each player, then we'd probably see the gap narrow by a significant margin. No I'm not, that is a fixed cost and as such is not that important....except to note that it is yet another barrier to entry for many players meaning that it is a subset of the community that benefits. This is why the whining about Evemon and Fleet warping have gotten so tiresome for me. The latter 2 are easy to set up (fleet warp is so easy you don't even have to set it up) and there is no additional RL monetary cost.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you just said I'm not allowed to multibox because someone else can't figure it out in 30 seconds? I'd like to quote Mark Twain right now: "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."
There is no inherent barrier to multiboxing other than a willingness to start trying. If we follow your logic, nobody could PVP, WH, indy, incursion, or do anything because one person "may" not be good at it. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
278
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 01:57:33 -
[2066] - Quote
Bobbyd wrote:So I've read the OP post and its not clear on what is banned on IS boxer, It is a well developed tool and suits using multiple clients, So automation is banned, seems fair and it should be!Broadcasting multiple clicks is banned, seems to go against using multiple clients if I click one or three I don't see the harm, not everyone has multiple screens so can be a handy feature if you are using a few toons to mine, Now here is what I want to know! Can we still use ISboxer to overlay controls of other clients over our main client so we can manually click each module on the other client that's not on the screen, It will be broadcast to that client but not in the client on the top screen By definition it will be broadcast by third party software but only to one client at a time, Is this allowed? Can a Dev please clear this up for me, I do not want to break the ELUA but I would also like the convenience of using this tool. here is an example of what I mean http://i.imgur.com/kT9qs.jpg
Automation to the point of not requiring a person has always been banned. ISBoxer and broadcasting still needs a human being in the chair to function. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25728
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 02:09:04 -
[2067] - Quote
If you consider the amount of support that multiboxing receives, compared to the portion of subscriptions beyond 1 per player, the lack thereof is appalling. And that's the CCP who makes an announcement like this one, with no thoughts to provide alternatives to multiboxers. They'll run Power of 2 promotions, though. Do you realize the hoops everyone jumps through to get more than one character into the game? Hardware and software, including peripherals.
CCP will gladly accept an additional subscription, so let's stop pretending that multiboxing in EVE is some kind of abomination.
You should consider this the straw that breaks the camel's back, CCP. This trend is alarming. You should be going the other way, developing more support and adding multibox quality of life things, for a large portion of your player base.
Disproportionate. Neglectful. You've had it too easy.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
MrBowers
PH0ENIX COMPANY HOLDINGS
Phoenix Company Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 02:19:56 -
[2068] - Quote
No Data? No Proof it's hurting the game. Changing something which not better informing use why?
Guess I enjoy the plex prices dropping they say.....
So the higher plex prices aren't good in eve?? I mean **** i can buy more shine stuff... |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6038
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 02:22:04 -
[2069] - Quote
MrBowers wrote:No Data? No Proof it's hurting the game. Changing something which not better informing use why?
Guess I enjoy the plex prices dropping they say.....
Do you really think CCP would intentionally harm their own game? If there is data shows a good reason for this change, then only CCP need to see it to rationalise it. You just need to accept it if you still wanna play.
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
2472
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 02:22:52 -
[2070] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:To expand on Mike's fine post....
Yes, about a 60% of having things go "right"--i.e. now screw ups. However, that 40% is not just 1 pilot screwing up it is:
1 pilot screwing up + 2 pilots screwing up + ... + all pilots screwing up.
And it means that the group of 10 is not as efficient over the long haul (where we can appeal to the law of large numbers) which ensures that the ISBoxer will be getting 95% of doing it "right" rewards plus whatever payouts accrue when not doing it "right". Whereas the 10 players will only get 60% of doing it right plus whatever "payouts" they accrue for not doing it "right". You're failing to take into account the literal hours of effort that goes into setting up ISBoxer and making sure nothing is off by a single pixel. ISBoxer is not something you can "plug and play". Any variation in your windows or settings will cause problems with anything you do. If we take the hours taken to set up ISBoxer and "convert" it into raw hours of experience and playtime for each player, then we'd probably see the gap narrow by a significant margin. No I'm not, that is a fixed cost and as such is not that important....except to note that it is yet another barrier to entry for many players meaning that it is a subset of the community that benefits. This is why the whining about Evemon and Fleet warping have gotten so tiresome for me. The latter 2 are easy to set up (fleet warp is so easy you don't even have to set it up) and there is no additional RL monetary cost. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you just said I'm not allowed to multibox because someone else can't figure it out in 30 seconds? I'd like to quote Mark Twain right now: "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." There is no inherent barrier to multiboxing other than a willingness to start trying. If we follow your logic, nobody could PVP, WH, indy, incursion, or do anything because one person "may" not be good at it.
No, you can multibox all you want. I multibox too. The issue of multiboxing is not at issue.
What you cannot due is use 3rd party software to enhance your ability to acquire isk.
And what is it with you? If somebody doesn't have the time to set up ISBoxer they must be morons? Why is you have to always resort to the worst and most insulting response? Do you have absolutely zero social filter in real life too? My thinking was that there are lots of very intelligent players who may not have the hours you were just going on about to allocate towards setting up and fine tuning ISBoxer.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
|
Bobbyd
Kenshin.
Northern Coalition.
73
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 02:24:00 -
[2071] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Automation to the point of not requiring a person has always been banned. ISBoxer and broadcasting still needs a human being in the chair to function.
I completely understand the difference between an Automation and a repeater broadcast,
what I was asking can we use single broadcasts to clients from a third party tool to save having to alt tab to that screen each time to click onto the retrospective eve client, so no repeat to the click just a single broadcast click from a overlay control window to the retrospective client.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2472
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 02:25:39 -
[2072] - Quote
Bobbyd wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Automation to the point of not requiring a person has always been banned. ISBoxer and broadcasting still needs a human being in the chair to function.
I completely understand the difference between an Automation and a repeater broadcast, what I was asking can we use single broadcasts to clients from a third party tool to save having to alt tab to that screen each time to click onto the retrospective eve client, so no repeat to the click just a single broadcast click from a overlay control window to the retrospective client.
No, based on the OP CCP appears to be classifying that under automation of inputs.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
MrBowers
PH0ENIX COMPANY HOLDINGS
Phoenix Company Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 02:26:11 -
[2073] - Quote
For one i think most of us can live with out broadcasting .... fleet warp and F1 takes care of everything else :). IX BOXER just makes it easier to fit 10 clients on one screen it's awesome haha.... |
Heinrich Rotwang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 02:46:23 -
[2074] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it?
Because I'm not a farmer. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
279
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 02:48:36 -
[2075] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:No, you can multibox all you want. I multibox too. The issue of multiboxing is not at issue.
What you cannot due is use 3rd party software to enhance your ability to acquire isk.
And what is it with you? If somebody doesn't have the time to set up ISBoxer they must be morons? Why is you have to always resort to the worst and most insulting response? Do you have absolutely zero social filter in real life too? My thinking was that there are lots of very intelligent players who may not have the hours you were just going on about to allocate towards setting up and fine tuning ISBoxer.
For the trillionth time: THE ACCELERATED ISK CLAUSE IS ON A PER TOON BASIS NOT A PER HUMAN BEING BASIS AS REPEATEDLY CONFIRMED BY CCP DEVS!
Your lack of reading comprehension (and subsequent reliance on circular logic) reveals to everyone your lack of thought on the subject and I must therefore call you a troll.
I never accused someone and I hold no ill will against someone who doesn't have the time to sink into ISBoxer a moron. Live and let live, I say. I personally am not very familiar with market PVP, but that doesn't mean I want to run around banning it.
My problem comes when ill informed troglodytes and peons rally behind a cause that they have no knowledge about, spend zero effort to think critically about the issue, and then proceed to march forth under a banner of "Equality" in an attempt to conquer anything that they do not understand or find strange and different, and thus fear.
I'll be in the middle of running incursions or building fits, and I will stop completely and put down what I'm doing if someone comes to me and says "Please help me do this." I will not go out and proselytize someone who is content with running two or even one toon doing whatever, and try to convince him to multibox. I will take time out of my day and answer to the best of my ability anyone who comes up to me with a question regarding what I do, whether it be as innocuous as "Can I see your fits?" to "That seem's interesting. How do I do that?" |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25729
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 02:52:53 -
[2076] - Quote
Heinrich Rotwang wrote:Chris Winter wrote:What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.
So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it? Because I'm not a farmer.
word. not everyone bomber spams. There is almost nothing that can be simultaneously broadcast in this gang.
It uses drone assist, but that's already in the client.
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 02:59:51 -
[2077] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:If you consider the amount of support that multiboxing receives, compared to the portion of subscriptions beyond 1 per player, the lack thereof is appalling. And that's the CCP who makes an announcement like this one, with no thoughts to provide alternatives to multiboxers. They'll run Power of 2 promotions, though. Do you realize the hoops everyone jumps through to get more than one character into the game? Hardware and software, including peripherals.
CCP will gladly accept an additional subscription, so let's stop pretending that multiboxing in EVE is some kind of abomination.
You should consider this the straw that breaks the camel's back, CCP. This trend is alarming. You should be going the other way, developing more support and adding multibox quality of life things, for a large portion of your player base.
Disproportionate. Neglectful. You've had it too easy.
Giving a "Like" to a Goon..
Damn it all, I've spent years disliking everything Goon, then you have to go and post something that is not only reasonable but that I have to agree with. 
CCP state they have no control over 3rd party multi boxing apps used in their game but this is actually far from the truth.
Truth is, CCP "choose" not to have control, the providers of at least one 3rd party app are prepared to work with game devs "if" approached. This is not only good for the game but good for the 3rd party devs as their product has the ability to be used by more people.
An email I received from from one such 3rd party app developer in reply to questions from me;
If there is functionality in *our software* that breaches the EULA we are more than happy to disable certain aspects or modify our software if requested to enable it to be used. (not the exact words, I no longer have the email)
From that I presume it would require cooperation between CCP and the 3rd party devs to ensure the software keeps base, acceptable functionality while disabling, modifying or removing those aspects which breach the EULA.
CCP actively encourage dual character ownership, yet discourage multiboxing.
CCP actively encourage 3rd party app use, why not go the extra yard and see if multi boxing software devs are willing to come to the party. Multi boxing software per se does not breach the EULA, only some of its functionality.
One fairly simple change to slow down the 20 ship cloaky bomber gang fielded by one guy using multi boxing software - A built in targeting delay, say 2 or 3 seconds, after de-cloaking before he can lock a target.
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
|
Meyr
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
362
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 03:37:51 -
[2078] - Quote
Using IS Boxer to enable yourself to more easily 'multibox' the Eve client is, in and of itself, perfectly acceptable and legal, in accordance with the very first post of this thread.
What is being deemed unacceptable is for a single player, with one keystroke, to input an identical command across multiple clients simultaneously. It makes no difference if you are doing invention, mining, PVE, or PVP. You will now be forced to select a particular client instance, input a command, select another client instance, and repeat the command.
Yes, this change will hurt some people. Try taking some of the very same advise I've seen handed out so often elsewhere in these forums - HTFU! Adapt, adjust, or die.
I'm not a huge fan of many of the changes being made lately, as I've stated in other threads. That said, I'm still here, trying to adjust to the changes, because I still love the game and the friends I have here.
If your only reason for being here was that you could exploit a loophole in order to gain an advantage over others, good riddance. Please contract your stuff to me, and goodbye.
One keystroke, one client. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25729
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 03:39:20 -
[2079] - Quote
One slot on each account is a high sec PVE team. I could use the respite. I know exactly where I'm going, too.
One plex for three characters is a huge discount for me. I won't mind grinding that at all, believe it or not.
I already feel better about the thought of not paying irl $ to play.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
279
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 03:56:26 -
[2080] - Quote
Meyr wrote:Yes, this change will hurt some people. Try taking some of the very same advise I've seen handed out so often elsewhere in these forums - HTFU! Adapt, adjust, or die.
I'm not a huge fan of many of the changes being made lately, as I've stated in other threads. That said, I'm still here, trying to adjust to the changes, because I still love the game and the friends I have here.
If your only reason for being here was that you could exploit a loophole in order to gain an advantage over others, good riddance. Please contract your stuff to me, and goodbye.
One keystroke, one client.
Why is it that we are not allowed to voice our opinions and dissent when everyone else is?
CCP tried bringing back bombers decloaking each other, and they stopped after the bombers pushed back.
CCP nerfed all jump lengths for caps, but changed their mind on JFs after the community objected.
CCP is currently attempting to remove a part of our gameplay, and we are currently pushing back.
ISBoxer is not some magical "Push to win" button that old-school AoE Doomsdays were. Stop pretending they are, and start using your brain to tackle the problem in a fashion that does not involve running to the teacher because the other kids are having fun amongst themselves. |
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25729
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 04:01:49 -
[2081] - Quote
I'll believe this isn't just about 'omg the reimbursements' when CCP makes multiboxing a bannable offense.
You need to just deny those reimbursements, no matter how long they stay open. Or is this about something else that you're not telling us.
man I love talking to a wall.
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
6038
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 04:09:46 -
[2082] - Quote
You people are stupid. Read the OP again. Then once more for posterity.
Multiboxing isn't being banned. Broadcast automation and multiplexing is. You want to tell CCP they've had it easy? Look in a ******* mirror and start clicking for each of your clients or you're little more than a hypocrite.
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
281
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 04:17:46 -
[2083] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:You people are stupid. Read the OP again. Then once more for posterity.
Multiboxing isn't being banned. Broadcast automation and multiplexing is. You want to tell CCP they've had it easy? Look in a ******* mirror and start clicking for each of your clients or you're little more than a hypocrite.
No, I dare say YOU are the stupid one. The multiboxing community in EVE was created and has grown with the express knowledge that:
1) The accelerated gameplay clause is on a per-toon basis.
2) We will not set up an automated system where we can leave our computer and it will still issue actions.
3) We will receive no special treatment when it comes to protection from gankers, wardecs, or other such harm
4) We will pay, via PLEX or $$$, for each account and there will be no discounts for multiple accounts.
As I've mentioned before, we are being restricted to 50mph in our cars simply because someone had an accident once upon a time. This is censorship, and we will not stand idly by while CCP attempts to remove our way of playing. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25729
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 04:22:36 -
[2084] - Quote
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.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2472
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 04:29:32 -
[2085] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:No, you can multibox all you want. I multibox too. The issue of multiboxing is not at issue.
What you cannot due is use 3rd party software to enhance your ability to acquire isk.
And what is it with you? If somebody doesn't have the time to set up ISBoxer they must be morons? Why is you have to always resort to the worst and most insulting response? Do you have absolutely zero social filter in real life too? My thinking was that there are lots of very intelligent players who may not have the hours you were just going on about to allocate towards setting up and fine tuning ISBoxer. For the trillionth time: THE ACCELERATED ISK CLAUSE IS ON A PER TOON BASIS NOT A PER HUMAN BEING BASIS AS REPEATEDLY CONFIRMED BY CCP DEVS! Your lack of reading comprehension (and subsequent reliance on circular logic) reveals to everyone your lack of thought on the subject and I must therefore call you a troll. I never accused someone and I hold no ill will against someone who doesn't have the time to sink into ISBoxer a moron. Live and let live, I say. I personally am not very familiar with market PVP, but that doesn't mean I want to run around banning it. My problem comes when ill informed troglodytes and peons rally behind a cause that they have no knowledge about, spend zero effort to think critically about the issue, and then proceed to march forth under a banner of "Equality" in an attempt to conquer anything that they do not understand or find strange and different, and thus fear. I'll be in the middle of running incursions or building fits, and I will stop completely and put down what I'm doing if someone comes to me and says "Please help me do this." I will not go out and proselytize someone who is content with running two or even one toon doing whatever, and try to convince him to multibox. I will take time out of my day and answer to the best of my ability anyone who comes up to me with a question regarding what I do, whether it be as innocuous as "Can I see your fits?" to "That seem's interesting. How do I do that?"
There you go again. We have been over how your case is:
1. Over simplified in that it fails to factor in issues like players making mistakes or not having the same incentives across the fleet.
2. Probably an inappropriate comparison (i.e., a more appropriate comparison is not 10 players in fleet vs. 1 player with ISBoxera and 10 accounts, but 1 player 10 accounts and ISBoxer vs. 1 player 10 accounts no ISBoxer).
In any event, in all cases the issue is rewards per character so your tiresome response is not only tiresome, but has been challenged and you have failed to come with a good response, IMO.
And tell us troglodytes and peons again how you hold no ill will.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2472
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 04:35:27 -
[2086] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:One slot on each account is a high sec PVE team. I could use the respite. I know exactly where I'm going, too.
One plex for three characters is a huge discount for me. I won't mind grinding that at all, believe it or not.
I already feel better about the thought of not paying irl $ to play.
Well, then I guess you can stop posting, right? This change is good for you.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2473
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 04:38:42 -
[2087] - 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?
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.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
281
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 04:42:31 -
[2088] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:There you go again. We have been over how your case is: 1. Over simplified in that it fails to factor in issues like players making mistakes or not having the same incentives across the fleet. 2. Probably an inappropriate comparison (i.e., a more appropriate comparison is not 10 players in fleet vs. 1 player with ISBoxera and 10 accounts, but 1 player 10 accounts and ISBoxer vs. 1 player 10 accounts no ISBoxer). In any event, in all cases the issue is rewards per character so your tiresome response is not only tiresome, but has been challenged and you have failed to come with a good response, IMO. And tell us troglodytes and peons again how you hold no ill will.
1. When someone else attempted to compare a standard fleet of players with human error to some god-human multiboxer who never makes an error, I attempted to compare apples to apples instead of apples to crab-apples. When you present two studies with that level of bias (assuming the non-boxer fleet makes errors while the multiboxer doesn't), you cannot be taken seriously and your work is of such a quality as to be laughed out of a Flat Earth Society meeting.
2. Except all the whiners in the thread were comparing 10 people vs 1 player with 10 accounts using ISBoxer, so that's what I used to debunk their outrageous claims. |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6039
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 04:45:11 -
[2089] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:You people are stupid. Read the OP again. Then once more for posterity.
Multiboxing isn't being banned. Broadcast automation and multiplexing is. You want to tell CCP they've had it easy? Look in a ******* mirror and start clicking for each of your clients or you're little more than a hypocrite. No, I dare say YOU are the stupid one. The multiboxing community in EVE was created and has grown with the express knowledge that: 1) The accelerated gameplay clause is on a per-toon basis. 2) We will not set up an automated system where we can leave our computer and it will still issue actions. 3) We will receive no special treatment when it comes to protection from gankers, wardecs, or other such harm 4) We will pay, via PLEX or $$$, for each account and there will be no discounts for multiple accounts. As I've mentioned before, we are being restricted to 50mph in our cars simply because someone had an accident once upon a time. This is censorship, and we will not stand idly by while CCP attempts to remove our way of playing.
No, I'm not stupid at all. I will note first that it is, naturally, only those multiboxers that think they can't handle more than one click for multiple accounts that are complaining about this change. Rules change, deal with it.
And Rain, I respect you and all, but on this one you're wrong. The balance is out of whack when 1 player vs 1 player is actually 50 ships vs 1 ship, with one click per move for both players. If you want to run multiple ships, especially in PVP, then you click for each one, not one click for all. If this was just about CCP 'playing possum' because 'oh noes petitions!' then ganking would have been gone from the game long ago. Don't be naive. I'm not mad at you, and I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I mean it when I say I respect you, but I also know that you multibox, so your self-interest is noted, and I know that you know better than that. You can't have your cake, and eat it too.
My play style has been affected time and again in the almost three years I've been playing now, but I roll with the punches and adapt to a new one for the simple reason that I know I'm playing a videogame, a sandbox, that can be played in many different ways, and as a result of enjoying every aspect of it from a single account, I've become very adaptable to almost any situation. So no, changes to playstyles, whether mine be nerfed or buffed, don't affect me in any way at all.
I've never been publicly vocal against broadcast multiplexers. In fact, I've frequently trolled the threads complaining about them. That's because at the end of the day, I know it's CCP making decisions regarding these sorts of things based on data that neither I nor the OP have access to. I trolled them because I adapted to the situation in-game and handled it just fine. The whole time though, I've taken a serious position against this kind of gameplay - not multiboxing in general, just automated broadcasting like this. Now that it's actually being removed, I stand in 100% support of it. Not because I don't do it, either by choice or otherwise, but because it is demonstrably and objectively unbalanced.
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
25729
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 04:46:00 -
[2090] - Quote
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.
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 04:50:12 -
[2091] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:You people are stupid. Read the OP again. Then once more for posterity.
Multiboxing isn't being banned. Broadcast automation and multiplexing is. You want to tell CCP they've had it easy? Look in a ******* mirror and start clicking for each of your clients or you're little more than a hypocrite. No, I dare say YOU are the stupid one. The multiboxing community in EVE was created and has grown with the express knowledge that: 1) The accelerated gameplay clause is on a per-toon basis. 2) We will not set up an automated system where we can leave our computer and it will still issue actions. 3) We will receive no special treatment when it comes to protection from gankers, wardecs, or other such harm 4) We will pay, via PLEX or $$$, for each account and there will be no discounts for multiple accounts. As I've mentioned before, we are being restricted to 50mph in our cars simply because someone had an accident once upon a time. This is censorship, and we will not stand idly by while CCP attempts to remove our way of playing.
This is misleading an inaccurate. Taking the enumerated points,
1) The accelerated gameplay clause is on a per-toon basis.
I and other have addressed this and pointed out the flaws with the case you are using. Yes, if everyone plays perfectly the 10 man fleet vs. the 10 account/1 man fleet would earn equivalent isk. Problem is nobody plays perfectly all the time, or to put it differently playing perfectly is NOT normal game play. Since the EULA clause in question is "normal game" play you are using a faulty metric.
2) We will not set up an automated system where we can leave our computer and it will still issue actions.
This is an overly restrictive reading of the EULA clause in question. That clause says NOTHING about being AFK, it says you cannot use 3rd party software of hardware to acquire StuffGäó faster than "normal game" play. Further, the notion of one click effecting multiple clients is not very much different than 1 click effecting multiple things in a single client (turning on say the mid and low modules).
3) We will receive no special treatment when it comes to protection from gankers, wardecs, or other such harm
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
4) We will pay, via PLEX or $$$, for each account and there will be no discounts for multiple accounts.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2473
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 04:53:01 -
[2092] - Quote
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.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25731
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 04:57:15 -
[2093] - Quote
It's inaction, while continuing to let it happen, promoting it, even. It's an awfully passive stance on something that defines this game.
Stealth bomber with torps... 700 dps per. even blaster harpies are half that. Whatever problem they wanted to fix, it's not fixed.
fast forward another cycle of heartache, and CCP will start streamlining multiboxing, with balance in mind.
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 04:58:30 -
[2094] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:There you go again. We have been over how your case is: 1. Over simplified in that it fails to factor in issues like players making mistakes or not having the same incentives across the fleet. 2. Probably an inappropriate comparison (i.e., a more appropriate comparison is not 10 players in fleet vs. 1 player with ISBoxera and 10 accounts, but 1 player 10 accounts and ISBoxer vs. 1 player 10 accounts no ISBoxer). In any event, in all cases the issue is rewards per character so your tiresome response is not only tiresome, but has been challenged and you have failed to come with a good response, IMO. And tell us troglodytes and peons again how you hold no ill will. 1. When someone else attempted to compare a standard fleet of players with human error to some god-human multiboxer who never makes an error, I attempted to compare apples to apples instead of apples to crab-apples. When you present two studies with that level of bias (assuming the non-boxer fleet makes errors while the multiboxer doesn't), you cannot be taken seriously and your work is of such a quality as to be laughed out of a Flat Earth Society meeting. 2. Except all the whiners in the thread were comparing 10 people vs 1 player with 10 accounts using ISBoxer, so that's what I used to debunk their outrageous claims.
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.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25731
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 04:59:38 -
[2095] - Quote
Mike is a uniboxer. according to CSM whispers here and there, CCP doesn't talk to them about a lot of things either.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
281
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:03:46 -
[2096] - Quote
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. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25731
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:06:50 -
[2097] - Quote
I hate to say it, but what really needs to happen to put the complete issue to rest is only allow one client at a time.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
111
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:07:48 -
[2098] - 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.
which is why they banned hardware modifications from being able to mulitbroadcast also |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
111
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:10:46 -
[2099] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I hate to say it, but what really needs to happen to put the complete issue to rest is only allow one client at a time.
ccp promotes more than one account so I dont think they will ever do this. Also wouldn't just loading other clients in vm behind vpn make it so you could run more than one client anyway |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25731
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:15:03 -
[2100] - Quote
One client instance at a time, is all I mean to say. That's the only solution to this -thing- in EVE called multiboxing.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6040
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 07:47:15 -
[2131] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: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.
I don't need your pity, but you will have to accept the rule change.
So you might want to think about saving that pity for yourself.
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
|
Alexia Marhx
Alveare Artifex
Genesis II
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 07:52:54 -
[2132] - Quote
Fonac wrote:I'm seriously lacking faith in the eve population, that they can understand such a policy... All it takes is a few clicks, and bam you're doing something illegal.
Like in real life... You grab a gun and in a couple seconds you can turn into a murderer... |
Madd Adda
UEASC Technologies
Black Thorne Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 07:59:50 -
[2133] - Quote
Why are we arguing over this? We don't make the rules, but we have to follow them or leave. I'm all for expressing one's own opinions, but what do we have to gain by arguing? If they were so easily swayed by words on their forums, do you think that jump fatigue would have gone through? Turning back now, on this decision, would be worse than just following through on their word. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
282
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 08:02:04 -
[2134] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:I don't need your pity, but you will have to accept the rule change.
Again, why is it that multiboxers are somehow exempt from being able to argue against a change that affects them?
You go to any other subforum with a CCP post about a change, and you will not see someone say "You are not allowed to discuss this even if it affects you." |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
282
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 08:04:21 -
[2135] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote:Why are we arguing over this? We don't make the rules, but we have to follow them or leave. I'm all for expressing one's own opinions, but what do we have to gain by arguing? If they were so easily swayed by words on their forums, do you think that jump fatigue would have gone through? Turning back now, on this decision, would be worse than just following through on their word.
What is: Reversal of stealth bombers decloaking each other for 500. |
Madd Adda
UEASC Technologies
Black Thorne Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 08:08:26 -
[2136] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Madd Adda wrote:Why are we arguing over this? We don't make the rules, but we have to follow them or leave. I'm all for expressing one's own opinions, but what do we have to gain by arguing? If they were so easily swayed by words on their forums, do you think that jump fatigue would have gone through? Turning back now, on this decision, would be worse than just following through on their word. What is: Reversal of stealth bombers decloaking each other for 500.
I can't speak for CCP, if they chose to nerf that, then they must have had good reason. If that reason is related to multiboxing, then it'll probably be in a patch update rather than a EULA clarification. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
282
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 08:25:06 -
[2137] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote:I can't speak for CCP, if they chose to nerf that, then they must have had good reason. If that reason is related to multiboxing, then it'll probably be in a patch update rather than a EULA clarification.
Just because CCP makes a change doesn't mean it's good or with thought. |
Madd Adda
UEASC Technologies
Black Thorne Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 08:31:05 -
[2138] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Madd Adda wrote:I can't speak for CCP, if they chose to nerf that, then they must have had good reason. If that reason is related to multiboxing, then it'll probably be in a patch update rather than a EULA clarification. Just because CCP makes a change doesn't mean it's good or with thought.
How do you define "good" in this context? Good for you? Good for the player base? Good for CCP? Aside from that, I would think that a great deal of thought goes into every change. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
282
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 08:33:47 -
[2139] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Madd Adda wrote:I can't speak for CCP, if they chose to nerf that, then they must have had good reason. If that reason is related to multiboxing, then it'll probably be in a patch update rather than a EULA clarification. Just because CCP makes a change doesn't mean it's good or with thought. How do you define "good" in this context? Good for you? Good for the player base? Good for CCP? Aside from that, I would think that a great deal of thought goes into every change.
What is the Incarna expansion... |
Madd Adda
UEASC Technologies
Black Thorne Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 08:43:37 -
[2140] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Madd Adda wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Madd Adda wrote:I can't speak for CCP, if they chose to nerf that, then they must have had good reason. If that reason is related to multiboxing, then it'll probably be in a patch update rather than a EULA clarification. Just because CCP makes a change doesn't mean it's good or with thought. How do you define "good" in this context? Good for you? Good for the player base? Good for CCP? Aside from that, I would think that a great deal of thought goes into every change. What is the Incarna expansion...
I'll go out on a limb here and say it was the noble exchange (with the possibility of game breaking micro transactions at its launch) you were referring to? Thought went into its creation, and thought went into its replacement. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
284
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 08:53:48 -
[2141] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote:I'll go out on a limb here and say it was the noble exchange (with the possibility of game breaking micro transactions at its launch) you were referring to? Thought went into its creation, and thought went into its replacement.
What are: The Incarna Riots....
Hint: It's not like the Boston Riots when they were overexcited they won a game.... |
Madd Adda
UEASC Technologies
Black Thorne Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 09:01:44 -
[2142] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Madd Adda wrote:I'll go out on a limb here and say it was the noble exchange (with the possibility of game breaking micro transactions at its launch) you were referring to? Thought went into its creation, and thought went into its replacement. What are: The Incarna Riots.... Hint: It's not like the Boston Riots when they were overexcited they won a game....
Are you saying that you're going to gather up all the multiboxers and just sit in Jita, spamming nonesense? More power to you, buddy. In all honesty though, comparing this to Incarna is just ridiculous. |
kraken11 jensen
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 09:29:13 -
[2143] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote: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
:) |
kraken11 jensen
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 09:31:23 -
[2144] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Madd Adda wrote:I can't speak for CCP, if they chose to nerf that, then they must have had good reason. If that reason is related to multiboxing, then it'll probably be in a patch update rather than a EULA clarification. Just because CCP makes a change doesn't mean it's good or with thought.
You're right :)
Sadly.
|
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
561
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 10:22:40 -
[2145] - Quote
I'm actually now of the mind that multiboxing at all gives an unfair advantage and should be banned. One player, one account.
People who can afford to have multiple accounts can provide themselves with mining or combat boosts without having to do anything at all on their second character other than sit somewhere in space. They can assign fighters to themselves, thereby drastically increasing the power they wield without requiring any additional work.
Industrialists can dodge the per-character manufacturing/invention/etc slot limitations and give themselves effectively unlimited slots--and due to the recent changes to Advanced Industry, a day-one alt makes just as much profit on a manufacturing job as a max-skilled character does.
Miners can acquire significantly more ore than other people, and by combining their drone flights defend themselves in areas of space where they wouldn't normally be able to.
Wormhole residents can rat in relative safety by having a do-nothing alt sitting cloaked on a wormhole entrance waiting for people to come in. Same for people ratting in null--they can have an alt in the next system over to give themselves advance warning of possible hostiles.
These and other things create a massive divide between the haves and the have-nots, moreso than isboxer does.
One client logged in per player at a time. It's the only way to be fair to all players. |
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
1462
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 10:31:35 -
[2146] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:One client logged in per player at a time. It's the only way to be fair to all players and encourage playing with other PEOPLE instead of just playing by oneself, and one's offgrid boost alt, and one's fighter assist carrier, and one's scout alts.
And how are you going to enforce that?
So my family living at the same address as me are banned from playing EVE at the same time as me?
|
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
561
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 10:34:19 -
[2147] - Quote
Pak Narhoo wrote:Chris Winter wrote:One client logged in per player at a time. It's the only way to be fair to all players and encourage playing with other PEOPLE instead of just playing by oneself, and one's offgrid boost alt, and one's fighter assist carrier, and one's scout alts. And how are you going to enforce that? So my family living at the same address as me are banned from playing EVE at the same time as me?
Accounts are registered to a real-life individual owner. So, John Smith and his brother Jack Smith can each play on one account that's registered to them. |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6042
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 10:50:04 -
[2148] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:I don't need your pity, but you will have to accept the rule change. Again, why is it that multiboxers are somehow exempt from being able to argue against a change that affects them? You go to any other subforum with a CCP post about a change, and you will not see someone say "You are not allowed to discuss this even if it affects you."
Again, multiboxers aren't the problem. No one should have to repeat themselves like this so much unless they're training canines.
This affects everyone, not just multiboxers. It balances the game better in favour of more equal opportunity across the board for all players, removing the advantage afforded by the ability to click once to send the same command to more than one ship.
And before you say, "anyone can do it!", no one should have to just to keep up and enjoy 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
|
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 10:55:05 -
[2149] - Quote
ur tears are so delicious....
i don't think i have tasted anything sweeter..
the lament of an eve cheater....
yes this poem is malicious...
please darling, keep the tears coming...
i have a sweet tooth for your salty tears...
a big one for your wasted years...
of the constant podding, you'll have no more fears...
please keep on crying, im so thirsty, the sobs keep them coming...
i love how they taste, so delicious, thank you eve, see you later cheaters...
for all you cheaters have now, is to pick up skills, or pack your bags, keep on leaving...
no remorse here, as you made it hard for us, now it's hard for you, the addiction of eve...
while you withdrawal from space ships, or learn to play as we did...
i hope those tears and nights without us, are hard on you, like you were on everyone in eve...
your going to climb the walls not knowing what to do, eve withdrawal will be hard on you...
to be honest, this gift from ccp, it's quite splendid..
watching you cry, complain, and do anything to keep from this end...
it's like someone dealing with the 5 stages of grief, right now ur in denial...
soon your accounts will be banned, oh in such style...
i can't wait, ohh but i can.. soon, soon the prices of minerals will actually make it worthwhile..
to go out and mine in my fleet with all of my toons again, of course, i do it with skill..
but no, not you, children without those skills, you must use cheats, of which now are bannable..
hahahahahahahahahaha...
ur tears are soo delicious..
|
Darth Schweinebacke
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 11:48:35 -
[2150] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
You're failing to take into account the literal hours of effort that goes into setting up ISBoxer and making sure nothing is off by a single pixel. ISBoxer is not something you can "plug and play". Any variation in your windows or settings will cause problems with anything you do. If we take the hours taken to set up ISBoxer and "convert" it into raw hours of experience and playtime for each player, then we'd probably see the gap narrow by a significant margin.
I hardly believe that it takes hours to set it up. And any variation to window positions can easily be prevented.
Use the function to reset all window positions, which is built into eve. Then repesoition the windows on all your clients at once -> done. Sure that takes 5 hours to do right?
Also the amount of workload to built in a cheat does not justify the use of it.
To go with my previous example of aimbots. Just because it is surely not an easy task to actually programm your own aimbot, it does not justify the use of it. (Before you read something wrong into it: I am talking about programming it yourself, not installing a script). |
|
|
kraken11 jensen
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 13:39:54 -
[2151] - Quote
Darth Schweinebacke wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
You're failing to take into account the literal hours of effort that goes into setting up ISBoxer and making sure nothing is off by a single pixel. ISBoxer is not something you can "plug and play". Any variation in your windows or settings will cause problems with anything you do. If we take the hours taken to set up ISBoxer and "convert" it into raw hours of experience and playtime for each player, then we'd probably see the gap narrow by a significant margin.
I hardly believe that it takes hours to set it up. And any variation to window positions can easily be prevented. Use the function to reset all window positions, which is built into eve. Then repesoition the windows on all your clients at once -> done. Sure that takes 5 hours to do right? Also the amount of workload to built in a cheat does not justify the use of it. To go with my previous example of aimbots. Just because it is surely not an easy task to actually programm your own aimbot, it does not justify the use of it. (Before you read something wrong into it: I am talking about programming it yourself, not installing a script).
setup on some hours = not very good setup. People do use weeks, or even months (or years) to optimize their setups. so Yeah. and i bet if you only would've used 5 hours on setup. your would've gotten Your ships whooped, and the same With Your pods. :)
(Proably) (but who knows) |
Darth Schweinebacke
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 14:29:46 -
[2152] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Darth Schweinebacke wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
You're failing to take into account the literal hours of effort that goes into setting up ISBoxer and making sure nothing is off by a single pixel. ISBoxer is not something you can "plug and play". Any variation in your windows or settings will cause problems with anything you do. If we take the hours taken to set up ISBoxer and "convert" it into raw hours of experience and playtime for each player, then we'd probably see the gap narrow by a significant margin.
I hardly believe that it takes hours to set it up. And any variation to window positions can easily be prevented. Use the function to reset all window positions, which is built into eve. Then repesoition the windows on all your clients at once -> done. Sure that takes 5 hours to do right? Also the amount of workload to built in a cheat does not justify the use of it. To go with my previous example of aimbots. Just because it is surely not an easy task to actually programm your own aimbot, it does not justify the use of it. (Before you read something wrong into it: I am talking about programming it yourself, not installing a script). setup on some hours = not very good setup. People do use weeks, or even months (or years) to optimize their setups. so Yeah. and i bet if you only would've used 5 hours on setup. your would've gotten Your ships whooped, and the same With Your pods. :) (Proably) (but who knows)
I was targetting the comment I am bolding in the quote in this reply, and I can hardly imagine that with the described method that takes long.
The time needed to work out a good overall window arrangement and gathering the experience it takes to arrange things to wrok more efficiently also is not limited to people who are using ISboxer or other tools like that. The same also counts for people who are multiboxing without the help of 3rd party tools.
So I would not count that as a valid point as justification to use such programms.
|
Sentenced 1989
Quantum Anomaly Corporation
136
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 14:37:51 -
[2153] - Quote
Darth Schweinebacke wrote:
I was targetting the comment I am bolding in the quote in this reply, and I can hardly imagine that with the described method that takes long.
The time needed to work out a good overall window arrangement and gathering the experience it takes to arrange things to wrok more efficiently also is not limited to people who are using ISboxer or other tools like that. The same also counts for people who are multiboxing without the help of 3rd party tools.
So I would not count that as a valid point as justification to use such programms.
No, but you don't understand any of this. ISBoxer pilots spends hours and hours and days optimizing his setup, he spends isk and isk and isk or dollars and dollars and dollars on hit alts, and then his risks to lose everything by making one mistake, so it's ok for him to use it!
Sounds like:
Yes, your honorable Judge, I was driving 100 kmph in 60 kmph zone, but that's ok, I've spend hours modifying my car and if I crash there is higher chance I will die instantly, so its OK for me to go 100 while rest obey the 60 rule.
All in all, you will just end up with same broken record responses where ISBoxer or similar software is fine because //insert here whatever//, because rules that rest of us can follow don't apply to them for some reason.
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 14:45:11 -
[2154] - Quote
Darth Schweinebacke wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:Darth Schweinebacke wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
You're failing to take into account the literal hours of effort that goes into setting up ISBoxer and making sure nothing is off by a single pixel. ISBoxer is not something you can "plug and play". Any variation in your windows or settings will cause problems with anything you do. If we take the hours taken to set up ISBoxer and "convert" it into raw hours of experience and playtime for each player, then we'd probably see the gap narrow by a significant margin.
I hardly believe that it takes hours to set it up. And any variation to window positions can easily be prevented. Use the function to reset all window positions, which is built into eve. Then repesoition the windows on all your clients at once -> done. Sure that takes 5 hours to do right? Also the amount of workload to built in a cheat does not justify the use of it. To go with my previous example of aimbots. Just because it is surely not an easy task to actually programm your own aimbot, it does not justify the use of it. (Before you read something wrong into it: I am talking about programming it yourself, not installing a script). setup on some hours = not very good setup. People do use weeks, or even months (or years) to optimize their setups. so Yeah. and i bet if you only would've used 5 hours on setup. your would've gotten Your ships whooped, and the same With Your pods. :) (Proably) (but who knows) I was targetting the comment I am bolding in the quote in this reply, and I can hardly imagine that with the described method that takes long. The time needed to work out a good overall window arrangement and gathering the experience it takes to arrange things to wrok more efficiently also is not limited to people who are using ISboxer or other tools like that. The same also counts for people who are multiboxing without the help of 3rd party tools. So I would not count that as a valid point as justification to use such programms.
just gonna gramma natzee this right kwik ehn zey dat iz zum pahmp zpellz ur haz dare.. no wonder u have to use something like aimbot or isboxer to cheat in eve.. i wonder who you copied off of in english class or other school related functions to pass.. er haz zee nut gahtzen outz uv zee sk0olinz yitz?
i think my iq has taken a beating just reading everyone's comments on the reasoning behind why they think they should still be allowed to cheat..
ur tears are sooooo delicious...
you know, stage one of grief is denial (usually anger) but yes, denial that this is going to happen, which is why you are so blatantly showing yourselves here, you think that ccp and the eve community as a whole cares that you are trying to make a case in point as to why you should be allowed to continue to do this. we are all glad, scratch that, ecstatic that you are leaving us or at least being brought low to the point you have to use your noggin now to play the game the way it was meant to be played.
since you haven't grasped the whole concept, think about how all the changes have been made over the past few months/patchs..
i can't use my panther the way i want now, and im sure that a few things will change in the future im not going to be totally happy with, but i will adjust, just like you now have to.
get over it, either sell off your characters for as much possible isk as you can and invest in some ratting ships and learn to use them properly or go play some other game, we aren't your grief councilors, you have been grieving all of us for a long long long time making us hate playing sometimes because of how easily you had it. now its time to use some common sense (hehe, apparently its not common as you don't have any) and change, adapt, and grow up. stop being script kiddies.. im sure most of you are in big alliances, talk to them on how they do things, go out on roams and learn. find some people and practice with smaller ships in weaker anomalies until you get good enough to control them. otherwise, just biomass your characters and keep feeding us your tears.
feed us your tears....
|
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
39
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 14:58:23 -
[2155] - Quote
Darth Schweinebacke wrote:I hardly believe that it takes hours to set it up. And any variation to window positions can easily be prevented. more stuff
I multibox using broadcast, i love it too, i can do perfectly without. I like this game and have always played within the rules set by ccp.
I wasn't going to write in the thread because ccp statement is pefectly clear for me. But you sir, like to talk about a program, a function, a problem?... that you have little experience with. Most none isboxers seem to have no idea how it works, yet see what it "can" do and so the pitchforks come out - same as people crying about T3s beeing op, incursions beeing to much isk for highsec, there are a million things that will bring out the mob. But until ccp says it isn't allowed, it is allowed - this is the same case as the multibroadcasting function, ccp was informed by isbox users themselves this was not a secret,behind closed door thing...
So isboxer is not an easy setup, it takes more then repositioning windows and if you dont do it properly alot of things go wrong fast and you will need more then 5hrs to work these kinks out. I can honnestly say i have spend more the 100hrs digging into isboxer functions, because of interest.
Knowing what it can do, how to use it and what to avoid or figure out how to fix and reduce the effects of a derpmoment was fun. Finding the weakpoints and how to break multiboxer setups that i could encounter was challenging. All in the spirit of eve, knowing your enemy and fight the fights you can win... and it isn't that hard to win against most multiboxer setups if you know how they work...
But you have spend ZERO? hrs into this program and haven't bothered checking what it can do??? IF you had, you wouldn't be giving stupid statements like: "I hardly believe" because that just translates into "I'm making things up".
To add; you say cheat.. though ccp has said it was fine for years...and never taken actions against it because of it, moreover in some cases ccp said: It is fine to do this, we are not seeing this as an issue
It's also worth adding that most multiboxers have send petitions to make sure they did not break any game rule! During the last year and after previous statements by ccp about multiboxing with isboxer most of us have gotten the answer " you can use the functions until we say otherwise, we allow it, enjoy".
so ISboxer and/or multibroadcasting was not a cheat, not a violation and frankly it still isn't an issue to use until 1jan2015....
Broadcasting is offlimits by 1jan2015, thats how it is and most isboxer users have already adjusted. We all have to adapted to not break the rules, we are players who are dedicated to this game just like anyone else in here. We asked what was allowed and what was not, so your definition of a cheat wasn't shared by ccp. Until last week they said it that some functions would be a bannable offense because of reasons and thats it.
So, isboxer has been used for years and ccp knew this,isbox users themselve brought up the issues and asked ccp directly if they could use it. Most of the isboxer users wouldn't have used the program ( wich isn't free) if ccp said it wasn't allowed. Nobody is going to fork up 3years of subscription for a program when its going to get you banned... we still play this game to enjoy it...
Anyway, CCP changed their opinion and so we all have to adapt and not break game rules starting at 1jan2015 if people still use broadcasting with isboxer then ccp has everyright to ban them... the warning was send well in advance and this is appreciated.
So please stop making up bullshit about what is what and how it works and how to make it work. You just want to demonize other eve players who might have an addiction... or just enjoy the game more when using multiple clients at the same time... while they had the seal of approval by ccp. All functions that are not allowed as of 1jan2015 are going to be removed... simple... until ccp change their mind again ;)
It's easier to just all follow the rules set by ccp, and stop bitching about what you "believe" is allowed and what not. When something isn't clear, just write a petition with your question and ask for a direct answer -> we isboxer users did this multiple time and played the game within the rules at that time.
It makes for a more fun game, less shitforumpost and less misinformation.
I'll see you in space, while multiboxing
* bombing with 20 bombers not using multibroadcasting - F1 decloak F2 bomb *W*button to warp to preselected object -alt tab for next bomber.
* ganking with tornades shooting 1 sec apart cuz prelock from broadcast - F1 - alt tab for next
* mining with 20 skiffs and dragging cans every 20min on each client
* doing WH escalations using only my own alts and pull billions a week when no friends are online and pvp when they are...
* doing multiple carrier/ishtar/whatever ship available for anomolies in null
* etc etc..
O7 Fungu |
John Wolfcastle
Mining and Industry Society
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 14:59:58 -
[2156] - Quote
Oh new year will be a good year! |
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 15:06:10 -
[2157] - Quote
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Crying-girl.jpg |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4428
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 15:07:40 -
[2158] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:This affects everyone, not just multiboxers. It balances the game better in favour of more equal opportunity across the board for all players, removing the advantage afforded by the ability to click once to send the same command to more than one ship. Is it? Really? Do you honestly believe this is going to do anything for balance? Mining will still be peasant work, incursions will still be farmed and bombers will still be overpowered. The only thing that will changes is that a bunch of players that spends all day crying about how multiboxers are the reason they suck will now need to find a new excuse.
This fantasy that there will suddenly be ice belts a plenty for all of these solo players is wishful thinking from the uninformed.
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
4428
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 15:11:30 -
[2159] - Quote
FunGu Arsten wrote:I'll see you in space, while multiboxing
* bombing with 20 bombers not using multibroadcasting - F1 decloak F2 bomb *W*button to warp to preselected object -alt tab for next bomber.
* ganking with tornades shooting 1 sec apart cuz prelock from broadcast - F1 - alt tab for next
* mining with 20 skiffs and dragging cans every 20min on each client
* doing WH escalations using only my own alts and pull billions a week when no friends are online and pvp when they are...
* doing multiple carrier/ishtar/whatever ship available for anomolies in null
* etc etc..
O7 Fungu Just FYI, if you set up a windowing program with global hotkeys, you can set it up so you can use things like your numpad to auto switch to specific clients to save on alt tabbing time. That will still be within the rules.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Darth Schweinebacke
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 15:27:13 -
[2160] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:Darth Schweinebacke wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:Darth Schweinebacke wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
You're failing to take into account the literal hours of effort that goes into setting up ISBoxer and making sure nothing is off by a single pixel. ISBoxer is not something you can "plug and play". Any variation in your windows or settings will cause problems with anything you do. If we take the hours taken to set up ISBoxer and "convert" it into raw hours of experience and playtime for each player, then we'd probably see the gap narrow by a significant margin.
I hardly believe that it takes hours to set it up. And any variation to window positions can easily be prevented. Use the function to reset all window positions, which is built into eve. Then repesoition the windows on all your clients at once -> done. Sure that takes 5 hours to do right? Also the amount of workload to built in a cheat does not justify the use of it. To go with my previous example of aimbots. Just because it is surely not an easy task to actually programm your own aimbot, it does not justify the use of it. (Before you read something wrong into it: I am talking about programming it yourself, not installing a script). setup on some hours = not very good setup. People do use weeks, or even months (or years) to optimize their setups. so Yeah. and i bet if you only would've used 5 hours on setup. your would've gotten Your ships whooped, and the same With Your pods. :) (Proably) (but who knows) I was targetting the comment I am bolding in the quote in this reply, and I can hardly imagine that with the described method that takes long. The time needed to work out a good overall window arrangement and gathering the experience it takes to arrange things to wrok more efficiently also is not limited to people who are using ISboxer or other tools like that. The same also counts for people who are multiboxing without the help of 3rd party tools. So I would not count that as a valid point as justification to use such programms. just gonna gramma natzee this right kwik ehn zey dat iz zum pahmp zpellz ur haz dare.. no wonder u have to use something like aimbot or isboxer to cheat in eve.. i wonder who you copied off of in english class or other school related functions to pass.. er haz zee nut gahtzen outz uv zee sk0olinz yitz? i think my iq has taken a beating just reading everyone's comments on the reasoning behind why they think they should still be allowed to cheat.. ur tears are sooooo delicious... you know, stage one of grief is denial (usually anger) but yes, denial that this is going to happen, which is why you are so blatantly showing yourselves here, you think that ccp and the eve community as a whole cares that you are trying to make a case in point as to why you should be allowed to continue to do this. we are all glad, scratch that, ecstatic that you are leaving us or at least being brought low to the point you have to use your noggin now to play the game the way it was meant to be played. since you haven't grasped the whole concept, think about how all the changes have been made over the past few months/patchs.. i can't use my panther the way i want now, and im sure that a few things will change in the future im not going to be totally happy with, but i will adjust, just like you now have to. get over it, either sell off your characters for as much possible isk as you can and invest in some ratting ships and learn to use them properly or go play some other game, we aren't your grief councilors, you have been grieving all of us for a long long long time making us hate playing sometimes because of how easily you had it. now its time to use some common sense (hehe, apparently its not common as you don't have any) and change, adapt, and grow up. stop being script kiddies.. im sure most of you are in big alliances, talk to them on how they do things, go out on roams and learn. find some people and practice with smaller ships in weaker anomalies until you get good enough to control them. otherwise, just biomass your characters and keep feeding us your tears. feed us your tears....
I am not quite sure why you quote me and then come up with that response, as I have clearly stated in each post which I made in this thread I am against ISboxer and similiar tools.
Secondly, english is not my primary language and as a german I barely ever use that language in my every day life. If you feel like correcting me that is fine I am allways willing to learn, but what you are doing is just being a ****. |
|
|
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
39
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 15:30:34 -
[2161] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:FunGu Arsten wrote:I'll see you in space, while multiboxing
* bombing with 20 bombers not using multibroadcasting - F1 decloak F2 bomb *W*button to warp to preselected object -alt tab for next bomber.
* ganking with tornades shooting 1 sec apart cuz prelock from broadcast - F1 - alt tab for next
* mining with 20 skiffs and dragging cans every 20min on each client
* doing WH escalations using only my own alts and pull billions a week when no friends are online and pvp when they are...
* doing multiple carrier/ishtar/whatever ship available for anomolies in null
* etc etc..
O7 Fungu Just FYI, if you set up a windowing program with global hotkeys, you can set it up so you can use things like your numpad to auto switch to specific clients to save on alt tabbing time. That will still be within the rules.
We are aware that these things are still going to happen, But these things are the reason why people "hate" isboxer and so.. we dont use the functions to show we dont need it to do the things people hate...
CCP allows things because this is ALT ONLINE - power of 2 ftw... why bother setting up the global hotkeys when the next pitchfork mob is going to demonize eve players just because they "believe" it is a cheating thing....
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3497
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 15:33:09 -
[2162] - Quote
Removed some troll posts.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 15:46:13 -
[2163] - Quote
i wasn't trolling.
i wrote a nice poem, that took me like 5 or 10 minutes to write, and responded to people that had definitely instigated more annoyance in the eve universe than there could have possibly been since botting started in this game. albeit some might perceive what i wrote as trolling, it very much so was not.
i see the people constantly trying to tell us that this program or group of programs that allows them to pilot one ship and have it act like 15 to 80 ships is very much so within the realm of something feasable as more trolling than anything, it really is. they are trolling the crap out of us right now, and hence the 94 pages of it. the stuff is all over reddit, facebook, twitter, it's everywhere, they are upset. they can't pilot 15 ships and do it without the use of another program, and are now upset because the ruling has finally been passed down that is stopping what was merely a loophole that has now been closed.
again, a loophole that has been closed. this happens in law throughout many countries all over the world. the way the world perceives the law and how the law is handled are two different things. sometimes loopholes exist and until the laws are written properly, the loopholes are taken advantage of.
this would be considered one of those.
i guess ill have to save my poem somewhere else.. :(
and to the guy that asked me why i quoted him, it was because u were saying the same thing i was, i was talking to the other people you quoted in that quote, so don't get upset, it wasn't u i was talking to. u just quoted like 3 or 4 people and they needed to be addressed.
they are the trolls, the ones upset about this whole movement cloning loophole being closed finally. a cheat in other words that i would rather call it a cheat, botting basically, or scripting. a macro. anything that allows your computer to respond to commands or something you dont have to physically do multiple times that the game doesnt have it built in, that's where they are coming from and they had to figure out a way around it without being invasive to everyone's machines. they have figured out a server side way of doing it and a way to word it to close the loophole.
thank god. |
Darth Schweinebacke
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 15:53:37 -
[2164] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:
and to the guy that asked me why i quoted him, it was because u were saying the same thing i was, i was talking to the other people you quoted in that quote, so don't get upset, it wasn't u i was talking to. u just quoted like 3 or 4 people and they needed to be addressed.
thank god.
I am not upset, the quoting just made it look like you were talking to me which was kinda confusing :). |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4429
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 16:01:02 -
[2165] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:i see the people constantly trying to tell us that this program or group of programs that allows them to pilot one ship and have it act like 15 to 80 ships is very much so within the realm of something feasable as more trolling than anything, it really is. they are trolling the crap out of us right now, and hence the 94 pages of it. the stuff is all over reddit, facebook, twitter, it's everywhere, they are upset. they can't pilot 15 ships and do it without the use of another program, and are now upset because the ruling has finally been passed down that is stopping what was merely a loophole that has now been closed. You realise EVE is a low input game, right? Even without key broadcasting most multiboxers will continue to run exactly as they have done before. Controlling 20 miners manually isn't difficult. The hardest part is making them all run smoothly, which ISBoxer does by controlling their hardware usage when they are inactive, which will still be the main reason people continue to use ISBoxer (and is not a banned feature). I for one can't wait for January 1st to roll round and for you guys to still see massive fleets of 20-30 miners stripping out icebelts and watch you come crawling back here saying "it didn't work CCP!", complaining about whatever the next thing you want banned.
And no, this was not a "loophole". CCP have explicitly stated in the past that input broadcasting is not automation, and that as long as someone clicked once for one click, it didn't matter how many clients that even hit. So this is a rule change, not a closure of a loophole.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
286
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 16:06:21 -
[2166] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:i see the people constantly trying to tell us that this program or group of programs that allows them to pilot one ship and have it act like 15 to 80 ships is very much so within the realm of something feasable as more trolling than anything, it really is. they are trolling the crap out of us right now, and hence the 94 pages of it. the stuff is all over reddit, facebook, twitter, it's everywhere, they are upset. they can't pilot 15 ships and do it without the use of another program, and are now upset because the ruling has finally been passed down that is stopping what was merely a loophole that has now been closed.
again, a loophole that has been closed. this happens in law throughout many countries all over the world. the way the world perceives the law and how the law is handled are two different things. sometimes loopholes exist and until the laws are written properly, the loopholes are taken advantage of.
and to the guy that asked me why i quoted him, it was because u were saying the same thing i was, i was talking to the other people you quoted in that quote, so don't get upset, it wasn't u i was talking to. u just quoted like 3 or 4 people and they needed to be addressed.
they are the trolls, the ones upset about this whole movement cloning loophole being closed finally. a cheat in other words that i would rather call it a cheat, botting basically, or scripting. a macro. anything that allows your computer to respond to commands or something you dont have to physically do multiple times that the game doesnt have it built in, that's where they are coming from and they had to figure out a way around it without being invasive to everyone's machines. they have figured out a server side way of doing it and a way to word it to close the loophole.
TIL: Attempting to defend multiboxing is trolling. You've clearly not spent any effort in reading this thread. You just grabbed a pitchfork and rushed to the castle because the village idiot claims he saw dark magic going on when it was simply science.
Your continued attempts to compare multiboxing to botting is laughable at best, especially when CCP themselves have defined the two in the past in very clear words. You continue to believe that multiboxing software is "plug and play" when all it would take is two seconds of research on Youtube to see just how hard setting up ISBoxer is.
As for the other guy saying "herpderp reset windows", that does not always work, and has never been foolproof. There are always variations in clients when you use that, and if a player moved around his fleet window or overview on purpose to better set up ISBoxer he must now do that all over again for however many clients he has. |
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
40
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 16:07:06 -
[2167] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Verde Minator wrote:i see the people constantly trying to tell us that this program or group of programs that allows them to pilot one ship and have it act like 15 to 80 ships is very much so within the realm of something feasable as more trolling than anything, it really is. they are trolling the crap out of us right now, and hence the 94 pages of it. the stuff is all over reddit, facebook, twitter, it's everywhere, they are upset. they can't pilot 15 ships and do it without the use of another program, and are now upset because the ruling has finally been passed down that is stopping what was merely a loophole that has now been closed. You realise EVE is a low input game, right? Even without key broadcasting most multiboxers will continue to run exactly as they have done before. Controlling 20 miners manually isn't difficult. The hardest part is making them all run smoothly, which ISBoxer does by controlling their hardware usage when they are inactive, which will still be the main reason people continue to use ISBoxer (and is not a banned feature). I for one can't wait for January 1st to roll round and for you guys to still see massive fleets of 20-30 miners stripping out icebelts and watch you come crawling back here saying "it didn't work CCP!", complaining about whatever the next thing you want banned. And no, this was not a "loophole". CCP have explicitly stated in the past that input broadcasting is not automation, and that as long as someone clicked once for one click, it didn't matter how many clients that even hit. So this is a rule change, not a closure of a loophole.
You cant stop the pitchforks with logic and facts... but i will enjoy local rants and tears after 1jan2015 same as you ;) |
Recyclers
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 16:10:13 -
[2168] - Quote
Im Done!
Feels good...
No one gets my stuff or tunes.
Thanks CPP.
U guys have fun bantering about my post. Don't care as once this post is done i will biomass this last character and get on with my life.
Characters Biomassed
Feels goooooood. |
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 16:22:28 -
[2169] - Quote
Recyclers wrote:Im Done! Feels good... No one gets my stuff or tunes. Thanks CPP. U guys have fun bantering about my post. Don't care as once this post is done i will biomass this last character and get on with my life. Characters BiomassedFeels goooooood.
.......wow.......
so anyways, i didn't just grab a pitchfork, and you know, for someone that takes that long to understand a program and takes that long to setup something to do that with it, i understand why you are upset.. not the guy that biomassed, but the others that are like okay, you suck, you couldnt do what we could anyways, you have no idea, blah blah blah...
have you been spying on me? do you know my every move? have you seen every single little thing i can and cannot do? do you know my every intimate detail? do you know whether or not i have seen and understood the complications to it? how about if i have watched my friend sit down on skype and show me how he does it and explained how he setup his characters and his orca and then showed me just how quickly and easily it can be done....
no.. i didnt think so.
but you are quick to call me a troll and an idiot with a pitchfork...
not realizing that i have actually watched someone do this, this evil dark voodoo magic you say takes hours and hours and hours to setup and is so fragile that you can screw it all up...
yeah okay... |
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
58
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 16:29:39 -
[2170] - Quote
Quite amazing this thread patrolled by the thought police but the Devs that started this vitriolic pissing contest once again are totally absent.
Again had CCP made the EULA totally clear in it's intent originally and been willing to re-vist it as required in print this deplorable situation would never have arisen.
CCP would also not have benefited financially all these years from the additional accounts and players would have been quite happy with one or two alts they fully understood they could play EVE with and saved a lot of money in the process.
And for the twisted literates among you...it's ISBOXER.......not..... ISBOTTER. Get that right and your Greifing for tears arguments might stand up a bit better.
On a lighter note, seven mining accounts un-subbed today and up for sale, you have around nine days before they go inactive, after that you get squat CCP. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
286
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 16:35:25 -
[2171] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:so anyways, i didn't just grab a pitchfork, and you know, for someone that takes that long to understand a program and takes that long to setup something to do that with it, i understand why you are upset.. not the guy that biomassed, but the others that are like okay, you suck, you couldnt do what we could anyways, you have no idea, blah blah blah...
have you been spying on me? do you know my every move? have you seen every single little thing i can and cannot do? do you know my every intimate detail? do you know whether or not i have seen and understood the complications to it? how about if i have watched my friend sit down on skype and show me how he does it and explained how he setup his characters and his orca and then showed me just how quickly and easily it can be done....
no.. i didnt think so.
but you are quick to call me a troll and an idiot with a pitchfork...
not realizing that i have actually watched someone do this, this evil dark voodoo magic you say takes hours and hours and hours to setup and is so fragile that you can screw it all up...
yeah okay...
I never said that this was some super secret cult that only mutants could join, or something that was an IRL closed community requiring one to fetch the soul of a mountain from Nepal as a test. You're thinking of PL's application process.
Multiboxing has always been open to anyone who wanted to give it a shot. The fact that there is currently a mob of idiots running around who would have you believe that we are a community with the same level of power and closed-offness as the likes of the Illuminati, and believe that we are bots simply because we took the time to sit down and work on a challenge.
Comparing setting up something as simple as a mining fleet to incursion setups or wormhole setups is akin to taking a child's finger-paint art and attempting to enter it to The Louvre. If setting up a mining fleet was as simple as you described, there would be hundreds of these setups roaming around mining belts and ice. Once again, ISBoxer is NOT plug-and-play. It isn't and will not be no matter how many times you say it is.
I'm quick to call you a troll and an idiot with a pitchfork because you didn't bother to read the thread or you would have encountered multiple people telling you why multiboxing is not botting, why EVE demands multiple accounts, and why ISBoxer is no more p2w than dropping $200 on a skilled toon from the Character Bazaar. You keep using the same arguments that have been repeatedly shot down by anyone with two brain cells, and you would have realized this had you, ya know, spent a little bit of effort reading the thread instead of charging up the road to the castle. |
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 16:50:51 -
[2172] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Verde Minator wrote:so anyways, i didn't just grab a pitchfork, and you know, for someone that takes that long to understand a program and takes that long to setup something to do that with it, i understand why you are upset.. not the guy that biomassed, but the others that are like okay, you suck, you couldnt do what we could anyways, you have no idea, blah blah blah...
have you been spying on me? do you know my every move? have you seen every single little thing i can and cannot do? do you know my every intimate detail? do you know whether or not i have seen and understood the complications to it? how about if i have watched my friend sit down on skype and show me how he does it and explained how he setup his characters and his orca and then showed me just how quickly and easily it can be done....
no.. i didnt think so.
but you are quick to call me a troll and an idiot with a pitchfork...
not realizing that i have actually watched someone do this, this evil dark voodoo magic you say takes hours and hours and hours to setup and is so fragile that you can screw it all up...
yeah okay... I never said that this was some super secret cult that only mutants could join, or something that was an IRL closed community requiring one to fetch the soul of a mountain from Nepal as a test. You're thinking of PL's application process. Multiboxing has always been open to anyone who wanted to give it a shot. The fact that there is currently a mob of idiots running around who would have you believe that we are a community with the same level of power and closed-offness as the likes of the Illuminati, and believe that we are bots simply because we took the time to sit down and work on a challenge. Comparing setting up something as simple as a mining fleet to incursion setups or wormhole setups is akin to taking a child's finger-paint art and attempting to enter it to The Louvre. If setting up a mining fleet was as simple as you described, there would be hundreds of these setups roaming around mining belts and ice. Once again, ISBoxer is NOT plug-and-play. It isn't and will not be no matter how many times you say it is. I'm quick to call you a troll and an idiot with a pitchfork because you didn't bother to read the thread or you would have encountered multiple people telling you why multiboxing is not botting, why EVE demands multiple accounts, and why ISBoxer is no more p2w than dropping $200 on a skilled toon from the Character Bazaar. You keep using the same arguments that have been repeatedly shot down by anyone with two brain cells, and you would have realized this had you, ya know, spent a little bit of effort reading the thread instead of charging up the road to the castle.
ur insulting your own intelligence sir.. i play with three characters all the time. this is my main toon, there are many like it, but she has perfect leadership skills, another ewar and logistics skills but can also use battleships and fly a falcon and does, while yet another is my gunner and panther pilot as well as my rapier pilot, all three are flown in unison without the help of this special tool you use... and i use 5 accounts simultaneously while mining ice and other ore in wh's and other dangerous areas of space. check my employment history ingame.. verde, tera, kera, kwik, coco, azure, and recently gave my toon sera frost to my fiance which is a hictor/dictor pilot. i do fly combat and industrial with the three main toons verde minator, tera frost, and kera frost.. but then, you are just spouting off whatever it is u feel like. i do not buy characters from the character bazaar. i use all of my toons to do planetary the 6 i still have, with azure being the one that does all my heavy p3's and p4's, i have several of my toons doing research, and tera can build capital ships and soon will be able to build all caldari and minmatar t2 stuff..
but then, you know this since u know all about me.
and i don't use this beloved tool of urs. i don't have a pitchfork, and im not with this so called up in arms about your beloved movement cloning script kiddy programs u so love and cherish.
more over, it's fun and challenging to do what i do. im sorry you can't do it. maybe you can learn?
i pay money to play this game, the isk i make is the isk i use, and i buy plexs from time to time to pay for some really expensive ships and fittings which i only fly in high sec. i have one specific setup that cost about 200$ in plex's that is only for the three main characters that i fly which works amazing. i call it my bass fishing fleet, for my gramma who won tons of trophies bass fishing off her blinged out bass fishing boat here in florida.
but since u know me so well, i guess none of this comes as a surprise to you. but yes, i know all about the beloved isboxer and it's ease of use on eve, although myself personally find it reprehensible and one day would find eve coming to this decision and i also knew that using it would cause problems with the way i setup my ships as none of my pilots fly the same fittings or setups on their ships. i use each window differently on a different screen with different resolutions, they are all color coded, have different layouts and have different modules, different ships, different drones, each filling different roles in the fleet.
i feel it much more exciting and entertaining to win my battles this way than your way, and find it to be a little morally reprehensible for someone with my intelligence to actually win at a game doing something like using isboxer to achieve those goals.
i guess i am an idiot troll with a pitchfork.. lolz
|
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7345
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:05:16 -
[2173] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:Quite amazing this thread patrolled by the thought police but the Devs that started this vitriolic pissing contest once again are totally absent.
Maybe they are absent because there is nothing to clarify any more.
marly cortez wrote:
On a lighter note, seven mining accounts un-subbed today and up for sale, you have around nine days before they go inactive, after that you get squat CCP.
If you can't sell them, can I have their stuff(s)? Some players I know who are returning could use some stuff.
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'.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4429
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:09:37 -
[2174] - Quote
Recyclers wrote:Im Done! Feels good... No one gets my stuff or tunes. Thanks CPP. U guys have fun bantering about my post. Don't care as once this post is done i will biomass this last character and get on with my life. Characters BiomassedFeels goooooood. More people need to have the balls to do this. Lately it really does seem that CCPs direction is "solve issues that whining carebears complain about" and it's completely understandable why people don't want to stick around to watch that trainwreck, but not enough people actually biomass and say "**** you CCP".
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
4429
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:10:31 -
[2175] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:If you can't sell them, can I have their stuff(s)? Some players I know who are returning could use some stuff. They should earn their stuff. Taking handouts is cheating. CCP please change EULA to ban people handing other people free stuff.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7345
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:16:34 -
[2176] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Doc Fury wrote:If you can't sell them, can I have their stuff(s)? Some players I know who are returning could use some stuff. They should earn their stuff. Taking handouts is cheating. CCP please change EULA to ban people handing other people free stuff.
Sure, I'd be for banning SRP.
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'.
|
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
40
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:17:01 -
[2177] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:
1 how about if i have watched my friend sit down on skype and show me how he does it and explained how he setup his characters and his orca and then showed me just how quickly and easily it can be done....
2 and i don't use this beloved tool of urs. i don't have a pitchfork, and im not with this so called up in arms about your beloved movement cloning script kiddy programs u so love and cherish.
3 more over, it's fun and challenging to do what i do. im sorry you can't do it. maybe you can learn?
*Quotes are snipped so please read the full posts/ i just didnt feel the need to fill up with text
So you admit not doing it yourself, nor knowing the challenges that come after using the setup for a long time and all its influences when interacting with other players. Your friend might, however... mining is one of the easiest thing to setup and frankly you dont need isboxer at all for it to work.There are a million other things to do then dragging ore into cans, and things that ask more finetuning.
Good that you admit openly and comfirmed our observations of how missinformed and uneducated you are in this particular software package.
You also find your way of play fun and challenging yet you can't see how multiboxing/isboxing could be fun and challengin for others? Basicly your game or the highway... what is that in your hand? a pitchfork....
You ask us to learn your way, have you even considered that isboxers could just aswel do it without isboxer? It just stings when CCP is telling their players that something is fine one day to be shitted on the day after - and thats why most isboxers are feeling betrayed.
For someone who "isn't" trying to troll by writing a full story about "you dont know me dude" you sure find it easy to act like you know us.
PS: I was crownd best single cheerleader act 2009, and i have the medal to proof it...
Fungu
O7 |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
286
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:19:59 -
[2178] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:shitposting
Clever dodge and deflection. Every time I made a general statement about EVE you took it to mean I was talking to just you. It physically hurt to read your error-filled paragraphs, but I somehow did it.
You attempt to bring morals into EVE and "shame" me for challenging myself with ISBoxer, all the while ignoring the fact that EVE was meant to be a sandbox where you can scam, gank, wardec, stalk, smacktalk, and generally harass other players. There is nothing stopping a player from multiboxing a fleet of miners, just like there is nothing stopping me from running scams. Attempting to bring morals into the fray is outright dumb. |
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:23:21 -
[2179] - Quote
maybe that's your morals, i said, for myself i find it morally reprehensible for someone of my intellect to do something like you do. but then again, maybe you don't understand or care to read it all? smacktalk.
so where i said i sat down on skype and he showed me, that meant he showed me the view screen, which buttons he pressed, from bootup to loadup to moving screens and just how simple it was. it might be difficult for say, you. but not me.
but okay, smacktalk.
lolz |
Eryn Velasquez
76
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:27:05 -
[2180] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:More people need to have the balls to do this. Lately it really does seem that CCPs direction is "solve issues that whining carebears complain about" and it's completely understandable why people don't want to stick around to watch that trainwreck, but not enough people actually biomass and say "**** you CCP".
I totally agree. Would be nice if all those cheaters would.
_GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á_
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4430
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:31:31 -
[2181] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Doc Fury wrote:If you can't sell them, can I have their stuff(s)? Some players I know who are returning could use some stuff. They should earn their stuff. Taking handouts is cheating. CCP please change EULA to ban people handing other people free stuff. Sure, I'd support banning SRPs. As you should. Highsec carebears don't get SRP, therefore it's unfair, therefore it's cheating.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
287
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:31:42 -
[2182] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:maybe that's your morals, i said, for myself i find it morally reprehensible for someone of my intellect to do something like you do. but then again, maybe you don't understand or care to read it all? smacktalk.
so where i said i sat down on skype and he showed me, that meant he showed me the view screen, which buttons he pressed, from bootup to loadup to moving screens and just how simple it was. it might be difficult for say, you. but not me.
but okay, smacktalk.
lolz
You keep trying to bring morals into a game with scamming, ganking, and destructible items.. Go back to Hello Kitty Online.
And if he just showed you running, he did not show you the time invested in actually setting up the windows, the video feeds, repeater regions, click bars, action target groups, etc.
Look, think of ISBoxer as a movie. Most people only see the outcome on the silver screen in the movie theater, or on their TV, and enjoy it as an end result of "stuff".
Look at the credits. See how many people had invested time and labor into the movie. Costumes, special effects, casting directors, acting lessons/schools, props, scenery.... All of that is unseen by the audience. The finished product shows almost none of the man-hours, labor, time, and money that went into making this glorious masterpiece.
Sure, any idiot can take a home recorder and make something like Blair Witch. But when you attempt to compare Blair Witch with, say, Lord of the Rings, and you get laughed at and mocked, don't run to mommy and demand that they remake LOTR with the budget of Blair Witch. |
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7345
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:33:00 -
[2183] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Doc Fury wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Doc Fury wrote:If you can't sell them, can I have their stuff(s)? Some players I know who are returning could use some stuff. They should earn their stuff. Taking handouts is cheating. CCP please change EULA to ban people handing other people free stuff. Sure, I'd support banning SRPs. As you should. Highsec carebears don't get SRP, therefore it's unfair, therefore it's cheating.
That would make for a hilarious threadnaught of its own.
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'.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4430
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:33:37 -
[2184] - Quote
Eryn Velasquez wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:More people need to have the balls to do this. Lately it really does seem that CCPs direction is "solve issues that whining carebears complain about" and it's completely understandable why people don't want to stick around to watch that trainwreck, but not enough people actually biomass and say "**** you CCP". I totally agree. Would be nice if all those cheaters would. Using software confirmed by CCP explicitly as being within the rules is not cheating. No matter how many times you say it won't make it fact.
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
4430
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:34:50 -
[2185] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Doc Fury wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Doc Fury wrote:If you can't sell them, can I have their stuff(s)? Some players I know who are returning could use some stuff. They should earn their stuff. Taking handouts is cheating. CCP please change EULA to ban people handing other people free stuff. Sure, I'd support banning SRPs. As you should. Highsec carebears don't get SRP, therefore it's unfair, therefore it's cheating. That would make for a hilarious threadnaught of its own. I'm pretty sure we're gonna see those regardless. Carebears whine, things get changed, threadnaught ensues. War decs will be soon, guaranteed. That one will be spectacular.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eryn Velasquez
77
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:39:09 -
[2186] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Eryn Velasquez wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:More people need to have the balls to do this. Lately it really does seem that CCPs direction is "solve issues that whining carebears complain about" and it's completely understandable why people don't want to stick around to watch that trainwreck, but not enough people actually biomass and say "**** you CCP". I totally agree. Would be nice if all those cheaters would. Using software confirmed by CCP explicitly as being within the rules is not cheating. No matter how many times you say it won't make it fact.
Try after January 1st. Until then i applaud every ISBox mutlibroadcasting Toon who gets biomassed.
_GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á_
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
77
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:39:12 -
[2187] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Multiboxing has always been open to anyone who wanted to give it a shot.
I think this is the statement that causes a lot of problems. You seem to have the opinion that in order to multibox, you have to use ISBoxer. Additionally, you appear to believe that input broadcasting is required to multibox. Personally, I hate this attitude. I also hate when people spread the message that all multiboxers use these techniques. We don't.
I dual box, using a desktop and a laptop connected using the free software KVM program from Microsoft Garage, Mouse Without Borders. I switched to Mouse Without Borders from another free software KVM program because I did not want anyone to question if I use input broadcasting. I don't, because from my reading of the EULA, I have always believed that such input broadcasting violated the EULA. CCP Falcon, in the opening post of this threadnaught, confirmed this belief after CCP did a review of the EULA.
Nolak, your posting makes you come across as someone who believes that the ban of input broadcasting/multiplexing kills multiboxing in EVE. It doesn't. You don't need to use ISBoxer to multibox in EVE. It doesn't even eliminate the use of ISBoxer in EVE. In fact, some people are eagerly anticipating the feature that Lax (the developer of ISBoxer) is going to put in that sets the default setting for input broadcasting to "OFF" for EVE, since that's the first thing they change.
Perhaps the elimination of input broadcasting kills your particular game play. I don't know. I've read every post in this thread and things are starting to blur together. But not even the creator of ISBoxer is stating that multiboxing in EVE is over. Here is what he posted on Reddit:
JoeTheMultiboxer wrote:
Hi guys, author of ISBoxer here!
This is of course sad news for multiboxers in EVE Online, but I think there's more to be said than simply "RIP".
Multiboxing will still happen, but without broadcasting to multiple clients at once. This is more sad to someone like TheWis with 80+ accounts, or even someone with 10, than it is to someone with 2 or 3. I think we would all agree that 2 or 3 is a more appropriate number to be playing than 80, and I think that's the effect this change will ultimately have.
The good news is that it does sound like ISBoxer users can still use dashboards with clickable views of modules lined up, as long as they are interacting with only one client when they click, and not several at once.
With that said, it looks like I have just over a month to figure out how to help my customers not get banned from this change.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:42:22 -
[2188] - Quote
ur missing the point. it's a sandbox, like you said, we can and do anything and everything in this game. look at the rpers, there are people that rp a lot. there are nrds and nbsi alliances, there are people that make drugs in game, there are people like rooks and kings that have fun just killing everyone because they are just that awesome, and to be honest, i dont have to
look
as far as im concerned, i explained to you 2 times already, ready for a third?
he used skypes' "share screens" function. he showed me every single thing he did including the window layout on his monitor. with 6 toons to do that with and one orca and one rorqual setup. 8 total. that included warping them to an asteroid field, setting up, using the roid scanner to tell if a single rock was done adn to stop all lasers, broadcast, target, shoot the roid, jettison, and pick up...
lolz, see, this is why they are removing this from game, people like you that are trying to make this sound soooo much more challenging than it is. at the time, he was trying to sell me on it because he used it to pay for his 8 toons. he stopped playing because he didnt want to buy plexs to pay for them anymore and all the other stuff he was doing in game.
but no, you don't realize i knew all this did you?
no i dont have a pitch fork, honestly, you didn't impact me much in the game to be honest. none of you did. but what you are doing is wrong. so what if scamming goes on in jita all the time, and there are several alliances that are like go do as much scamming as possible, your best tears will be featured in our posts on our forums, the highest number of scams gets even more isk for the winning amount of tears shed!!!
anywho.. yeah, your mad and since im talking your going to yell as much as you can at me to get over this denial you have, the anger, which is stage one of the grieving process in losing something so near and dear to you..
i'm sorry for your losses...
i know it cuts deep into your bottom line guys, but you have to think of the good that's going to come from all of this. |
Garadim
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:44:10 -
[2189] - Quote
To me, this sound like a very good step in the right direction and i am very pleased about this change of attitude from CCP regarding the people who clearly abuse the game mechanic to gain in a vicious way against others.
Since i play Eve Online i have never, ever, read anything that please me so much than this and i just can wish CCP will enforce this for real.
Please clarify this to me:
I have 2 alt account i use for mining and hauling, and also to sell my ores. If i understand the policy correctly, i will be able to keep using them at the same time correct ? Each time i do something i use ALT - TAB to switch between them and see the corresponding screen. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4430
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:44:37 -
[2190] - Quote
Eryn Velasquez wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Eryn Velasquez wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:More people need to have the balls to do this. Lately it really does seem that CCPs direction is "solve issues that whining carebears complain about" and it's completely understandable why people don't want to stick around to watch that trainwreck, but not enough people actually biomass and say "**** you CCP". I totally agree. Would be nice if all those cheaters would. Using software confirmed by CCP explicitly as being within the rules is not cheating. No matter how many times you say it won't make it fact. Try after January 1st. Until then i applaud every ISBox mutlibroadcasting Toon who gets biomassed. And after January the 1st, you won't see multibroadcasters any more than you see other EULA violators. Accusing everyone who uses it right now of cheating is still wrong though.
I really can't wait for January 1st though, when you'll see just as many multiboxers and start shrieking at the top of your lungs. Most people that use isboxer treat broadcasting as a bonus, not as the core reason to use it. The main benefit is quickly seeing and switching between clients, which will still be allowed.
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
4430
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:52:08 -
[2191] - Quote
[quote=Verde Minatorhe used skypes' "share screens" function. he showed me every single thing he did including the window layout on his monitor. with 6 toons to do that with and one orca and one rorqual setup. 8 total. that included warping them to an asteroid field, setting up, using the roid scanner to tell if a single rock was done adn to stop all lasers, broadcast, target, shoot the roid, jettison, and pick up...[/quote]You seem to still not understand what Nolak was saying. I'll try to be as clear as I can since you seem to be having trouble understanding.
ISBoxer does NOT work out of the box for EVE. You have to set it up, arranging all of your window layouts, character groupings, hotkeys, processor schedules FPS limitations, etc. Being shown someone undocking a mining fleet does not show you all of the steps it takes to get to that point. Clearly you don;t even understand what ISBoxer does, so how about you go and educate yourself or failing that you just shush. I have no issues with people who know what they are talking about having their opinions, but people who don't know the first thing about the subject should either learn or leave.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
287
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:53:05 -
[2192] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Nolak, your posting makes you come across as someone who believes that the ban of input broadcasting/multiplexing kills multiboxing in EVE. It doesn't. You don't need to use ISBoxer to multibox in EVE. It doesn't even eliminate the use of ISBoxer in EVE. In fact, some people are eagerly anticipating the feature that Lax (the developer of ISBoxer) is going to put in that sets the default setting for input broadcasting to "OFF" for EVE, since that's the first thing they change.
Alt tabbing between two accounts does not an ISBoxer make you. In my small group (around twelve of us or so), there is not a single one who's anticipating the input broadcasting switch.
CCP is removing a feature that does not let you stand up from your keyboard and leave while it continues to perform actions under the misguided banner of anti-bot activity. Removing input broadcasting for multiboxers adds a layer of complication that we are not willing to put up with.
If CCP attempted to add a randomized 4-digit code that a player must enter whenever he wants to drop a bomb, I can just about guarantee you that bombers would see a sharp decline in usage numbers.
CCP has added our version of this 4 digit code, and we are pushing back because it is an unnecessary brought about from a vocal minority of people who are the kind of people who scream "omg hax" every time they die in a FPS. We are asking CCP to not change the software (or netcode, for you COD players) to punishus simply because someone feels threatened by our way of playing. |
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:53:41 -
[2193] - Quote
i wonder who's gonna get war decced lolz, probably me. doesn't matter, just because i have something doesn't mean i fly it all the time. could always bring smartbombs and fof missiles in the hold, constantly fly at least one scorpion with ewar decced out..
ehh, who cares.. might as well pull out the scrub boats, can still make as much isk in those as normal, and after the next patch podding wont matter either.. wont serve much in the way of tears, only to pad kill boards.
but yeah, guaranteed to be war decs so lets see who gets war decced!! |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4430
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:54:52 -
[2194] - Quote
Garadim wrote:To me, this sound like a very good step in the right direction and i am very pleased about this change of attitude from CCP regarding the people who clearly abuse the game mechanic to gain in a vicious way against others.
Since i play Eve Online i have never, ever, read anything that please me so much than this and i just can wish CCP will enforce this for real. OK. Why?
What is it exactly you think is going to change for the better?
Garadim wrote:Please clarify this to me:
I have 2 alt account i use for mining and hauling, and also to sell my ores. If i understand the policy correctly, i will be able to keep using them at the same time correct ? Each time i do something i use ALT - TAB to switch between them and see the corresponding screen. You will be able to continue doing this. You should however know that mining like that is pretty much the worst choice of playstyle in EVE.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:56:42 -
[2195] - Quote
hold on, are you telling me i dont know what i saw? you are. hilarious. truly, hilarious.
yeah, he showed me all that. he isn't just gonna go, oh look at this der der der.. nah man. apparently you are just saying whatever and telling me to go educate myself when i have.
anywho. so i dont know what im talking about.
let's just agree to disagree
|
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 18:04:37 -
[2196] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:hold on, are you telling me i dont know what i saw? you are. hilarious. truly, hilarious.
yeah, he showed me all that. he isn't just gonna go, oh look at this der der der.. nah man. apparently you are just saying whatever and telling me to go educate myself when i have.
anywho. so i dont know what im talking about.
let's just agree to disagree
yes lets agree that you have no real knowledge of the software discussed and only have seen others do it (comfirmed by yourself)
We can agree to that.
goodbye sweet price o/
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4430
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 18:05:41 -
[2197] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:hold on, are you telling me i dont know what i saw? you are. hilarious. truly, hilarious.
yeah, he showed me all that. he isn't just gonna go, oh look at this der der der.. nah man. apparently you are just saying whatever and telling me to go educate myself when i have.
anywho. so i dont know what im talking about.
let's just agree to disagree No, I'm saying what you saw was the result, not the effort being put in to set it up. Once it is set up, you can just log on and go, that what he showed you. You don't even know how ISBoxer works, you've just jumped in crying at people because you think that this change is will punish people for being smarter than you are. The thing is, they are smarter than you, so they'll adapt. Any competent multiboxer will not be put off by this change. Sure it'll be extra effort, but will still be worthwhile.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
287
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 18:06:30 -
[2198] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:hold on, are you telling me i dont know what i saw? you are. hilarious. truly, hilarious.
yeah, he showed me all that. he isn't just gonna go, oh look at this der der der.. nah man. apparently you are just saying whatever and telling me to go educate myself when i have.
anywho. so i dont know what im talking about.
let's just agree to disagree
No, we're saying you saw, at best, the equivalent of a few deleted scenes from the Blair Witch film and not "The Making of" of LOTR. Stop comparing the two. |
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
6849
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 18:09:20 -
[2199] - Quote
Recyclers wrote:Im Done! Feels good... No one gets my stuff or tunes. Thanks CPP. U guys have fun bantering about my post. Don't care as once this post is done i will biomass this last character and get on with my life. Characters BiomassedFeels goooooood.
It's bad enough that people call their characters 'toons', but you took it one step further and even managed to **** that up with this fine title for your video: Biomass of $3000 US dollars worth of Tunes and assets.
I'd have though you were protesting the Apple based music store if I just saw that in passing.
It's like the internet is a secret government conspiracy to either find and catalog stupid people or find and remove I.Q. points from the general population by some nefarious hypnotic suggestion.
Mr Epeen
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 18:12:46 -
[2200] - Quote
uh huh... sooo all this screen resolution stuff where he moved stuff around on the screen, he showed me where he had to configure the clients one at a time before hand to use the memory settings adn drop everything to the lowest possible settings, set the screens up just right in order on the right hand of his screen (6 characters) then two on his left monitor which was the orca and rorqual which those two could have any layout, explained which keys to press to make the mouse follow on all six monitors and which key to press to stop that, and how he had to have the program setup before and after it ran.. you didn't catch that part in a simple explanation, you need me to spell it out for you a 4th or 5th time now?
would be a fifth time..
but then, as you put it, was very hard for you to setup this program.
all considering, i guess it would be..
so explain to me oh great one, in all extensive detail exactly how you setup this cheat program so that you could do what with it? how did you handle your multitude of accounts, how did you have your one monitor in use, how did you setup your graphics card settings, your memory tweaks and over clocking of your processor, or what all did it entail for you to run this full blown extensive cheat program that we dont understand the complications of.
im really truly wanting to hear more of your great intellect into this. would you entertain us with a story time about your epic adventures into the all powerful isboxer program? story time! story time! |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
287
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 18:25:51 -
[2201] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:uh huh... sooo all this screen resolution stuff where he moved stuff around on the screen, he showed me where he had to configure the clients one at a time before hand to use the memory settings adn drop everything to the lowest possible settings, set the screens up just right in order on the right hand of his screen (6 characters) then two on his left monitor which was the orca and rorqual which those two could have any layout, explained which keys to press to make the mouse follow on all six monitors and which key to press to stop that, and how he had to have the program setup before and after it ran.. you didn't catch that part in a simple explanation, you need me to spell it out for you a 4th or 5th time now?
Again, in the simplest terms I can explain:
Your buddy has an old Motorola Razer. He shows it to you, and you think "Man, that's cool, but I'll stick with my Nokia 3310."
You turn on the TV, and see the brand new iPhone 6 for $850. You ask "Why does it cost $850 when my 3310 cost $20?"
Now, you have 3 choices:
1) Write a letter to the government demanding that they force Apple to sell you an iPhone for $20 with the simple argument that since the 3310 cost $20, so should the iPhone.
2) You accept that some people buy the iPhone because of the measurable bonuses it provides over a 3310, and you live and let live. You do not engage in a conversation with the person from 1.
3) You research the differences between the iPhone and the 3310, comparing what they can do, their hardware, and their software. You look at the cost of the hardware in the iPhone, and the cost of the hardware in the 3310. You look at the software as well. The differences become obvious. You don't buy an iPhone, but you are now informed as to why there is a price gap for the next time some yahoo stands in front of the White House with a paper sign demanding $20 iPhone 6's.
Hint: the correct choice would be 3, but 2 is acceptable.
e: Also, every time you call ISBoxer a "cheat program" you demonstrate your ignorance yet again. |
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 18:33:39 -
[2202] - Quote
im going to go with option 4, this isn't a phone, this is a game, where there are rules. so if say, you want to circumvent those rules until eve has come along and fixed them and now you are doing option 1 and we are all telling you that you were wrong to begin with, you are the problem, and you are desperately trying to convince the player base and hopefully the devs to go back on their decisions.
honestly. i think there was a post that one of the devs put up about the standalone eve server with picasso's dead bull head and wine bottle being replaced by a mine craft server that was a link to rorshack, you guys don't seem to get it, im not locked in here with you, you're all locked in here with me!!!!!!!!!
this is where they are sitting back and laughing at you... letting the player base take it's toll on you, just like they let scammers, smacktalkers, morally corrupt deals, and completely reprehensible things go on in the sandbox and find that the complete chaos somehow brings them a more peaceful lullaby than someone reading strawberry shortcake to their kids at night when they sleep...
anywho, any way you roll the dice, it was cheating if they are loaded dice, which is what you had, and your getting upset now because you are told that your loaded dice can't be used now even though you were getting away with it on a technicality. |
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
42
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 18:36:57 -
[2203] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:uh huh... sooo all this screen resolution stuff where he moved stuff around on the screen, he showed me where he had to configure the clients one at a time before hand to use the memory settings adn drop everything to the lowest possible settings, set the screens up just right in order on the right hand of his screen (6 characters) then two on his left monitor which was the orca and rorqual which those two could have any layout, explained which keys to press to make the mouse follow on all six monitors and which key to press to stop that, and how he had to have the program setup before and after it ran.. you didn't catch that part in a simple explanation, you need me to spell it out for you a 4th or 5th time now?
would be a fifth time..
but then, as you put it, was very hard for you to setup this program.
all considering, i guess it would be..
so explain to me oh great one, in all extensive detail exactly how you setup this cheat program so that you could do what with it? how did you handle your multitude of accounts, how did you have your one monitor in use, how did you setup your graphics card settings, your memory tweaks and over clocking of your processor, or what all did it entail for you to run this full blown extensive cheat program that we dont understand the complications of.
im really truly wanting to hear more of your great intellect into this. would you entertain us with a story time about your epic adventures into the all powerful isboxer program? story time! story time!
thank you for explaining again, you just gave a full expo on the basic things you can do with isboxer.. as said before yet you fail to understand, there is more to isboxer than that.
ask your friend to make a setup where you control 3 groups of miners, have a 200 by 200pix window that shows your orca tractor beams and all active windows just for giggles. Add another window to lock the broadcasted jetcans. Then another window that gives you the option to 1) align each group 2) align serpeate groups 3) assist your drones from the mining ships to the orca while NOT alt tabbing to your mining.
This can all be controlled out of the orca client.
> Add a window that gives you full control over overview, modules, warpmenus in an extra window because sometimes you need to control 1 client at the time right
Group 1 2 and 3 have differend mining crystals and are focusing differend ore all the time...
This to reduce the 7 alt tabs and saving you 7 alt tabs... nobody likes alt tabbing..
To top it off, add an option to remove all alts out of their groups so you can exclude them one by one and arrange them in any other group on the fly?
AND ask your friend to now chang his setup so no broadcasting is used, just smart use of the functions that isboxer has to offer...
To add... make your friend add the option to lock all groups together including the orca pilot incase you have a friend willing to boost haul for you...
ALL while beeing able to reduce your graphis on the mining alts and boosting full graphics on your main so you can enjoy the beauty of eve all the time. And not 2 out of 7 alt tabs while cyclilng through your clients and beeing pulled out of illusion of 3_3 this univers looks great, we cant all run super GPUs sadly.
I have made this setup for a friend, he has a crap pc but enjoys industry, he now runs a full graphic client with 4 extras... he enjoys all explosions (ty CODE) and sees the game potential with everything on... before that he ran 5 low settings and arranged the windows on 3 screens.. and hadn't seen any graphics and sound for a year... (eve has sound.... yes shocking... he was stunned when he loaded up the setup)
What most are trying to say here, you can do it with alttabing yes, but it's more enjoyable having to not alt tab and have the same result.
i'm actualy willing to put a bet on this, chribba insured, i'll give you 1 day? because you know how to do this man.. we know you do... and it doesn't take you more then 5hrs...
put up or shuttup
I await your troll answer... you have atleast 19 hrs to install it? and 5 to do the setup..
name a price, pm skype name and time that you will start building this setup.. i want to watch you do this so i can learn from the master.. I will contact chribba to setup the deal...
o7 fungu |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2475
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 18:47:16 -
[2204] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: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!"
Nonsense. You are using a completely illogical argument to try and save your own automation. You are essentially relying on a slippery slope argument. Now maybe if we had a significant number of people complaining about multiboxing you might have something...but funnily enough the only people complaining about multiboxing...are the soon to be ex-ISBoxers. Curious that.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 18:50:14 -
[2205] - Quote
how about, i don't waste my time on something that's going to be bannable in less than 32 days? does that sound fair? how about instead... you go buy a few more monitors, like i have had to do, 30$ a pop from the pawn shop, or about 15$ from a second hand store, you run each client on the different monitor on fixed window mode, set each setting to memory, then drop all the settings, turn off the music, and increase graphics slowly. the monitor the taskbar is on, yeah when yoru mouse moves to the next screen and clicks it shows up so you dont alt tab. but you didnt know that did you? since everyone is concerned about alt tabbing, that right there is put up or shut up time considering you are about out of time to use your current setup. i run 4 monitors, i used to only have a radeon 6850 1gb ddr5 and a pos low profile 6450, the 6450 i bought for 30$, the radeon r9 270 i have now i bought for 80$ on ebay.. since no one has all this money laying around but yet they can afford to pay for 8 - 80 clients of eve with real money (since yall keep stating u do that now) lets say since ur gonna cut back for a month or so, that's at least another video card and a little bit of scrounging to get a couple new screens..
since you seem to know your way around isboxer, this setup should be quite simple. in each client of eve, you need to specify the monitor and gpu it will be displayed on, dont forget the fixed window now, and the resolution that monitor has. since you say you have such crappy computers, this will reduce lag at least 4 fold since the monitor/gpu thread will now be dedicated to that fixed window and allow your mouse to continue outside of the window without minimizing it. for laptop users, you can also do this, it takes some fiddling around with in your screen resolution which you can get to in windows after you plug the monitors in by right clicking your desktop.
since you want to bet me isk or whatever, nah, im not going to waste my time on something like this.. even though i know i could do it, i have two r9 270's, 4 monitors, 12 gigs of ddr5 1600 mhz memory, a quad core phenom 2 black edition 955 3.2 ghz processor, and honestly, yes i have 5 clients of eve installed on my computer per eula rules to have one copy of eve per active account logged in at any given time.
so, since i have my hardware out there, it's quite unnecessary for me to waste time doing something that will be defunct very shortly. and no, i don't have to alt tab. i also usually have several tabs of firefox running while watching netflix and talking to my fiance on skype..
but hey, whatever..
i just told you how to adapt. your welcome. oh, don't forget, only hdmi and dvi-d capable monitors can attach to the dvi-d ports on the video cards, vga and up can attach to the dvi-i adapters throught he use of a passive dvi-i to vga or up adapter, dvi-d adapters are much different and they can not and will not put a signal into a vga monitor even if u get a passive adapter, have already learned that the hard way. just trying to help. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2475
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 18:52:21 -
[2206] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Verde Minator wrote:hold on, are you telling me i dont know what i saw? you are. hilarious. truly, hilarious.
yeah, he showed me all that. he isn't just gonna go, oh look at this der der der.. nah man. apparently you are just saying whatever and telling me to go educate myself when i have.
anywho. so i dont know what im talking about.
let's just agree to disagree No, I'm saying what you saw was the result, not the effort being put in to set it up. Once it is set up, you can just log on and go, that what he showed you. You don't even know how ISBoxer works, you've just jumped in crying at people because you think that this change is will punish people for being smarter than you are. The thing is, they are smarter than you, so they'll adapt. Any competent multiboxer will not be put off by this change. Sure it'll be extra effort, but will still be worthwhile.
Lucas,
I find the "effort" argument to be particularly inane. I'm sure botting takes effort to set up. So the "effort" argument does what exactly? Nothing.
And why must you assume people who don't use it are dumb? Very condescending of you. Here is another possibility, people who don't use ISBoxer don't have the time to figure it out, but still multibox or maybe they don't need it (two screens and PC of a high enough quality to handle 2-3 clients at a time). Still, some aspects of ISBoxer (e.g., broadcasting) have been deemed to be pretty much like using macros....which as I note also take time to set up.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2475
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 18:55:58 -
[2207] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Verde Minator wrote:uh huh... sooo all this screen resolution stuff where he moved stuff around on the screen, he showed me where he had to configure the clients one at a time before hand to use the memory settings adn drop everything to the lowest possible settings, set the screens up just right in order on the right hand of his screen (6 characters) then two on his left monitor which was the orca and rorqual which those two could have any layout, explained which keys to press to make the mouse follow on all six monitors and which key to press to stop that, and how he had to have the program setup before and after it ran.. you didn't catch that part in a simple explanation, you need me to spell it out for you a 4th or 5th time now? Again, in the simplest terms I can explain: Your buddy has an old Motorola Razer. He shows it to you, and you think "Man, that's cool, but I'll stick with my Nokia 3310." You turn on the TV, and see the brand new iPhone 6 for $850. You ask "Why does it cost $850 when my 3310 cost $20?" Now, you have 3 choices: 1) Write a letter to the government demanding that they force Apple to sell you an iPhone for $20 with the simple argument that since the 3310 cost $20, so should the iPhone. 2) You accept that some people buy the iPhone because of the measurable bonuses it provides over a 3310, and you live and let live. You do not engage in a conversation with the person from 1. 3) You research the differences between the iPhone and the 3310, comparing what they can do, their hardware, and their software. You look at the cost of the hardware in the iPhone, and the cost of the hardware in the 3310. You look at the software as well. The differences become obvious. You don't buy an iPhone, but you are now informed as to why there is a price gap for the next time some yahoo stands in front of the White House with a paper sign demanding $20 iPhone 6's. Hint: the correct choice would be 3, but 2 is acceptable. e: Also, every time you call ISBoxer a "cheat program" you demonstrate your ignorance yet again.
Actually, it is more like ISBoxers have managed to acquire market power and get economic (unearned) rents. Then the government (CCP) comes along and says, "Nope." Then you complain about the loss of your economic rents.
Nice try though.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
287
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:02:09 -
[2208] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Actually, it is more like ISBoxers have managed to acquire market power and get economic (unearned) rents. Then the government (CCP) comes along and says, "Nope." Then you complain about the loss of your economic rents. Nice try though.
Your argument makes sense if we take a leap of logic the size of a titan, and assume that we get some special module, implant, or treatment from CCP for multiboxing. Since we don't, your argument is invalid and deserves to be mocked. |
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
42
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:03:17 -
[2209] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:how about, i don't waste my time on something that's going to be bannable in less than 32 days? does that sound fair? how about instead... you go buy a few more monitors, like i have had to do, 30$ a pop from the pawn shop, or about 15$ from a second hand store, you run each client on the different monitor on fixed window mode, set each setting to memory, then drop all the settings, turn off the music, and increase graphics slowly. the monitor the taskbar is on, yeah when yoru mouse moves to the next screen and clicks it shows up so you dont alt tab. but you didnt know that did you? since everyone is concerned about alt tabbing, that right there is put up or shut up time considering you are about out of time to use your current setup. i run 4 monitors, i used to only have a radeon 6850 1gb ddr5 and a pos low profile 6450, the 6450 i bought for 30$, the radeon r9 270 i have now i bought for 80$ on ebay.. since no one has all this money laying around but yet they can afford to pay for 8 - 80 clients of eve with real money (since yall keep stating u do that now) lets say since ur gonna cut back for a month or so, that's at least another video card and a little bit of scrounging to get a couple new screens..
since you seem to know your way around isboxer, this setup should be quite simple. in each client of eve, you need to specify the monitor and gpu it will be displayed on, dont forget the fixed window now, and the resolution that monitor has. since you say you have such crappy computers, this will reduce lag at least 4 fold since the monitor/gpu thread will now be dedicated to that fixed window and allow your mouse to continue outside of the window without minimizing it. for laptop users, you can also do this, it takes some fiddling around with in your screen resolution which you can get to in windows after you plug the monitors in by right clicking your desktop.
since you want to bet me isk or whatever, nah, im not going to waste my time on something like this.. even though i know i could do it, i have two r9 270's, 4 monitors, 12 gigs of ddr5 1600 mhz memory, a quad core phenom 2 black edition 955 3.2 ghz processor, and honestly, yes i have 5 clients of eve installed on my computer per eula rules to have one copy of eve per active account logged in at any given time.
so, since i have my hardware out there, it's quite unnecessary for me to waste time doing something that will be defunct very shortly. and no, i don't have to alt tab. i also usually have several tabs of firefox running while watching netflix and talking to my fiance on skype..
but hey, whatever..
i just told you how to adapt. your welcome. oh, don't forget, only hdmi and dvi-d capable monitors can attach to the dvi-d ports on the video cards, vga and up can attach to the dvi-i adapters throught he use of a passive dvi-i to vga or up adapter, dvi-d adapters are much different and they can not and will not put a signal into a vga monitor even if u get a passive adapter, have already learned that the hard way. just trying to help.
cool story, but yes i have ran eve this way for several years- and still can ... but the argument you started was that isboxer is easy and you fully understood the functions it offers...
and to be clear, you can still use the setup i describbed after 1jan2015... without multibroadcasting beause well that would be a bannable offense... and it still allows for 20/30 miners to be spread over my 6monitors...
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2475
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:03:29 -
[2210] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:I find the "effort" argument to be particularly inane. I'm sure botting takes effort to set up. So the "effort" argument does what exactly? Nothing. If you read in context you'll see that Verde was complaining about how easy it is to use, and I was pointing out that it wasn't as easy as suggested. Teckos Pech wrote:And why must you assume people who don't use it are dumb? Very condescending of you. I didn;t. I insinuated that someone that couldn't comprehend being told something that many times and still proceeded to whine about a piece of software they have never used is dumb. Teckos Pech wrote:Here is another possibility, people who don't use ISBoxer don't have the time to figure it out, but still multibox or maybe they don't need it (two screens and PC of a high enough quality to handle 2-3 clients at a time). Still, some aspects of ISBoxer (e.g., broadcasting) have been deemed to be pretty much like using macros....which as I note also take time to set up. Actually, they have not been deemed to be macros. Go read the OP. They are in a separate category called input broadcast/mutliplexing. That whole category itself will be banned going forward, because rather than fix they gameplay mechanics that allow broadcasting to work so well, CCP would prefer to nuke a single playstyle and watch the terrible mining and bombing mechanics run on, because it satisfies the vocal minority for a month or so.
I have read the OP, and they are talking about the very same part of the EULA that pertains to macros and various types of hardware. So yes, they are treating the broadcast features as essentially being macros. A macro that allows for activation of multiple modules in a single client or a single module across multiple clients, it is a distinction without much meaning.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2475
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:06:23 -
[2211] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Actually, it is more like ISBoxers have managed to acquire market power and get economic (unearned) rents. Then the government (CCP) comes along and says, "Nope." Then you complain about the loss of your economic rents. Nice try though. Your argument makes sense if we take a leap of logic the size of a titan, and assume that we get some special module, implant, or treatment from CCP for multiboxing. Since we don't, your argument is invalid and deserves to be mocked.
While CCP does not object to multiboxing if a player decides to go that route CCP is insisting that they not macro like the guy with a single client. Seems reasonable to me. Broadcasting is not unlike having a macro that activates multiple modules in a single client. It allows a player to do something that is nearly physically impossible. Can a person turn on both mid slot and low slot modules simultaneous...not without a macro. Can a player turn on a given module across multiple clients simultaneously....not without a macro.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2475
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:07:53 -
[2212] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote: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!" Nonsense. You are using a completely illogical argument to try and save your own automation. You are essentially relying on a slippery slope argument. Now maybe if we had a significant number of people complaining about multiboxing you might have something...but funnily enough the only people complaining about multiboxing...are the soon to be ex-ISBoxers. Curious that. Nonsense. People are currently crying at CCP because they lost a 20b Providence to an ISBoxer ganker and are trying desperately to make the argument that they would not have been ganked if ISBoxing wasn't a thing. I've seen more people complain about the local CODE monkey who constantly bumps people in belts and tries to sell "mining permits" in their relatively short lifespan than I ever have of people complaining about ISBoxer in my three years of playing. But CCP *is* gutting it's revenue stream. There are some multiboxers such as myself that didn't PLEX their accounts ever because we wanted to support the game. To take away a significant chunk of the demand of a product and then claiming "We will still sell the same amount / make the same profit" is ludicrous to say the least.
Complaining about ISBoxer is not complaining about multiboxing in and of itself. It is complaining about a subset of the multiboxing community that is, when you get right down to it, using macros.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
287
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:08:07 -
[2213] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:I have read the OP, and they are talking about the very same part of the EULA that pertains to macros and various types of hardware. So yes, they are treating the broadcast features as essentially being macros. A macro that allows for activation of multiple modules in a single client or a single module across multiple clients, it is a distinction without much meaning.
Except CCP distinguishes two types of macros:
Macro 1 presses F1-F8 when you push the macro key. This is allowed by CCP.
Macro 2 presses F1-F8 and waits for a response from EVE/server. When that response is received, it decides what to do next, and does it. This is not allowed as this is closer to a bot than a simple keybind. |
Madd Adda
UEASC Technologies
Black Thorne Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:08:45 -
[2214] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Simple answer: No. One
But CCP *is* gutting it's revenue stream. There are some multiboxers such as myself that didn't PLEX their accounts ever because we wanted to support the game. To take away a significant chunk of the demand of a product and then claiming "We will still sell the same amount / make the same profit" is ludicrous to say the least.
The thing is, even if you were to plex, you are supporting the game. People buy plex to sell with real money. That money goes to CCP, and you get game time. Now that you and a lot of other multiboxers are either gone or reducing in number of accounts, there's more for the rest of us, and can now pick up the slack. Revenue stream might be hurt, but it won't be catastrophic. |
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:08:57 -
[2215] - Quote
so let me get this straight, you want me to setup a complete mining fleet setup with isboxer to do what is going to be bannable, just to see if i can do it to what, waste my time? lolz because that's all it is, a complete waste of time. as you stated in your thorough and long winded post, my friend showed me, and i found it to be morally reprehensible for myself to do something like that. morals, in eve? yes, people in eve have morals, maybe not the likes of which you have seen, but there are. and many people like to use them, i myself for one. and several people i play with do as well, same with the new players, until they get turned into crazed isk hungry agents of chaos.. but some men just like to watch the world burn... |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
287
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:10:37 -
[2216] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Broadcasting is not unlike having a macro that activates multiple modules in a single client. It allows a player to do something that is nearly physically impossible. Can a person turn on both mid slot and low slot modules simultaneous...not without a macro.
uw0tm8? Take modules. Assign them to highslots 1-8. Using both hands. press F1-F8 at the same time.
TADA.
Attempting to compare that to a bot that does not require human interaction whatsoever is absurd. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2475
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:11:45 -
[2217] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:I have read the OP, and they are talking about the very same part of the EULA that pertains to macros and various types of hardware. So yes, they are treating the broadcast features as essentially being macros. A macro that allows for activation of multiple modules in a single client or a single module across multiple clients, it is a distinction without much meaning. Except CCP distinguishes two types of macros: Macro 1 presses F1-F8 when you push the macro key. This is allowed by CCP. Macro 2 presses F1-F8 and waits for a response from EVE/server. When that response is received, it decides what to do next, and does it. This is not allowed as this is closer to a bot than a simple keybind.
A macro that duplicates an existing function in game is likely not going to result in a problem with CCP. So pointing to this is irrelevant and errant nonsense.
Note I was talking about not just activating F1-F8, but something like F1-F8 (step 1) AND say CTRLF1-CTRLF3 (step 2) at the same instant...that would be illegal game play as CCP expects people to do those two steps seperately.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
287
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:13:00 -
[2218] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Simple answer: No. One
But CCP *is* gutting it's revenue stream. There are some multiboxers such as myself that didn't PLEX their accounts ever because we wanted to support the game. To take away a significant chunk of the demand of a product and then claiming "We will still sell the same amount / make the same profit" is ludicrous to say the least. The thing is, even if you were to plex, you are supporting the game. People buy plex to sell with real money. That money goes to CCP, and you get game time. Now that you and a lot of other multiboxers are either gone or reducing in number of accounts, there's more for the rest of us, and can now pick up the slack. Revenue stream might be hurt, but it won't be catastrophic.
Simple supply/demand + profit economics as explained in ECON 101.
CCP reduces the demand for PLEX. Supply remains constant. There will be a point where supply will overtake demand. Since demand is lower, people will purchase less PLEX, reducing their income. |
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:14:01 -
[2219] - Quote
false: you can not use macros, that is input automation:
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 Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing
Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game.
Going Forward
As of 15th of March 2013 we have been policing input automation based on a two-strike policy
GÇó 1st strike for input automation is a 30 day ban
GÇó 2nd strike for input automation is a permanent ban
Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy.
Based on the discussion in this area and our will to be more clear and concise with the community regarding this part of our rules, we have decided to also apply this two-strike policy to prohibited forms of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing as of January 1st 2015. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
287
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:14:23 -
[2220] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:A macro that duplicates an existing function in game is likely not going to result in a problem with CCP. So pointing to this is irrelevant and errant nonsense.
Note I was talking about not just activating F1-F8, but something like F1-F8 (step 1) AND say CTRLF1-CTRLF3 (step 2) at the same instant...that would be illegal game play as CCP expects people to do those two steps seperately.
Except that once again, it isn't as stated by CCP Devs in hundreds of threads where people ask whether or not their G600/G510/G15 are against the EULA.
CCP has repeatedly drawn a clear line between simple macros such as F1-F8 and a macro that has functionality similar to a mining bot program. |
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2475
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:14:39 -
[2221] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Broadcasting is not unlike having a macro that activates multiple modules in a single client. It allows a player to do something that is nearly physically impossible. Can a person turn on both mid slot and low slot modules simultaneous...not without a macro. uw0tm8? Take modules. Assign them to highslots 1-8. Using both hands. press F1-F8 at the same time. TADA. Attempting to compare that to a bot that does not require human interaction whatsoever is absurd.
That is not what I was talking about.
Activating F1-F8 and CTRLF1 - CTRLF3 all at the same time is not physically possible. That needs a macro.
To activate F1 across 10 clients simultaneously is also physically impossible without some sort of macro...and yes, your beloved picture is a low tech macro.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
42
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:14:47 -
[2222] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:so let me get this straight, you want me to setup a complete mining fleet setup with isboxer to do what is going to be bannable, just to see if i can do it to what, waste my time? lolz because that's all it is, a complete waste of time. as you stated in your thorough and long winded post, my friend showed me, and i found it to be morally reprehensible for myself to do something like that. morals, in eve? yes, people in eve have morals, maybe not the likes of which you have seen, but there are. and many people like to use them, i myself for one. and several people i play with do as well, same with the new players, until they get turned into crazed isk hungry agents of chaos.. but some men just like to watch the world burn...
again, you are showing us you do not understand isboxer as you think it can't be done within the rules set out by ccp...
the setup is made, adapted and you will still be annoyed by miners multiboxing (isboxing).
I myself have the optioin to go back to windowmode eve clients, or use the isboxer functions that are still allowed after 1jan2015 and not care about the rants that will trown in local when people realise their petitions come back as " no problems with that multiboxer fleet all legit"
For the giggles i could show you fixed windows, gpu and cpu settings but why waste my time right? I can still do it how i'm used to...
troll on o/
but i now must tend my alts and not waste my time
07 fungu |
Madd Adda
UEASC Technologies
Black Thorne Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:21:27 -
[2223] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Madd Adda wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Simple answer: No. One
But CCP *is* gutting it's revenue stream. There are some multiboxers such as myself that didn't PLEX their accounts ever because we wanted to support the game. To take away a significant chunk of the demand of a product and then claiming "We will still sell the same amount / make the same profit" is ludicrous to say the least. The thing is, even if you were to plex, you are supporting the game. People buy plex to sell with real money. That money goes to CCP, and you get game time. Now that you and a lot of other multiboxers are either gone or reducing in number of accounts, there's more for the rest of us, and can now pick up the slack. Revenue stream might be hurt, but it won't be catastrophic. Simple supply/demand + profit economics as explained in ECON 101. CCP reduces the demand for PLEX. Supply remains constant. There will be a point where supply will overtake demand. Since demand is lower, people will purchase less PLEX, reducing their income.
Now that's just silly, no one is going to ever stop buying plex. Either they are going stockpile it, use it for game time, or additional training queues. Even then, you assume that subscriptions are in decline because multiboxers are quitting, as if they make up the majority of the player base, but even now new players are joining (they won't necessarily stay, but some will).
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2475
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:21:40 -
[2224] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Broadcasting is not unlike having a macro that activates multiple modules in a single client. It allows a player to do something that is nearly physically impossible. Can a person turn on both mid slot and low slot modules simultaneous...not without a macro. uw0tm8? Take modules. Assign them to highslots 1-8. Using both hands. press F1-F8 at the same time. TADA. Attempting to compare that to a bot that does not require human interaction whatsoever is absurd. That is not what I was talking about. Activating F1-F8 and CTRLF1 - CTRLF3 all at the same time is not physically possible. That needs a macro. To activate F1 across 10 clients simultaneously is also physically impossible without some sort of macro...and yes, your beloved picture is a low tech macro. You heard it here first guys! From now on, we will only be able to activate one module / module group per server tick in order to eliminate the gap between people with good reflexes and people without! Yes, that is how absurd you sound.
It is impossible even with good reflexes.
You really love to take things to their absurd extreme to try and justify keeping your broadcasting, don't you.
"If they ban broadcasting...then multiboxing in general HAS to be banned next!!! Mark my words!!!! Eve is DYING!!!!"
[/sarcasm]
GMAFB
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:22:55 -
[2225] - Quote
http://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/eve-eula/ rule 2. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
287
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:23:18 -
[2226] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:I'm not going to take your word on it regarding keyboards and mice and CCP's position. I can see CCP allowing a "macro" that activates F1-FN and a seperate macro that activates CTRLF1-CTRLFN as those can be duplicated with 2 hands. But a single macro that does both? Show me a statement by CCP on that one.
See, that's the wonderful thing about this forum. You don't have to take my word for it. Take it from CCP. There's a search bar to the upper right of the window. Use it. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
287
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:26:19 -
[2227] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:It is impossible even with good reflexes. You really love to take things to their absurd extreme to try and justify keeping your broadcasting, don't you. "If they ban broadcasting...then multiboxing in general HAS to be banned next!!! Mark my words!!!! Eve is DYING!!!!" [/sarcasm] GMAFB
I love attempting to explain to uneducated half-wits how utterly dumb they sound to someone with experience on the subject.
Kinda reminds me of watching someone who has never PVP'd in their life attempt to point out mistakes made or attempts to deconstruct fits in a video by someone who has spent more than 5 years PVPing. Very entertaining. Like watching monkeys try to understand the electroshock button. |
Miomeifeng Alduin
Lithonauts Inc.
33
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:27:18 -
[2228] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:A macro that duplicates an existing function in game is likely not going to result in a problem with CCP. So pointing to this is irrelevant and errant nonsense.
Note I was talking about not just activating F1-F8, but something like F1-F8 (step 1) AND say CTRLF1-CTRLF3 (step 2) at the same instant...that would be illegal game play as CCP expects people to do those two steps seperately. Except that once again, it isn't as stated by CCP Devs in hundreds of threads where people ask whether or not their G600/G510/G15 are against the EULA. CCP has repeatedly drawn a clear line between simple macros such as F1-F8 and a macro that has functionality similar to a mining bot program. I'm not going to take your word on it regarding keyboards and mice and CCP's position. I can see CCP allowing a "macro" that activates F1-FN and a seperate macro that activates CTRLF1-CTRLFN as those can be duplicated with 2 hands. But a single macro that does both? Show me a statement by CCP on that one.
To be honest, this is splitting hairs on the other side of the fence, since you can actually change your keybinds to have all your modules for example bound to "qwer" and have those modules activate simultaneously just by slamming your head against your keyboard ;) |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2475
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:27:40 -
[2229] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Madd Adda wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Simple answer: No. One
But CCP *is* gutting it's revenue stream. There are some multiboxers such as myself that didn't PLEX their accounts ever because we wanted to support the game. To take away a significant chunk of the demand of a product and then claiming "We will still sell the same amount / make the same profit" is ludicrous to say the least. The thing is, even if you were to plex, you are supporting the game. People buy plex to sell with real money. That money goes to CCP, and you get game time. Now that you and a lot of other multiboxers are either gone or reducing in number of accounts, there's more for the rest of us, and can now pick up the slack. Revenue stream might be hurt, but it won't be catastrophic. Simple supply/demand + profit economics as explained in ECON 101. CCP reduces the demand for PLEX. Supply remains constant. There will be a point where supply will overtake demand. Since demand is lower, people will purchase less PLEX, reducing their income. Now that's just silly, no one is going to ever stop buying plex. Either they are going stockpile it, use it for game time, or additional training queues. Even then, you assume that subscriptions are in decline because multiboxers are quitting, as if they make up the majority of the player base, but even now new players are joining (they won't necessarily stay, but some will).
Most players maybe multi-boxers. I have no idea, but it may very well be that most multi-boxers are not ISBoxers and the like. ISBoxers are a subset of multiboxers. And not all ISBoxers maybe using it to strip mine systems or blitz through anomalies. And even the guys in anomalies may not be that badly off. After all with fleet warp and drone assist its not that big a ding to efficiency, IMO. Mining will likely take more of a hit, but then again ISBoxing miners have popped up in this thread saying that they don't use broadcasting to shoot the same roid as it is less efficient.
As for the PLEX market, I'm wondering if CCP did not use the timing of this announcement to help with an intervention in that market. Basically "prick the bubble". Put up some PLEX for sale at lower prices for a short sustained period and induce people into panic selling.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2475
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:28:32 -
[2230] - Quote
Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:A macro that duplicates an existing function in game is likely not going to result in a problem with CCP. So pointing to this is irrelevant and errant nonsense.
Note I was talking about not just activating F1-F8, but something like F1-F8 (step 1) AND say CTRLF1-CTRLF3 (step 2) at the same instant...that would be illegal game play as CCP expects people to do those two steps seperately. Except that once again, it isn't as stated by CCP Devs in hundreds of threads where people ask whether or not their G600/G510/G15 are against the EULA. CCP has repeatedly drawn a clear line between simple macros such as F1-F8 and a macro that has functionality similar to a mining bot program. I'm not going to take your word on it regarding keyboards and mice and CCP's position. I can see CCP allowing a "macro" that activates F1-FN and a seperate macro that activates CTRLF1-CTRLFN as those can be duplicated with 2 hands. But a single macro that does both? Show me a statement by CCP on that one. To be honest, this is splitting hairs on the other side of the fence, since you can actually change your keybinds to have all your modules for example bound to "qwer" and have those modules activate simultaneously just by slamming your head against your keyboard ;)
Heh...good idea for structure shoots.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2475
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:29:21 -
[2231] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:It is impossible even with good reflexes. You really love to take things to their absurd extreme to try and justify keeping your broadcasting, don't you. "If they ban broadcasting...then multiboxing in general HAS to be banned next!!! Mark my words!!!! Eve is DYING!!!!" [/sarcasm] GMAFB I love attempting to explain to uneducated half-wits how utterly dumb they sound to someone with experience on the subject. Kinda reminds me of watching someone who has never PVP'd in their life attempt to point out mistakes made or attempts to deconstruct fits in a video by someone who has spent more than 5 years PVPing. Very entertaining. Like watching monkeys try to understand the electroshock button.
So you can't point to an example. Duly noted.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
287
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:30:30 -
[2232] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote:Now that's just silly, no one is going to ever stop buying plex. Either they are going stockpile it, use it for game time, or additional training queues. Even then, you assume that subscriptions are in decline because multiboxers are quitting, as if they make up the majority of the player base, but even now new players are joining (they won't necessarily stay, but some will).
I said nothing about subscriptions. I was talking about raw demand. I don't have the numbers on all the multiboxers in EVE, but we had somewhere around 250 accounts in one "chat". That's 250 less PLEX being used each month. Nothing about actual subs. |
Commentus Nolen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:30:37 -
[2233] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:http://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/eve-eula/ rule 2.
Check the bottom for the last update.
Come on CCP get you act together and update you EULA to reflect your launcher capabilities.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
287
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:32:02 -
[2234] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:So you can't point to an example. Duly noted.
You didn't ask for one, or if you did, I mistook it for a rhetorical question. Ask and ye shall receive. Also, constant use of *roll eyes* makes you seem more like an airhead who ignores evidence presented, not as a person who is engaged in a debate or conversation. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2475
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:34:22 -
[2235] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Madd Adda wrote:Now that's just silly, no one is going to ever stop buying plex. Either they are going stockpile it, use it for game time, or additional training queues. Even then, you assume that subscriptions are in decline because multiboxers are quitting, as if they make up the majority of the player base, but even now new players are joining (they won't necessarily stay, but some will). I said nothing about subscriptions. I was talking about raw demand. I don't have the numbers on all the multiboxers in EVE, but we had somewhere around 250 accounts in one "chat". That's 250 less PLEX being used each month. Nothing about actual subs.
Assuming they all unsub.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Madd Adda
UEASC Technologies
Black Thorne Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:34:42 -
[2236] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:It is impossible even with good reflexes. You really love to take things to their absurd extreme to try and justify keeping your broadcasting, don't you. "If they ban broadcasting...then multiboxing in general HAS to be banned next!!! Mark my words!!!! Eve is DYING!!!!" [/sarcasm] GMAFB I love attempting to explain to uneducated half-wits how utterly dumb they sound to someone with experience on the subject. Kinda reminds me of watching someone who has never PVP'd in their life attempt to point out mistakes made or attempts to deconstruct fits in a video by someone who has spent more than 5 years PVPing. Very entertaining. Like watching monkeys try to understand the electroshock button.
That's a nice ad hominem, buddy. Condescending to others, just to make you seem like you have anymore intellect to someone that is supposedly equal to you.
|
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:35:10 -
[2237] - Quote
and again, number 9. license:
http://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/eve-eula/
LICENSE
A. Software License
Subject to the terms of the EULA, CCP grants you a limited, non-exclusive, revocable license to use the Software and its accompanying documentation solely in connection with accessing the System in order to play EVE using a single valid Account.
For each valid Account you maintain, you may install a copy of the Software on, and access the System from, a single computer or Game platform, and from a secondary computer if you so choose. You must purchase a separate license to the Software for each additional Account you register; e.g., if you have 2 Accounts, you must have 2 licensed copies of the Software. You may not use more than one Account with a single licensed copy of the Software. You may make one (1) copy of the Software for backup or archival purposes. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2475
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:39:03 -
[2238] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:So you can't point to an example. Duly noted. You didn't ask for one, or if you did, I mistook it for a rhetorical question. Ask and ye shall receive. Also, constant use of *roll eyes* makes you seem more like an airhead who ignores evidence presented, not as a person who is engaged in a debate or conversation.
I wouldn't be rolling my eyes if you could use a logical argument (i.e., no slippery slopes, no false equivalencies, false analogies, etc.)
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Madd Adda
UEASC Technologies
Black Thorne Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:40:46 -
[2239] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Madd Adda wrote:Now that's just silly, no one is going to ever stop buying plex. Either they are going stockpile it, use it for game time, or additional training queues. Even then, you assume that subscriptions are in decline because multiboxers are quitting, as if they make up the majority of the player base, but even now new players are joining (they won't necessarily stay, but some will). I said nothing about subscriptions. I was talking about raw demand. I don't have the numbers on all the multiboxers in EVE, but we had somewhere around 250 accounts in one "chat". That's 250 less PLEX being used each month. Nothing about actual subs.
which translates to 250 more plex on the market to buy, which will be scooped up by others. Demand is lower than before, but is still greater than the supply. |
Commentus Nolen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:40:53 -
[2240] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:and again, number 9. license: http://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/eve-eula/
LICENSE A. Software License Subject to the terms of the EULA, CCP grants you a limited, non-exclusive, revocable license to use the Software and its accompanying documentation solely in connection with accessing the System in order to play EVE using a single valid Account. For each valid Account you maintain, you may install a copy of the Software on, and access the System from, a single computer or Game platform, and from a secondary computer if you so choose. You must purchase a separate license to the Software for each additional Account you register; e.g., if you have 2 Accounts, you must have 2 licensed copies of the Software. You may not use more than one Account with a single licensed copy of the Software. You may make one (1) copy of the Software for backup or archival purposes.
I can assure you that no matter what the ECUA says the launcher now handles this. After you log in with your first account you click on "switch user" to log in to the next account and so on. The launcher creates a EVE.exe for each account you launch.
Like I said before CCP needs to update their ECUA. Don't believe me put up a support ticket. |
|
|
Distaa
Dain Bramage Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:48:38 -
[2241] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Verde Minator wrote:hold on, are you telling me i dont know what i saw? you are. hilarious. truly, hilarious.
yeah, he showed me all that. he isn't just gonna go, oh look at this der der der.. nah man. apparently you are just saying whatever and telling me to go educate myself when i have.
anywho. so i dont know what im talking about.
let's just agree to disagree No, I'm saying what you saw was the result, not the effort being put in to set it up. Once it is set up, you can just log on and go, that what he showed you. You don't even know how ISBoxer works, you've just jumped in crying at people because you think that this change is will punish people for being smarter than you are. The thing is, they are smarter than you, so they'll adapt. Any competent multiboxer will not be put off by this change. Sure it'll be extra effort, but will still be worthwhile.
Even the less competent Boxers like myself will adapt and thrive.
07 |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
287
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:49:00 -
[2242] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote:That's a nice ad hominem, buddy. Condescending to others, just to make you seem like you have anymore intellect to someone that is supposedly equal to you. At the same time, you don't refute anything Teckos actually says some of the time.
If I seem condescending, it because I have a very low tolerance for idiots who keep bringing up arguments I have slapped down some twenty pages ago.
Teckos keeps using some bizarre form of circular logic where he keeps repeating the same three things about how ISBoxer is somehow akin to botting, and I have grown tired of constantly proving how wrong he is.
[quote=Teckos Pech] I wouldn't be rolling my eyes if you could use a logical argument (i.e., no slippery slopes, no false equivalencies, false analogies, etc.) [/quote
1. The slippery slope argument was first brought up by an anti-boxer who made the claim that "First they use ISBoxer, then they'll be afk botting!".
2. I never used a false equiv fallacy. Again, an anti-boxer was attempting to compare a public non-shiny non-elite VG incursion group to an ISBoxer using 3b+ nightmares and lots of practice in running sites.
3. I don't believe I ever used a false analogy. Any analogies I used were in an attempt to inform the vocal few who seem to equate boxing to botting that they were not the same, or that comparing a simple mining setup to a complicated incursion or wormhole setup was itself a false equiv fallacy. |
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:53:42 -
[2243] - Quote
the underlined portion, this is stated 2 times in the eula. yes, the launcher will and has the ability to switch accounts, ur not supposed to do that. it makes u sign the eula which it states this every time u reinstall eve. basically, you can set the eve client launcher to not close after it launches a specific account, so when you close out that instance of the game, you can have the launcher switch to another account. if on your taskbar, you have the eve clients tiled, you are doing it wrong, if you have them next to each other, you are probably okay. so if you have 30 clients, you should have 30 boxs with the E on it on the task bar, each originating from it's own eve launcher which originates from it's own eve folder. per eula section 2 and 9 a. see underlined portion.
back to the subject at hand, if that were true, someone with 80 some odd clients open should have about a terabyte of hdd space dedicated to just eve online clients. purposterous i know, but it is exactly why that is in there, because this kind of thing wasn't supposed to happen in the first place, further backing up their current ruling to making this automation become illegal via game play |
Gonzo Liberace
ReallyPissedOff
Guinea Pigs
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 19:58:32 -
[2244] - Quote
Verde Minator wrote:the underlined portion, this is stated 2 times in the eula. yes, the launcher will and has the ability to switch accounts, ur not supposed to do that. it makes u sign the eula which it states this every time u reinstall eve. basically, you can set the eve client launcher to not close after it launches a specific account, so when you close out that instance of the game, you can have the launcher switch to another account. if on your taskbar, you have the eve clients tiled, you are doing it wrong, if you have them next to each other, you are probably okay. so if you have 30 clients, you should have 30 boxs with the E on it on the task bar, each originating from it's own eve launcher which originates from it's own eve folder. per eula section 2 and 9 a. see underlined portion.
back to the subject at hand, if that were true, someone with 80 some odd clients open should have about a terabyte of hdd space dedicated to just eve online clients. purposterous i know, but it is exactly why that is in there, because this kind of thing wasn't supposed to happen in the first place, further backing up their current ruling to making this automation become illegal via game play
Now you're just being dumb. |
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Sphere-of-Influence
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 20:19:31 -
[2245] - Quote
http://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/eve-eula/ section 2 and 9 a.
input automation, aka macros, scripts, input cloning, etc.
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 Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing
Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game.
Going Forward
As of 15th of March 2013 we have been policing input automation based on a two-strike policy
GÇó 1st strike for input automation is a 30 day ban
GÇó 2nd strike for input automation is a permanent ban
Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy.
Based on the discussion in this area and our will to be more clear and concise with the community regarding this part of our rules, we have decided to also apply this two-strike policy to prohibited forms of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing as of January 1st 2015.
We would like to add, however, that we will not be taking action retroactively and will only be policing this policy as of January 1st, 2015.
Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇó Activation and control of ships and modules
GÇó Navigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇó Movement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇó Interaction with other characters
Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇó EVE Online client settings
GÇó Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
GÇó The login process
NOTE: Please keep in mind that using the same password for multiple accounts as well as storing your password in a third party tool or script which helps you to automate the login process can increase the risk of account theft and hacking drastically. It is strongly recommended that you do not engage in this type of activity.
We are closely monitoring all game events for suspicious activity suggesting illicit behaviors, including Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing.
We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe.
If you are uncertain about your Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing use-case, please get in contact with us, as we would prefer to work with members of the community to come to an amicable resolution. We will also follow up this statement with further clarifications if needed, based on questions and concerns from the community.
again, this is what you signed when you first installed eve online, and henceforth every time you have installed eve or every now and then when there has been a very large patch...
the other is from the OP |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25779
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 20:20:34 -
[2246] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Simple answer: No. One
But CCP *is* gutting it's revenue stream. There are some multiboxers such as myself that didn't PLEX their accounts ever because we wanted to support the game. To take away a significant chunk of the demand of a product and then claiming "We will still sell the same amount / make the same profit" is ludicrous to say the least. The thing is, even if you were to plex, you are supporting the game. People buy plex to sell with real money. That money goes to CCP, and you get game time. Now that you and a lot of other multiboxers are either gone or reducing in number of accounts, there's more for the rest of us, and can now pick up the slack. Revenue stream might be hurt, but it won't be catastrophic.
another irl $ sub paying player here. not anymore. not paying ccp anything so they can develop your boring game.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
361
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 20:24:47 -
[2247] - Quote
I do hope that the people who are running around screaming "I quit, I quit" actually have the courage of their convictions this time around.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2476
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 20:28:37 -
[2248] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Madd Adda wrote:That's a nice ad hominem, buddy. Condescending to others, just to make you seem like you have anymore intellect to someone that is supposedly equal to you. At the same time, you don't refute anything Teckos actually says some of the time. If I seem condescending, it because I have a very low tolerance for idiots who keep bringing up arguments I have slapped down some twenty pages ago. Teckos keeps using some bizarre form of circular logic where he keeps repeating the same three things about how ISBoxer is somehow akin to botting, and I have grown tired of constantly proving how wrong he is. Teckos Pech wrote: I wouldn't be rolling my eyes if you could use a logical argument (i.e., no slippery slopes, no false equivalencies, false analogies, etc.) 1. The slippery slope argument was first brought up by an anti-boxer who made the claim that "First they use ISBoxer, then they'll be afk botting!". 2. I never used a false equiv fallacy. Again, an anti-boxer was attempting to compare a public non-shiny non-elite VG incursion group to an ISBoxer using 3b+ nightmares and lots of practice in running sites. 3. I don't believe I ever used a false analogy. Any analogies I used were in an attempt to inform the vocal few who seem to equate boxing to botting that they were not the same, or that comparing a simple mining setup to a complicated incursion or wormhole setup was itself a false equiv fallacy.
Gonna try to fix the quoting here, it got messed up. If I inaccurately attribute something to somebody, apologies.....
If I am using circular logic, point out where. Merely asserting I am is insufficient.
As for the slippery slope, arguing somebody else did it first is not justification for you to then use it.
The false equivalency is when you try to equivocate between multi-boxing and ISBoxing. The two are not the same. Or to put somewhat symbolically,
ISBoxing => Multiboxing, Multibloxing |=> ISBoxing.
To make the above concrete:
I multibox, but I don't ISBox. You, Nolak, ISBox and thus you also multibox. The two are not equivalent, but you have argued as if they are, as in this post. Specifically this part,
Quote:Nonsense. People are currently crying at CCP because they lost a 20b Providence to an ISBoxer ganker and are trying desperately to make the argument that they would not have been ganked if ISBoxing wasn't a thing.
You wrote that in response to my comment that multiboxing is expressly allowed by CCP (unlike ISBoxer and similar programs). You're comment looks very much to be attempting to draw and equivalence between ISBoxer and multiboxing.
The false analogy is the whole 10 accounts 1 ISBoxer vs. 10 players. Without rehashing that entire discussion, I noted your claims were only correct, with certainty, assuming everyone players "perfectly". Assuming more "normal" game play, as stated in the EULA, your position is very much in doubt. This is why I and others, e.g. Robert Caldera, have argued for a comparison of
1 ISBoxer 10 accounts vs. 1 Player no ISBoxer 10 accounts.
We could even refine that to:
1 ISBoxer with Broadcasting 10 accounts vs. 1 ISBoxer with no Broadcasting 10 accounts.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
kraken11 jensen
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 20:36:06 -
[2249] - Quote
As far as i have understood it when i was talking to most of my friends, they wont buy plex to so sell it for isk if it the prices going poor. ( bad) Idk, what to say. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25780
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 20:37:24 -
[2250] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:I do hope that the people who are running around screaming "I quit, I quit" actually have the courage of their convictions this time around.
not quit. farm to play for free like I should have done for a long time now. it means I'm playing more.
I need to start ganking too.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
|
|
kraken11 jensen
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 20:39:51 -
[2251] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:I do hope that the people who are running around screaming "I quit, I quit" actually have the courage of their convictions this time around. not quit. farm to play for free like I should have done for a long time now. it means I'm playing more. I need to start ganking too.
I feel ya. By the way... To be an member of goonswarm, i think you're alright :) |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25780
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 20:43:23 -
[2252] - Quote
what does that mean in english
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
287
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 20:51:20 -
[2253] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:what does that mean in english
"You aren't a ****" is what I got after google translate. |
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
361
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 21:07:30 -
[2254] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:I do hope that the people who are running around screaming "I quit, I quit" actually have the courage of their convictions this time around. not quit. farm to play for free like I should have done for a long time now. it means I'm playing more. I need to start ganking too.
I wasn't talking to you in particular Rain, and given a community the size of the GSF, I expect any multiboxers in their ranks to find this change to be annoying at worst. They always were an adaptable bunch.
I'm just tired of the whining masses that react like preschoolers when CCP does something they don't like, toss their toys out of the pram on the forums, but when the rubber meets the road they just keep on doing what they were doing while sulking in the corner and muttering under their breath. The amount of illogical arguments I have seen put forward in this discussion thread (from both sides of the table mind) would be enough to write a case study. I've seen appeals to emotion, slippery slope, appeals to tradition, false dichotomies, and a half dozen other fallacious arguments - and that's just in the last dozen pages.
I suppose I'm just being a crotchety old man, but this happens every time CCP announces changes that negatively impact a popular play style. The nano-nerf, jump fatigue, freighter slots. I expect it will happen again when they finally get around to deciding what to do about the Ishtar. I know it will happen when they finally announce their plans for Sov 3.0.
Some people support the change, other people disapprove, and we end up with a hundred page threadnaught with half the posters threatening to quit because they disagree with the change. There's no need to tell everyone on the forums - just tell your mates so they know you didn't die. By all means, go enjoy the latest BC3K - sorry, I mean Star Citizen - or LOL, or whatever other game you enjoy playing.
If you feel that strongly about it - then unsub. We don't care and we won't miss you.
But if you're going to quit, then quit expeditiously and stop being drama llamas about it.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury
|
Schneevva
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 21:13:50 -
[2255] - Quote
Thanks for saving the game (again). |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
287
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 21:17:15 -
[2256] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:I'm just tired of the whining masses that react like preschoolers when CCP does something they don't like, toss their toys out of the pram on the forums, but when the rubber meets the road they just keep on doing what they were doing while sulking in the corner and muttering under their breath. The amount of illogical arguments I have seen put forward in this discussion thread (from both sides of the table mind) would be enough to write a case study. I've seen appeals to emotion, slippery slope, appeals to tradition, false dichotomies, and a half dozen other fallacious arguments - and that's just in the last dozen pages.
I suppose I'm just being a crotchety old man, but this happens every time CCP announces changes that negatively impact a popular play style. The nano-nerf, jump fatigue, freighter slots. I expect it will happen again when they finally get around to deciding what to do about the Ishtar. I know it will happen when they finally announce their plans for Sov 3.0.
Some people support the change, other people disapprove, and we end up with a hundred page threadnaught with half the posters threatening to quit because they disagree with the change. There's no need to tell everyone on the forums - just tell your mates so they know you didn't die. By all means, go enjoy the latest BC3K - sorry, I mean Star Citizen - or LOL, or whatever other game you enjoy playing.
If you feel that strongly about it - then unsub. We don't care and we won't miss you.
Why is it that when CCP changed jump drives, freighters, nanos, people were not told they couldn't complain, while we are being told we shouldn't object, and that if we do we deserve it? What the hell? |
Eryn Velasquez
78
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 21:34:07 -
[2257] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Nonsense. People are currently crying at CCP because they lost a 20b Providence to an ISBoxer ganker and are trying desperately to make the argument that they would not have been ganked if ISBoxing wasn't a thing.
I've seen more people complain about the local CODE monkey who constantly bumps people in belts and tries to sell "mining permits" in their relatively short lifespan than I ever have of people complaining about ISBoxer in my three years of playing.
But CCP *is* gutting it's revenue stream. There are some multiboxers such as myself that didn't PLEX their accounts ever because we wanted to support the game. To take away a significant chunk of the demand of a product and then claiming "We will still sell the same amount / make the same profit" is ludicrous to say the least.
I never had any contact with code. or any hisec pseudo-pvp ganker. I'm playing 6 accounts without any cheating 3rd party software since 2008. Works absolutely fine.
It is completely irrelevant how much work you have put into the cheatingBox. You'd better had invested your time in learning how to play without crutch.
_GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á_
|
Madd Adda
UEASC Technologies
Black Thorne Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 21:40:18 -
[2258] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Why is it that when CCP changed jump drives, freighters, nanos, people were not told they couldn't complain, while we are being told we shouldn't object, and that if we do we deserve it? What the hell?
Just because you can complain doesn't mean we wish to read it. Jump Fatigue affects us all, this only affects multiboxers that input broadcast. |
Distaa
Dain Bramage Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 21:54:06 -
[2259] - Quote
Eryn Velasquez wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Nonsense. People are currently crying at CCP because they lost a 20b Providence to an ISBoxer ganker and are trying desperately to make the argument that they would not have been ganked if ISBoxing wasn't a thing.
I've seen more people complain about the local CODE monkey who constantly bumps people in belts and tries to sell "mining permits" in their relatively short lifespan than I ever have of people complaining about ISBoxer in my three years of playing.
But CCP *is* gutting it's revenue stream. There are some multiboxers such as myself that didn't PLEX their accounts ever because we wanted to support the game. To take away a significant chunk of the demand of a product and then claiming "We will still sell the same amount / make the same profit" is ludicrous to say the least.
I never had any contact with code. or any hisec pseudo-pvp ganker. I'm playing 6 accounts without any cheating 3rd party software since 2008. Works absolutely fine. It is completely irrelevant how much work you have put into the cheatingBox. You'd better had invested your time in learning how to play without crutch.
You say it's cheating but CCP says it isn't. Which one should I listen to? I gonna go with CCP on this one. I mean really they own the game and they are fine with ISBOXER being used in conjunction with THEIR game. Getta clue dude or buy one with a plex.
o7 |
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
845
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 21:55:59 -
[2260] - Quote
CCP... I'm impressed.
Less pay to win is always a good thing and yes paying for software that can replicate commands to multiple clients is paying to win.
Not today spaghetti.
|
|
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6047
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 22:04:42 -
[2261] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:I'm just tired of the whining masses that react like preschoolers when CCP does something they don't like, toss their toys out of the pram on the forums, but when the rubber meets the road they just keep on doing what they were doing while sulking in the corner and muttering under their breath. The amount of illogical arguments I have seen put forward in this discussion thread (from both sides of the table mind) would be enough to write a case study. I've seen appeals to emotion, slippery slope, appeals to tradition, false dichotomies, and a half dozen other fallacious arguments - and that's just in the last dozen pages.
I suppose I'm just being a crotchety old man, but this happens every time CCP announces changes that negatively impact a popular play style. The nano-nerf, jump fatigue, freighter slots. I expect it will happen again when they finally get around to deciding what to do about the Ishtar. I know it will happen when they finally announce their plans for Sov 3.0.
Some people support the change, other people disapprove, and we end up with a hundred page threadnaught with half the posters threatening to quit because they disagree with the change. There's no need to tell everyone on the forums - just tell your mates so they know you didn't die. By all means, go enjoy the latest BC3K - sorry, I mean Star Citizen - or LOL, or whatever other game you enjoy playing.
If you feel that strongly about it - then unsub. We don't care and we won't miss you. Why is it that when CCP changed jump drives, freighters, nanos, people were not told they couldn't complain, while we are being told we shouldn't object, and that if we do we deserve it? What the hell?
No one is saying you can't complain. Why is it that we can't call you out for how childish it is, and point out all the flaws in your position? I enjoy a good discussion about freedom of speech as the next guy, but if you've got the freedom to say something stupid, then anyone else has the freedom to criticise 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
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
361
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 22:05:34 -
[2262] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:I'm just tired of the whining masses that react like preschoolers when CCP does something they don't like, toss their toys out of the pram on the forums, but when the rubber meets the road they just keep on doing what they were doing while sulking in the corner and muttering under their breath. The amount of illogical arguments I have seen put forward in this discussion thread (from both sides of the table mind) would be enough to write a case study. I've seen appeals to emotion, slippery slope, appeals to tradition, false dichotomies, and a half dozen other fallacious arguments - and that's just in the last dozen pages.
I suppose I'm just being a crotchety old man, but this happens every time CCP announces changes that negatively impact a popular play style. The nano-nerf, jump fatigue, freighter slots. I expect it will happen again when they finally get around to deciding what to do about the Ishtar. I know it will happen when they finally announce their plans for Sov 3.0.
Some people support the change, other people disapprove, and we end up with a hundred page threadnaught with half the posters threatening to quit because they disagree with the change. There's no need to tell everyone on the forums - just tell your mates so they know you didn't die. By all means, go enjoy the latest BC3K - sorry, I mean Star Citizen - or LOL, or whatever other game you enjoy playing.
If you feel that strongly about it - then unsub. We don't care and we won't miss you. Why is it that when CCP changed jump drives, freighters, nanos, people were not told they couldn't complain, while we are being told we shouldn't object, and that if we do we deserve it? What the hell?
I'm not saying you can't complain. But if you really want to quit the game over it, then just go quietly.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury
|
ArmyOfMe
PILGRIMS
Advent of Fate
388
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 22:16:26 -
[2263] - Quote
Deletion of chars
To the guy pretending to delete chars, can you please do it on tq rather then sisi the next time?
QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
|
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
561
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 22:25:12 -
[2264] - Quote
ArmyOfMe wrote:Deletion of charsTo the guy pretending to delete chars, can you please do it on tq rather then sisi the next time?
That is TQ. Sisi currently has a different login screen. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
287
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 23:03:23 -
[2265] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:No one is saying you can't complain. Why is it that we can't call you out for how childish it is, and point out all the flaws in your position?
Except the only thing 99% of you have done is cry "hurr durr it's botting!" or take extreme examples of multiboxing (Russian carrier bots and StealthMiner fleets) and applying that to the entire spectrum of multiboxers, which is guilt by association.
Madd Adda wrote:Just because you can complain doesn't mean we wish to read it.
Then don't come here? I won't stop myself from speaking my mind simply because your feelings might get hurt.
Eryn Velasquez wrote:It is completely irrelevant how much work you have put into the cheatingBox. You'd better had invested your time in learning how to play without crutch.
Victim blaming at it's finest. |
Karana Yotosala
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 23:23:36 -
[2266] - Quote
I have to say, I find the decision to 'outlaw' key broadcasting disappointing from a personal perspective.
Whilst the ability to multibox will remain, not everyone has the dexterity to operate multiple accounts due to disability/illness/infirmity and the removal of broadcasting kind of renders multiboxing redundant for some.
It's further disappointing from a sandbox perspective.
When I was first introduced to Eve, one of the main selling points was it's open ended nature.. the ability to 'do what you want' within the parameters set. It seems that in the time I've been subbed to Eve, those parameters have been narrowed and in effect, the sandbox is shrinking.
I know that PVP is an integral part of Eve, but even so there are saddos like myself that aren't that into it and get our kicks by being part of an industrial process (mining, building etc).
This new change hampers folk like me from doing 'what I want', but as CCP define the parameters, or the boundaries of the sandbox, I have to just suck it up and accept it. C'est la vie.
Some of the reasons cited in this thread for the change in parameters though, don't hold up that well under scrutiny if that same reasoning is applied to other aspects of the game.
There are references to a 'pure game', which I perceive to mean a scenario where nobody gains an advantage through the use of key broadcasting and a fairer, more equal basis for the game is applied...a level playing field of sorts. The trouble with this kind of reasoning is that Eve is anything but fair and equal.
There are many kinds of advantage that can be brought to influence an advantage to the game. A player with a 50 mill SP pilot will have more options and possibilities than a player with a 5 mill SP pilot. A player with 10 bill isk in the bank will have more options and access to better ships/equipment than a player with 100 mill isk in the bank.
What would happen if this level playing field viewpoint was applied to SP and isk for example? Would the game be better if everyone was given a pilot with 10 mill SP to spend but it wasn't possible to advance beyond that 10 mill SP starting point?
Would the game be better if every new player was given 500 mill isk on starting the game and it was impossible to amass any more than 500 mill?
Call me cynical, but I could see that advice to HTFU disappearing rapidly if players saw their SP or isk advantages stripped away to provide a level playing field.
That's by the by though I suppose. As players, we're all ultimately at the mercy of the parameters set for the sandbox by CCP.
I do have a question for any CCP 'staff' that happen to see this, that I'd be grateful if it was answered please:
To those of us who've paid advance subs on pilots that we won't be using once the changes take effect, would CCP please consider transferring game time credits between different accounts?
I'll be going back to using just 1, maybe 2 accounts due to the outlawing of key broadcasting. This means I have advance subs paid on accounts that I won't be using. Rather than seeing that game time credit go to waste, It'd be nice if it were possible to swap that credit to the 1 or 2 accounts that I will continue to use.
Please note, this isn't a request for a refund of cash, it's a request to transfer game time credits. CCP wouldn't lose any money as it's already been paid, but it would soften the blow for folk like me that won't be able to use multiple accounts effectively due to the changes.
|
Jay Lancaster
Viziam
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 23:24:48 -
[2267] - Quote
Pretty damn sick of hearing idiots on here calling users of ISBoxer "botters".. "ISBotters" or whatever else.
All that's doing is proving the ignorance of the average forum troll hereabouts.
This thread should be closed. It's serving no purpose anymore.
CCP have changed policy, like it or not we have to live with it.
|
Jay Lancaster
Viziam
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 23:33:08 -
[2268] - Quote
Quote:
I'll be going back to using just 1, maybe 2 accounts due to the outlawing of key broadcasting. This means I have advance subs paid on accounts that I won't be using. Rather than seeing that game time credit go to waste, It'd be nice if it were possible to swap that credit to the 1 or 2 accounts that I will continue to use.
Please note, this isn't a request for a refund of cash, it's a request to transfer game time credits. CCP wouldn't lose any money as it's already been paid, but it would soften the blow for folk like me that won't be able to use multiple accounts effectively due to the changes.
This |
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
361
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 23:33:39 -
[2269] - Quote
Jay Lancaster wrote:
This thread should be closed. It's serving no purpose anymore.
That, at least, I think we can all agree on.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
361
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 23:36:45 -
[2270] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Victim blaming at it's finest.
It's a game company changing a rule about how they will allow people to play their game, ffs. The people affected by this change are not victims.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury
|
|
|
Rawthorm
D.M.T inc
Circle-Of-Two
30
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 23:37:48 -
[2271] - Quote
ArmyOfMe wrote:Deletion of charsTo the guy pretending to delete chars, can you please do it on tq rather then sisi the next time?
Might want to check those toons buddy. I believe they are now in the corp that CCP moves bio-massed toons to. Not hard to do before talking crap to someone ballsy enough to put his money where his mouth is |
Pain Time
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 00:15:42 -
[2272] - Quote
34 subs lapsed from me. 5000 I'm aware of sinking. I'm quite curious how far reaching this will be. And at the end of the day? Ccp is the real loser here in terms of value. And the way ccp does customer feedback is a main factor of why they'll most likely never reach millions of subs like other mmo. Oh and this is a game. Not terribly hard to replace. |
Pain Time
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 00:17:59 -
[2273] - Quote
For number oriented people, that's 900k usd revenue lost. Assuming 15/mo |
Pain Time
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 00:22:30 -
[2274] - Quote
On a unrelated note, anyone notice since our old economist left ccp, that they've done progressively worse? |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
77
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 00:35:58 -
[2275] - Quote
Pain Time wrote:34 subs lapsed from me. 5000 I'm aware of sinking. I'm quite curious how far reaching this will be. And at the end of the day? Ccp is the real loser here in terms of value. And the way ccp does customer feedback is a main factor of why they'll most likely never reach millions of subs like other mmo. Oh and this is a game. Not terribly hard to replace.
So if each person averaged 10-20 accounts each, that's 250-500 Inner Space licenses that will not be renewed. At $50 a year, that means Lavish Software is going to lose $12,500 - $25,000 USD in the first year.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
77
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 00:41:44 -
[2276] - Quote
Pain Time wrote:For number oriented people, that's 900k usd revenue lost. Assuming 15/mo
That's also assuming that none of the ISBoxer accounts paid with PLEX. For those that were paid for with PLEX, CCP will lose no money, as the ISK price of PLEX will decrease to the point that people will eventually be able to afford it. Since we don't know the percentage, that's a wild guess.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
288
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 00:47:57 -
[2277] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Pain Time wrote:For number oriented people, that's 900k usd revenue lost. Assuming 15/mo That's also assuming that none of the ISBoxer accounts paid with PLEX. For those that were paid for with PLEX, CCP will lose no money, as the ISK price of PLEX will decrease to the point that people will eventually be able to afford it. Since we don't know the percentage, that's a wild guess.
CCP will lose no money if they can keep each and every new account that was created in the past month as a result of the EVE trailer and the latest round of advertising.
Also, I ramble on for about 12 minutes regarding CCP and ISBoxer:
https://soundcloud.com/bugme143/where-i-ramble-on-for-twelve-minutes-about-ccp-and-isboxer
Released under the Creative COmmons Attribution 4.0 International licence. |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
77
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 00:53:15 -
[2278] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rosewalker wrote:Pain Time wrote:For number oriented people, that's 900k usd revenue lost. Assuming 15/mo That's also assuming that none of the ISBoxer accounts paid with PLEX. For those that were paid for with PLEX, CCP will lose no money, as the ISK price of PLEX will decrease to the point that people will eventually be able to afford it. Since we don't know the percentage, that's a wild guess. CCP will lose no money if they can keep each and every new account that was created in the past month as a result of the EVE trailer and the latest round of advertising. Also, I ramble on for about 12 minutes regarding CCP and ISBoxer: https://soundcloud.com/bugme143/where-i-ramble-on-for-twelve-minutes-about-ccp-and-isboxer
Released under the Creative COmmons Attribution 4.0 International licence.
Keep all of the accounts? That's not going to happen. Keep 1000? That's doable. So if only 20% of ISBoxer accounts unsubbing were paid for in RL cash, CCP has it covered.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7353
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 00:56:47 -
[2279] - Quote
More internet economists coming out now.
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'.
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
77
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 01:20:08 -
[2280] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:More internet economists coming out now.
I specialize in the secondary RMT markets, so I'm going to be looking at the effect of the input broadcast bans on that
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
|
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6048
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 01:24:57 -
[2281] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:[quote=Remiel Pollard]No one is saying you can't complain. Why is it that we can't call you out for how childish it is, and point out all the flaws in your position?
Except the only thing 99% of you have done is cry "hurr durr it's botting!" or take extreme examples of multiboxing (Russian carrier bots and StealthMiner fleets) and applying that to the entire spectrum of multiboxers, which is guilt by association.
Ignoring my other arguments doesn't mean I didn't make any.
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
6048
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 01:25:49 -
[2282] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:No one is saying you can't complain. Why is it that we can't call you out for how childish it is, and point out all the flaws in your position? Except the only thing 99% of you have done is cry "hurr durr it's botting!" or take extreme examples of multiboxing (Russian carrier bots and StealthMiner fleets) and applying that to the entire spectrum of multiboxers, which is guilt by association.
Ignoring my other arguments doesn't mean I didn't make any.
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
2477
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 01:41:17 -
[2283] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rain6637 wrote:what does that mean in english "You aren't a ****" is what I got after google translate.
Group hug now?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25792
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 01:52:46 -
[2284] - Quote
CCP Falcon, you know that comment on Reddit of yours, where you said you would prefer seeing twenty individuals rather than 20 alts. If you were serious about the RP integrity of EVE, what you would have said was you'd prefer just one running client per player. I hope you see the issue of double dipping that CCP engages in, by selling multiple accounts, without in-client support for multiple clients.
The real problem was the decision to start allowing multiple clients way back when. All that income, all that content... should never have happened.
That's what you should be speaking to, in opinion statements. Denying or ignoring or being unaware of how game-breaking multiboxing can be is just... kind of hard to believe it can happen.
Game breaking workarounds happen with as little as 2 characters. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that with a module like remote cap transfers, the amount transferred is quite a bit more than the amount required for module activation. In your ideal EVE world, two players would cap chain with each other. In reality, a player uses two characters to utilize this module and create cap from nothing. For the solo player, their options for cap are local modules like cap injects and ancillary repairs.
The disparity is even wider than that. The RR ships now have mids and lows freed up, having foregone utility roles. Utility roles which are factored in when Fozzie and Rise (whoever, I don't know who does what anymore) decide how much grid and CPU and slots etc. a ship should have.
Or do they? Do they factor in alts when balancing ships and modules? I would find it pretty amusing if Multiboxing was -so- endemic that even CCP takes it for granted, and balances around it. ...In light of this new policy change, anyway.
Something tells me there's a new shift in dogma at CCP, regarding the sanctity of the solo player. Whether that's true or not, that CCP realizes the real problem (that multiboxing happens at all), I'm sure / I'm telling you the real solution is locking players into just one client at a time.
Then you have a hope of seeing 20 individual players.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
288
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 02:06:42 -
[2285] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Ignoring my other arguments doesn't mean I didn't make any.
Ill start at the most recent and work backwards, ignoring outright insults or handwaving:
Quote:This affects everyone, not just multiboxers. It balances the game better in favour of more equal opportunity across the board for all players, removing the advantage afforded by the ability to click once to send the same command to more than one ship.
Your logic in the underlined areas is very reminiscent of the book Animal Farm, specifically this quote: GÇ£All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.GÇ¥
It does not take much to argue for this so-called equality for all (indeed, it's one of the reasons communism was so popular on paper) however the fact remains that in an attempt by a society to create equal opportunities for everyone, they will forcefully block certain people from certain activities, or impose arbitrary roadblocks for them. To quote Einstein, GÇ£[I]f you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.GÇ¥
Remiel Pollard wrote:As for dying just by virtue of flying around in a Providence, no, that's not true at all.
I was referring to the specific instances where a player would be in a freighter hauling some 20b isk of modules and implants, and would get ganked. In his haste to petition CCP and attempt to stir up sympathy and pity on Reddit or the forums he forgets to realize that, as he was hauling 20b in a freighter through highsec, he was going to get ganked by someone, as 20b is well over most group's minimum bar for risk / reward in ganks, even if said group uses Talos instead of Cats.
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.
You engage in a false comparison fallacy here when you attempt to compare a "pub" fleet of nados with mixed skills vs a fleet of dedicated ganking pilots, with maxed gunnery, targeting, and gunnery support skills, completely ignoring implants.
Remiel Pollard wrote:why should I HAVE to get multiple accounts?
This one was explained in the next post. I'll rehash.
Nobody "has" to get multiple accounts. Players acquire a second account because they want to do something in EVE that requires two characters to perform, but they do not want to bring in a random player. This can range from OGBs in FW, hauling toons for miners, cyno pilots for caps, sitting toons for supers, and PI toons for WH PVPers.
I'll stop here for now. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25792
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 02:08:39 -
[2286] - Quote
Integrity. That's what EVE stands to gain by enforcing one client at a time.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Meyr
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
364
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 02:15:24 -
[2287] - Quote
It's amazing how I keep reading that the issue isn't with broadcasting a single command across multiple clients simultaneously, but with "bomb explosion radius." Interestingly enough, this position has been almost exclusive to Goons.
Methinks thou protests overmuch, and for reasons other than what you state.
One player ganking a ship with 10 Catalysts operating under simultaneous key clicks, or operating 10 Bombers to kill POS modules, or use 20 Dreads to reinforce sov structures, is what this new rule is aimed at.
If that's you, tough. HTFU. Do what the rest of us do. Manually select a client window, or ALT/TAB between clients, and enter commands in each one.
Yes, I multibox, as many, if not most, nullsec residents do. No one is saying it's wrong. Only that you can no longer use, for instance, one 'CTRL/LEFT CLICK' to target an opponent across multiple clients, and deliver a massive alpha-strike from several ships simultaneously, all by yourself. You can still use every one of those clients and ships to attack someone, you'll just have to manually do it for each ship you're using.
Again, if that's you, tough. Stop whining, and either contract me your stuff before leaving, or adapt. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4431
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 03:41:22 -
[2288] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:I have read the OP, and they are talking about the very same part of the EULA that pertains to macros and various types of hardware. So yes, they are treating the broadcast features as essentially being macros. A macro that allows for activation of multiple modules in a single client or a single module across multiple clients, it is a distinction without much meaning. Well then read it again, because you clearly didn't get the part where there's a whole section on input broadcasting completely separate to the section on macros. If they are one and the same, there would be only one section. You're talking abut 2 completely separate things both of which will warrant a ban from January. That does not mean that input broadcasting is the same as macroing.
Teckos Pech wrote:It is impossible even with good reflexes. You are incredibly wrong. First off you can reassign hotkeys, secondly you have 2 methods of control, mouse/keyboard which you can use at the same time. Thirdly, key combo buttons (such as the ctrl+F keys set up on my G15) are within the rules as long as they run a single key combination, not a sequential macro. All of these mean that yes, you can activate pretty much every module on your ship in a single server tick.
Verde Minator wrote:the underlined portion, this is stated 2 times in the eula. yes, the launcher will and has the ability to switch accounts, ur not supposed to do that. it makes u sign the eula which it states this every time u reinstall eve. basically, you can set the eve client launcher to not close after it launches a specific account, so when you close out that instance of the game, you can have the launcher switch to another account. if on your taskbar, you have the eve clients tiled, you are doing it wrong, if you have them next to each other, you are probably okay. so if you have 30 clients, you should have 30 boxs with the E on it on the task bar, each originating from it's own eve launcher which originates from it's own eve folder. per eula section 2 and 9 a. see underlined portion.
back to the subject at hand, if that were true, someone with 80 some odd clients open should have about a terabyte of hdd space dedicated to just eve online clients. purposterous i know, but it is exactly why that is in there, because this kind of thing wasn't supposed to happen in the first place, further backing up their current ruling to making this automation become illegal via game play You don't even have half a clue what you are talking about do you? You do not need a separate EVE installation for every client you run. Feel free to petition it. The part in the EULA you are reading and getting confused about is that you need to have a licence per account, which refers back to when you used to have to pay for an actual account on top of your first month's sub where you used to be buying and actual game key. They did away with those and your account is automatically licensed the moment you pay for it.
Just FYI, ntfs hardlinks would allow you to have separate installations in separate folders but only using the hdd space of a single one. This used to be a thing that was actually done back when running an eve client multiple times created cache conflicts and locked up your machine.
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
4431
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 03:55:49 -
[2289] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:I'm just tired of the whining masses that react like preschoolers when CCP does something they don't like, toss their toys out of the pram on the forums, but when the rubber meets the road they just keep on doing what they were doing while sulking in the corner and muttering under their breath. Wait, so you're tired of people who's gameplay styles have been effectively removed complaining, yet the fact that this whole change is because a bunch of carebears have been crying because they don't understand how isboxer works, that's OK?
At the end of the day CCP are treating a symptom here. The problem is that mining is boring as sin, bombers are too powerful, and the control system is far too simple all round. Fixing that by nuking out a single playstyle isn't fixing it. It's just appealing to the entitled little brats that like to cry a lot. By February, when the multiboxers have adapted they'll be right back here whining to CCP that even more needs to be done.
Karana Yotosala wrote:I'll be going back to using just 1, maybe 2 accounts due to the outlawing of key broadcasting. This means I have advance subs paid on accounts that I won't be using. Rather than seeing that game time credit go to waste, It'd be nice if it were possible to swap that credit to the 1 or 2 accounts that I will continue to use.
Please note, this isn't a request for a refund of cash, it's a request to transfer game time credits. CCP wouldn't lose any money as it's already been paid, but it would soften the blow for folk like me that won't be able to use multiple accounts effectively due to the changes. Why? Set up your isboxer right and you can still be as effective if not slightly more effective up to about 20 chars. I've actually resubbed my old isboxer account specifically so I can ensure the crying noobs continue to cry. You can still crush their spirits without input broadcasting. I'm checking with CCP, but reading their change, using the Video FX viewers to create clickable zones for the extra windows will still be fine as long as you click each one, not all of them together. That pretty much makes input broadcasting irrelevant for any but the biggest multiboxers.
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
4431
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 04:03:12 -
[2290] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Pain Time wrote:For number oriented people, that's 900k usd revenue lost. Assuming 15/mo That's also assuming that none of the ISBoxer accounts paid with PLEX. For those that were paid for with PLEX, CCP will lose no money, as the ISK price of PLEX will decrease to the point that people will eventually be able to afford it. Since we don't know the percentage, that's a wild guess. I see someone else who doesn't understand how Plex works. Someone still needs to buy the Plex for cash. If Plex ISK values drop then less people are willing to part with their cash as the exchange rate drops, thus CCP will be receiving less income.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
77
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 04:33:51 -
[2291] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Rosewalker wrote:Pain Time wrote:For number oriented people, that's 900k usd revenue lost. Assuming 15/mo That's also assuming that none of the ISBoxer accounts paid with PLEX. For those that were paid for with PLEX, CCP will lose no money, as the ISK price of PLEX will decrease to the point that people will eventually be able to afford it. Since we don't know the percentage, that's a wild guess. I see someone else who doesn't understand how Plex works. Someone still needs to buy the Plex for cash. If Plex ISK values drop then less people are willing to part with their cash as the exchange rate drops, thus CCP will be receiving less income.
Really? The people who buy ISK are going to buy it because they don't want to grind it out themselves. So you're predicting an increase in business for the illicit ISK sellers? Truthfully, that's not a bad guess.
Of course, you're assuming that the prices on the ISK selling sites and on the forums where the independent ISK sellers hang out is low enough to become more attractive. You may have a point, with the cost of 1 billion ISK in Jita now up to around $21.25 USD. But, in my opinion, for the price to really become more attractive, the price of PLEX really needs to get to the $23/billion ISK range, or around 760 million ISK/billion.
But that's assuming that speculators don't then step in and drive the price back up. Also, that's assuming that the supply of ISK to the illicit ISK sellers doesn't get disrupted and force the price that the ISK sellers charge to rise as well. In fact, because the price of illicit ISK has been so depressed, the ISK sellers may have to raise their prices, meaning that the difference between the legal Jita price and the illicit ISK seller price won't be great enough to entice people away from Jita PLEX and toward that dirty, dirty illicit ISK.
Only time will tell, Lucas. You could be right. But the question isn't as cut and dried as you make it out to be. Personally, I'm betting the other way.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Devious Johnson
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 05:37:48 -
[2292] - Quote
LOL all these isbotter crybabys trying desperatly to find a way to squirm out of this.
that also goes for botters trying to drive a wedge by attempting to convince people that multiboxing is the same as multibotting using isboxer.
Multiboxing is subject to diminishing returns, where more clients mean less efficency per client.
Multibotting (isboxer) is not because you can control all your bots with the same efficency as the 1st client.
Give up, CCP is not going to change their mind nor are they going to ban multiboxing. Adapt or GTFO. |
BillyB0b
Flying Zebras
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 06:00:58 -
[2293] - Quote
It's still not clear to me what things are allowed ...
Using software to broadcast a single keypress to several clients is now not allowed
Having separate keys to send commands to several clients, and pressing them together with a 'hardware mod' (such as a big stick) is also now not allowed
but If I have one key to do a thing on one client, and another key to do something on another client - can I press both these keys at the same time with my hands (and if so, do they have to be pressed with separate hands or fingers?)
I can easily press a pair of keys together reliably 100 times out of 100, so I don't see how CCP would distinguish this from either broadcasting one keypress to two clients, or using a hardware mod to press two keys with one action.
Are we allowed to press more than one key* at a time in eve now? And if so how will we avoid being suspected of breaking the new rules while doing this?
[*where each key has a distinct effect in the eve universe]
It seems to me that we can still do most of the same things as before (a little less conveniently) while not breaking the new rules
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25801
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 06:16:03 -
[2294] - Quote
cancelled four annuals. began transfers to consolidate. I feel better already. Time to play with PLEX and not be so AFK
and fly for Miniluv.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2716
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 07:48:46 -
[2295] - Quote
BillyB0b wrote:It's still not clear to me what things are allowed ...
Using software to broadcast a single keypress to several clients is now not allowed
Having separate keys to send commands to several clients, and pressing them together with a 'hardware mod' (such as a big stick) is also now not allowed
but If I have one key to do a thing on one client, and another key to do something on another client - can I press both these keys at the same time with my hands (and if so, do they have to be pressed with separate hands or fingers?)
I can easily press a pair of keys together reliably 100 times out of 100, so I don't see how CCP would distinguish this from either broadcasting one keypress to two clients, or using a hardware mod to press two keys with one action.
Are we allowed to press more than one key* at a time in eve now? And if so how will we avoid being suspected of breaking the new rules while doing this?
[*where each key has a distinct effect in the eve universe]
It seems to me that we can still do most of the same things as before (a little less conveniently) while not breaking the new rules
Try it after January 15 next year and if CCP have a problem with it, they will let you know.
This is not a signature.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25809
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 08:53:37 -
[2296] - Quote
Aside from its effect, ISBoxer and key broadcasting are an example of people adapting to a need, and ingenuity.
In this post I'm not trying to say key broadcasting is good or bad. I just want to point out that if ISBoxer and key broadcasting were a solution to a need, that need is still there.
Players (being a subset of people) create things and ways to satisfy needs and wants. Other examples of this player compensation for missing aspects of this game are... player created fiction. art. RP. Maybe those are all due to excess imagination or escapism. On their own they are very frivolous, but make-believe, entertainment, and amusement are basically a video game's business. Right?
More serious examples are Evemon, EFT, Jump Planners, siggy. Things you have probably wondered why they don't exist in the client.
What I would like to see following this change are attempts at addressing the need that key broadcasting filled. Whether that means providing tools in the client (not likely, I know)... removing the means (no multiboxing), removing the reward (PLEX), or something else, I don't know.
As it stands right now, the thought process is 'more clients' -> 'more ISK' -> 'Play with PLEX.'
...But, let's be real, that probably won't change. I'll end this post with a snippet by FoxFour about the IGB, which should give you an impression similar to mine, that the need involving key broadcasting will be left hanging there, unaddressed.
CCP FoxFour wrote:Really the only question and problem with moving from the IGB to CREST is the fact that you can browse the IGB from the client versus alt-tabbing. From our, or mine anyways, understanding most of you guys have multiple monitors and that's not an issue.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Danalee
Somalian Coast Guard Authority
The Marmite Collective
979
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 09:29:41 -
[2297] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Try it after January 15 next year and if CCP have a problem with it, they will let you know.
See, and that's the only horse I have in this race personally.
Given the track record CCP has with being communicative with their clients, we'll find many customers flabbergasted when they discover - by logging in - they have been banned.
Instead of arguing about macros/input broadcasting semantics, I'd like to suggest you trolls pull together and fight to be treated as the customers you want to be instead of the scrubs (you are) CCP see you as.
D.
Psychotic Monk:
I see nothing in a bonus room that hasn't been an accepted and celebrated part of eve online basically forever and I see no reason that we should fundamentally harm the uniqueness of this game for some people who seem to have forgotten that.
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6058
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 11:18:37 -
[2298] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:...if ISBoxer and key broadcasting were a solution to a need, that need is still there.
The fact that there are plenty of players getting along just fine without it is more indicative of broadcasting being entirely optional, and therefore there is no need at all but that which some players believe there is. Belief of need is not, however, indicative of any need at all. Some people think they need a certain brand of clothing in order to survive, for example. I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard the phrase, "I couldn't live without my iPhone".
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
25832
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 11:19:05 -
[2299] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Uses for multiboxing range from scouts in PvP to gang boosting, support and ECM alts, as well as extra characters for hauling, mining and many other applications.
do those strike you as justified subscriptions for normal people?
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25832
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 11:26:44 -
[2300] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Rain6637 wrote:...if ISBoxer and key broadcasting were a solution to a need, that need is still there. The fact that there are plenty of players getting along just fine without it is more indicative of broadcasting being entirely optional, and therefore there is no need at all but that which some players believe there is. Belief of need is not, however, indicative of any need at all. Some people think they need a certain brand of clothing in order to survive, for example. I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard the phrase, "I couldn't live without my iPhone".
correct, but the hamster fell off the wheel there, at the start of my post, you should go back for it and start over.
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
6058
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 11:28:54 -
[2301] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Wall of text
You haven't presented an argument against my arguments, all you've done is attempted to dismiss them with more non sequiturs.
Out of all you wrote, there is nothing that hasn't already been addressed. You only made one point that I wish to address again with some simpler wording for the simpler minded. No, there is nothing in EVE that requires one player to have two accounts. There is a lot of stuff in EVE that encourages social interaction, however. Maybe some of you just need to get better at making friends.
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
6058
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 11:32:21 -
[2302] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Rain6637 wrote:...if ISBoxer and key broadcasting were a solution to a need, that need is still there. The fact that there are plenty of players getting along just fine without it is more indicative of broadcasting being entirely optional, and therefore there is no need at all but that which some players believe there is. Belief of need is not, however, indicative of any need at all. Some people think they need a certain brand of clothing in order to survive, for example. I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard the phrase, "I couldn't live without my iPhone". correct, but the hamster fell off the wheel there, at the start of my post, you should go back for it and start over.
I do get what you're trying to say, but once again, if there are players finding solutions to this 'need' without broadcasting, then the need still being there is irrelevant to the removal of one solution.
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
25832
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 11:32:39 -
[2303] - Quote
I play EVE because I don't have friends. jk. would you believe me if i told you all of my irl friends play EVE.
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
6060
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 11:35:03 -
[2304] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I play EVE because I don't have friends. jk. would you believe me if i told you all of my irl friends play EVE.
Actually, yes I would because apart from a girl I've been seeing and my family, all my friends exist only in EVE. I actually don't like people IRL and wouldn't like to meet any of them.
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
25832
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 11:40:47 -
[2305] - Quote
as in, the dudes i went to school with as an adolescent play EVE and they got me into it, and everyone else I know.
Remiel Pollard wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Rain6637 wrote:...if ISBoxer and key broadcasting were a solution to a need, that need is still there. The fact that there are plenty of players getting along just fine without it is more indicative of broadcasting being entirely optional, and therefore there is no need at all but that which some players believe there is. Belief of need is not, however, indicative of any need at all. Some people think they need a certain brand of clothing in order to survive, for example. I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard the phrase, "I couldn't live without my iPhone". correct, but the hamster fell off the wheel there, at the start of my post, you should go back for it and start over. I do get what you're trying to say, but once again, if there are players finding solutions to this 'need' without broadcasting, then the need still being there is irrelevant to the removal of one solution.
I'm just glad that you used the words "removal of one solution." because that's the point of the post. unlike those other optional cases, like siggy, EVEmon, EFT... this option has been removed. I'm basically in agreement with you, I didn't say it was vital to gameplay. Some players have just decided this option was a solution to something that made the game worthwhile. Beyond that, we're getting into players' personal gameplay needs, so let's just assume everyone's needs are valid. For example, the only reason I can play this game and be entertained is because a face full of clients makes my ADD happy. I'm also half Korean, and we all know what that means. Turbo nerd.
some players need certain types of gameplay to feel satisfied playing a game, Remiel. This is -all- optional. I don't key broadcast, but I can appreciate that some people are that way.
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
6060
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 11:47:15 -
[2306] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:...feel satisfied playing a game...
Some people don't feel satisfied unless they're winning at any cost, including the use of hacks and aimbots and the like. Do we really need to cater to them just for the sake of not losing customers?
In the time I've played EVE, I can't think of a change that is objectively more balancing for the game than this one.
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
25835
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 11:58:09 -
[2307] - Quote
This isn't just any game like those FPS examples where aimbots are a problem.
EVE... the game we're talking about, -enables- players to pay for multiple accounts, and -promotes- the sale of multiple accounts to players. The plug is being pulled on the most efficient method of controlling those multiple accounts. The maker of this game is now falling back on what is basically a "no refunds, product sold as-is" policy.
That is bogus because characters accumulate SP, which represents a player investment. In a game, sure, but from a business standpoint, that's a poor way to treat customers.
Am I wrong?
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4435
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 13:13:33 -
[2308] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:I do get what you're trying to say, but once again, if there are players finding solutions to this 'need' without broadcasting, then the need still being there is irrelevant to the removal of one solution. The problem is this isn't a solution to a problem. The problem still exists. Several gamplay components are crap and unbalanced. Broadcasting is imply being used as a scapegoat because the lower IQ crowd will act exactly as they have and cheer as if this will drastically change the game when the reality is the impact will be minimal.
Remiel Pollard wrote:In the time I've played EVE, I can't think of a change that is objectively more balancing for the game than this one. Then you are incredibly special. Nothing will be balanced by this change. Basically the biggest multiboxers will have to scale down and the rest will add a few clicks. The industry changes are just one recent change which actually balanced out part of the game. Input broadcasting was just iscing on the cake. The other features of software like isboxer - like Video FX, allowing you to cut out sections of eve windows and drop them onto a canvas - will still allow multiboxers to operate on a pretty large scale. This whole change is a pointless change to appease idiots at the cost of some subs from the largest mutliboxers.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25837
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 13:16:55 -
[2309] - Quote
Break this down with me.
CCP has decided to finally drop the hammer on this plague of flagrant multiboxing, and predictably, a number of players will leave the game as a direct result. Why would CCP suddenly be willing to do this.
Because the sudden rush of new players in response to what was basically a bait video of gameplay.
Which implies what. We don't need vets anymore. The majority of players have a limited lifespan of x years in EVE, and now we have a fresh sample. Maybe this batch of newbs won't eventually get addicted to ISBoxer. Those ugly outliers who took our multiple account mechanic too far, cut them loose.
So okay, let's look past January 1. Assume all key broadcast addicts are gone.
Apparently a lot of people have their minds set on chasing away anyone with more than one account in space. If enough of those types make up the player base, then what. "Sorry, multiboxing isn't popular enough to justify the detriment to RP and the quality of gameplay desired by the typical EVE player."
Which is who. you? me?
I wouldn't have such a problem with that if the cash that came in from all those bloated subscription numbers went to developing things that I like. And I think I've been fairly patient, and easy to please. Space barbie easy. Two days before this announcement I bought a six pack of PLEX because it was kind of high and I was happy with CCP and had hope. I bought more vanity items with the ISK. all of it. So right now I feel pretty stupid, and I am one -pissed off- nerd.
I hope PLEX goes down and people have to work for their ISK again, too, broski. New players means more P2W officer drake types, and I plan to gank my ISK for PLEX, so that's all good for me. It's open season on WoW migrants... fresh off the boat!
Have you looked at mah skillsheetz? I got me sum Catalysts.. sum Nagas, dem Tornados, n' Taloss... whateva. N0 T3aR5 H3r3, Brrrah though I better get straight up PLEX in cargo every once in a while.
¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦420¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦ 4 lyf3 add gold teef to NES CCP i wanna by me a greel #P@yingCust0m3rPLEX=$$$
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
25843
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 13:45:59 -
[2310] - Quote
just playin'
CCP is probably just getting ready to have a rock solid case for denying petitions from crying gankees.
quote from the mmogames.com Best MMO of 2014 voting for the next 30 days. vote, y'all.
Quote:EVE is one of the only MMOs that has meaningful PVP with real consequences. The basis of the game is arguably PVP.
the ganking thing is going to happen though. that part is not playing. I haven't tried the ganking profession yet.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
|
|
The Ironfist
Nordbot Capitals
Northern Associates.
73
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 14:18:49 -
[2311] - Quote
Hello CCP,
I'm using ISboxer to ice Mine among other things such as for window management in PVP. To stay conform with the new rules regarding Multiboxing software I updated my profile. I would like to know if the following is within the rules because my understanding is that it is but I want to be sure.
http://i.imgur.com/l2LccFu.png
What I use this for and what this does is simple. Every time I click the assigned key isboxer will synchronize the mouse courser position on the next client with the main clients then click control and then issue a left mouse click. Every time I click the assigned key it will do this first for client 1->2->3->4->5->end->1->.. when it reaches the last client it will reset and start again from client 1. I use this to lock up targets from the broadcast history window. Is that legit? Given that I'm doing one action to one client at a time?
I also have a round-robin key for opening the ore hold on an active ship and every time I click it it opens the ore hold on one client same order as above 1->2->3->4->5->end->1->
My understanding is that I'm interacting with one client at a time and not sending commands to multiple clients with 1 action so it should be fine? |
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
42
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 14:43:23 -
[2312] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:Hello CCP, I'm using ISboxer to ice Mine among other things such as for window management in PVP. To stay conform with the new rules regarding Multiboxing software I updated my profile. I would like to know if the following is within the rules because my understanding is that it is but I want to be sure. http://i.imgur.com/l2LccFu.png
What I use this for and what this does is simple. Every time I click the assigned key isboxer will synchronize the mouse courser position on the next client with the main clients then click control and then issue a left mouse click. Every time I click the assigned key it will do this first for client 1->2->3->4->5->end->1->.. when it reaches the last client it will reset and start again from client 1. I use this to lock up targets from the broadcast history window. Is that legit? Given that I'm doing one action to one client at a time? I also have a round-robin key for opening the ore hold on an active ship and every time I click it it opens the ore hold on one client same order as above 1->2->3->4->5->end->1-> My understanding is that I'm interacting with one client at a time and not sending commands to multiple clients with 1 action so it should be fine?
as a multiboxer isboxer.. no
dont
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6062
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 14:58:19 -
[2313] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Then you are incredibly special.
Hey buddy, I'm trying to be civilised, and rational, so if you can't handle that I suggest you just go biomass. There is absolutely zero call for implying people are 'special' because they have a different perspective than you. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're wrong. People are wrong all the time. That makes them 'special'? Go **** yourself. I've had enough of shitstains like you calling people 'special' or 'retards' and belittling people who actually have limited mental capability by using such phrasings as a pejorative. I have picked stuff more precious than fuckwits like you from my ******** in the shower.
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
25893
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 15:01:04 -
[2314] - Quote
They will cry and make their pleas
Rain ISBox ganked me!
And CCP's reply will be
Our records show that Rain
Shotted you manually.
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
6062
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 15:09:13 -
[2315] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:They will cry and make their pleas
Rain ISBox ganked me!
And CCP's reply will be
Our records show that Rain
Shotted you manually.
For the record, I've never petitioned a multiboxer. As I've stated previously, I've always learned to adapt to the challenges presented to me by both the game itself and other players. I've only ever petitioned one lost ship, which was returned to me, and unrelated to multiboxing (it was a Succubus which I lost due to DDOS'ing), and all other petitions have been bug reports, asking if such-and-such activity and/or possible exploit is allowed, or reporting extreme cases of abuse and/or harassment.
And look, if this rule change wasn't happening, I'd continue on my way same as before. But it is happening, and I can't say I don't agree with it. I've never lost a ship to this, but if 160 tornado guns can be fired with one button push, by one player who can't be arsed making friends to fly 19 tornados with him in the multiplayer game, then I do have a problem with that. Whether or not I can adapt to it is unrelated to whether or not I 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
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
363
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 15:11:05 -
[2316] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:I'm just tired of the whining masses that react like preschoolers when CCP does something they don't like, toss their toys out of the pram on the forums, but when the rubber meets the road they just keep on doing what they were doing while sulking in the corner and muttering under their breath. Wait, so you're tired of people who's gameplay styles have been effectively removed complaining, yet the fact that this whole change is because a bunch of carebears have been crying because they don't understand how isboxer works, that's OK?
I'm guessing you missed the part in parenthesis where I mentioned both sides were equally guilty.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
15
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 15:33:35 -
[2317] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Rain6637 wrote:They will cry and make their pleas
Rain ISBox ganked me!
And CCP's reply will be
Our records show that Rain
Shotted you manually. For the record, I've never petitioned a multiboxer. As I've stated previously, I've always learned to adapt to the challenges presented to me by both the game itself and other players. I've only ever petitioned one lost ship, which was returned to me, and unrelated to multiboxing (it was a Succubus which I lost due to DDOS'ing), and all other petitions have been bug reports, asking if such-and-such activity and/or possible exploit is allowed, or reporting extreme cases of abuse and/or harassment. And look, if this rule change wasn't happening, I'd continue on my way same as before. But it is happening, and I can't say I don't agree with it. I've never lost a ship to this, but if 160 tornado guns can be fired with one button push, by one player who can't be arsed making friends to fly 19 tornados with him in the multiplayer game, then I do have a problem with that. Whether or not I can adapt to it is unrelated to whether or not I like it.
160 tornado(s) if gunners, then it is 19x8= 152. Or if you mean 160 tornados With would be highly unlikely. well, idk. Anyway. I respect that you don't Petition due to multiboxers ( if you lost and ship etc ) and that DDOS was understandable that you sent in an petition (like, who would not) and, well. o.o (still, it would've been possible to do it tho) (i suppose) idk what else to say. Idk what else to say. o.o |
Miomeifeng Alduin
Lithonauts Inc.
34
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 15:37:24 -
[2318] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:Hello CCP, I'm using ISboxer to ice Mine among other things such as for window management in PVP. To stay conform with the new rules regarding Multiboxing software I updated my profile. I would like to know if the following is within the rules because my understanding is that it is but I want to be sure. http://i.imgur.com/l2LccFu.png
What I use this for and what this does is simple. Every time I click the assigned key isboxer will synchronize the mouse courser position on the next client with the main clients then click control and then issue a left mouse click. Every time I click the assigned key it will do this first for client 1->2->3->4->5->end->1->.. when it reaches the last client it will reset and start again from client 1. I use this to lock up targets from the broadcast history window. Is that legit? Given that I'm doing one action to one client at a time? I also have a round-robin key for opening the ore hold on an active ship and every time I click it it opens the ore hold on one client same order as above 1->2->3->4->5->end->1-> My understanding is that I'm interacting with one client at a time and not sending commands to multiple clients with 1 action so it should be fine?
You dont understand the concept behind: 1 click = 1 action. and you need to physically click? hell, they way you describe it, it actually does sound a lot like botting which you're doing. (i know isboxer is not a botting program, but this guy sure makes it sound like one) |
Commentus Nolen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 15:40:25 -
[2319] - Quote
I tried to find this program "Video FX" and all I could find was a video editing program. Is Video FX the correct name? |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
15
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 15:48:10 -
[2320] - Quote
Commentus Nolen wrote:I tried to find this program "Video FX" and all I could find was a video editing program. Is Video FX the correct name?
It's something that you can use With IsBoxer/Innerspace (they dont work without eachother) (i dont know how to explain it, idk too mutch about it) :) |
|
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
78
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 15:49:22 -
[2321] - Quote
Danalee wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Try it after January 15 next year and if CCP have a problem with it, they will let you know.
See, and that's the only horse I have in this race personally. Given the track record CCP has with being communicative with their clients, we'll find many customers flabbergasted when they discover - by logging in - they have been banned. Instead of arguing about macros/input broadcasting semantics, I'd like to suggest you trolls pull together and fight to be treated as the customers you want to be instead of the scrubs ( you are) CCP see you as. D.
The ISBoxer guy is going to fix it so that input broadcasting will be turned off by default on 1 January. It sounded like he is going to make everyone download a new version of ISBoxer.
On CCP's part, expect to have to agree to a new EULA after downtime on 1 January. Hopefully there will be a dev blog explaining all the changes.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 15:52:25 -
[2322] - Quote
Commentus Nolen wrote:I tried to find this program "Video FX" and all I could find was a video editing program. Is Video FX the correct name?
no it is a feature part of ISboxer and the Innerspace software.
You tube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA88ndjh8x4
|
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 15:55:13 -
[2323] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote:
which translates to 250 more plex on the market to buy, which will be scooped up by others. Demand is lower than before, but is still greater than the supply.
If demand was greater than supply there would be none on the market. |
Commentus Nolen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 15:57:31 -
[2324] - Quote
Thank you both for the Video FX info. |
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 16:13:25 -
[2325] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:
So if each person averaged 10-20 accounts each, that's 250-500 Inner Space licenses that will not be renewed. At $50 a year, that means Lavish Software is going to lose $12,500 - $25,000 USD in the first year.
A) 34 subs * 50/ y = 1700
5000 subs * 50/y = 250,000
B) We can use Lavish across as many toons as we want. So loosing a 34 char sub = a loss of $50
C) Why would they unsub from Lavish if they can use it on other games? (unless the only use they have for it is Eve)
Just to keep numbers rounded..
1 player with 10 toons and unsubscribes from Eve will drain the Eve cash wallet of $1000 / year (aprox)
1 player with 10 toons and unsubscribes from Lavish will drain the Lavish wallet of $50 / year (aprox)
and that is just in subscriptions fees alone.
I don't know about you, but I have a feeling that CCP will loose more from boxers unsubbing than Lavish will.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
289
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 16:15:29 -
[2326] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:If demand was greater than supply there would be none on the market.
Only if you think of PLEX as having a limited number, or that players "must" buy it instead of using a credit card or unsubbing for a month or so.
Remiel Pollard wrote:if 160 tornado guns can be fired with one button push, by one player who can't be arsed making friends to fly 19 tornados with him in the multiplayer game, then I do have a problem with that. Whether or not I can adapt to it is unrelated to whether or not I like it.
Again you participate in some strange form of victim blaming and circular logic, but instead of blaming victims of actual violence you've somehow managed to convince yourself that CCP is Always Right (Incarna, anyone?) and that any change they do Must Be Right because CCP is Always Right, and that if the playerbase objects to a change they Must Be Wrong.
CCP is actively limiting our playstyle via the worst way possible. If people have a problem with ISBoxer and the way it's being used right now, (and I've seen more complaints and people quitting because of the local CODE monkeys than a 10-man skiff fleet) then what's to say CCP won't start limiting accounts active in the future? CCP is attempting to appease a vocal minority by implementing a massive change, and whenever a company listens to the vocal minority instead of attempting to get a poll from a greater majority of the playerbase and act upon it, bad things happen. |
Sir Henry Stanley
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 16:23:21 -
[2327] - Quote
I don't really see what all the fuss is about.
- Wankers gonna ****.
- Cheaters gonna cheat.
- Haters gonna hate.
Tactile players with lots of friends are rejoicing because they perceive the game has been "balanced" in their favor; automation players are crying because they have to invest more R&D time building smarter tools to avoid detection. CCP isn't really doing anything to address the desire / temptation to participate in this type of activity -- they're just saying if there is overwhelmingly blatant evidence that you're doing it, you'll be temp-banned for 30 days.
What's the big f$&king deal? |
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 16:23:22 -
[2328] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:CCP is attempting to appease a vocal minority by implementing a massive change, and whenever a company listens to the vocal minority instead of attempting to get a poll from a greater majority of the playerbase and act upon it, bad things happen.
=D can all our toons participate in this Poll?
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
148
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 16:26:35 -
[2329] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:Hello CCP, I'm using ISboxer to ice Mine among other things such as for window management in PVP. To stay conform with the new rules regarding Multiboxing software I updated my profile. I would like to know if the following is within the rules because my understanding is that it is but I want to be sure. http://i.imgur.com/l2LccFu.png
What I use this for and what this does is simple. Every time I click the assigned key isboxer will synchronize the mouse courser position on the next client with the main clients then click control and then issue a left mouse click. Every time I click the assigned key it will do this first for client 1->2->3->4->5->end->1->.. when it reaches the last client it will reset and start again from client 1. I use this to lock up targets from the broadcast history window. Is that legit? Given that I'm doing one action to one client at a time? I also have a round-robin key for opening the ore hold on an active ship and every time I click it it opens the ore hold on one client same order as above 1->2->3->4->5->end->1-> My understanding is that I'm interacting with one client at a time and not sending commands to multiple clients with 1 action so it should be fine?
That will be breaking the EULA after the new ruling starts. As I understand it you can you use that pesky ISBoxer type software to log on all your clients at once in a matter of seconds. I watch people doing this now by adding them to contacts & watchlists. . But after the new ruling begins you won't be allowed to use that software to start multiple accounts doing the same thing at the same time. Personally I feel it would be clearer & cleaner to make all usage of ISBoxer type software illegal. We can stop beating about the bush then. |
The Ironfist
Nordbot Capitals
Northern Associates.
73
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 16:32:15 -
[2330] - Quote
Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:The Ironfist wrote:Hello CCP, I'm using ISboxer to ice Mine among other things such as for window management in PVP. To stay conform with the new rules regarding Multiboxing software I updated my profile. I would like to know if the following is within the rules because my understanding is that it is but I want to be sure. http://i.imgur.com/l2LccFu.png
What I use this for and what this does is simple. Every time I click the assigned key isboxer will synchronize the mouse courser position on the next client with the main clients then click control and then issue a left mouse click. Every time I click the assigned key it will do this first for client 1->2->3->4->5->end->1->.. when it reaches the last client it will reset and start again from client 1. I use this to lock up targets from the broadcast history window. Is that legit? Given that I'm doing one action to one client at a time? I also have a round-robin key for opening the ore hold on an active ship and every time I click it it opens the ore hold on one client same order as above 1->2->3->4->5->end->1-> My understanding is that I'm interacting with one client at a time and not sending commands to multiple clients with 1 action so it should be fine? You dont understand the concept behind: 1 click = 1 action. and you need to physically click? hell, they way you describe it, it actually does sound a lot like botting which you're doing. (i know isboxer is not a botting program, but this guy sure makes it sound like one)
Its not it simply sends one command to one client per click which is as per CCP change within the rules. Just because you dont understand what round-robin means doesn't make it botting. Someone should maybe explain to you what botting is.. |
|
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
148
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 16:39:41 -
[2331] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:I find the "effort" argument to be particularly inane. I'm sure botting takes effort to set up. So the "effort" argument does what exactly? Nothing. If you read in context you'll see that Verde was complaining about how easy it is to use, and I was pointing out that it wasn't as easy as suggested. Teckos Pech wrote:And why must you assume people who don't use it are dumb? Very condescending of you. I didn;t. I insinuated that someone that couldn't comprehend being told something that many times and still proceeded to whine about a piece of software they have never used is dumb. Teckos Pech wrote:Here is another possibility, people who don't use ISBoxer don't have the time to figure it out, but still multibox or maybe they don't need it (two screens and PC of a high enough quality to handle 2-3 clients at a time). Still, some aspects of ISBoxer (e.g., broadcasting) have been deemed to be pretty much like using macros....which as I note also take time to set up. Actually, they have not been deemed to be macros. Go read the OP. They are in a separate category called input broadcast/mutliplexing. That whole category itself will be banned going forward, because rather than fix they gameplay mechanics that allow broadcasting to work so well, CCP would prefer to nuke a single playstyle and watch the terrible mining and bombing mechanics run on, because it satisfies the vocal minority for a month or so. I have read the OP, and they are talking about the very same part of the EULA that pertains to macros and various types of hardware. So yes, they are treating the broadcast features as essentially being macros. A macro that allows for activation of multiple modules in a single client or a single module across multiple clients, it is a distinction without much meaning.
There isn't really that much difference between how macro/RMT/bots and the ISboxer type software users work. They are both essentially ISK farming. It damages the economy and ****** other people off when resources get depleted locally. It's very good news to see the back of ISBoxer type software & I wholeheartedly recommend it. |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
148
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 16:43:20 -
[2332] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:The Ironfist wrote:Hello CCP, I'm using ISboxer to ice Mine among other things such as for window management in PVP. To stay conform with the new rules regarding Multiboxing software I updated my profile. I would like to know if the following is within the rules because my understanding is that it is but I want to be sure. http://i.imgur.com/l2LccFu.png
What I use this for and what this does is simple. Every time I click the assigned key isboxer will synchronize the mouse courser position on the next client with the main clients then click control and then issue a left mouse click. Every time I click the assigned key it will do this first for client 1->2->3->4->5->end->1->.. when it reaches the last client it will reset and start again from client 1. I use this to lock up targets from the broadcast history window. Is that legit? Given that I'm doing one action to one client at a time? I also have a round-robin key for opening the ore hold on an active ship and every time I click it it opens the ore hold on one client same order as above 1->2->3->4->5->end->1-> My understanding is that I'm interacting with one client at a time and not sending commands to multiple clients with 1 action so it should be fine? You dont understand the concept behind: 1 click = 1 action. and you need to physically click? hell, they way you describe it, it actually does sound a lot like botting which you're doing. (i know isboxer is not a botting program, but this guy sure makes it sound like one) Its not it simply sends one command to one client per click which is as per CCP change within the rules. Just because you dont understand what round-robin means doesn't make it botting. Someone should maybe explain to you what botting is.. Bethan Le Troix wrote:The Ironfist wrote:Hello CCP, I'm using ISboxer to ice Mine among other things such as for window management in PVP. To stay conform with the new rules regarding Multiboxing software I updated my profile. I would like to know if the following is within the rules because my understanding is that it is but I want to be sure. http://i.imgur.com/l2LccFu.png
What I use this for and what this does is simple. Every time I click the assigned key isboxer will synchronize the mouse courser position on the next client with the main clients then click control and then issue a left mouse click. Every time I click the assigned key it will do this first for client 1->2->3->4->5->end->1->.. when it reaches the last client it will reset and start again from client 1. I use this to lock up targets from the broadcast history window. Is that legit? Given that I'm doing one action to one client at a time? I also have a round-robin key for opening the ore hold on an active ship and every time I click it it opens the ore hold on one client same order as above 1->2->3->4->5->end->1-> My understanding is that I'm interacting with one client at a time and not sending commands to multiple clients with 1 action so it should be fine? That will be breaking the EULA after the new ruling starts. As I understand it you can you use that pesky ISBoxer type software to log on all your clients at once in a matter of seconds. I watch people doing this now by adding them to contacts & watchlists. . But after the new ruling begins you won't be allowed to use that software to start multiple accounts doing the same thing at the same time. Personally I feel it would be clearer & cleaner to make all usage of ISBoxer type software illegal. We can stop beating about the bush then. its not per click one client is doing one action... only difference when using round-robin is that instead of having to use one key for each client you can have one key for all clients and each time you hit it it sends the command to the client n+1 when it reached the last client restarts at 1... That is exactly 1 command 1 client at a time.
Wow! That is an alternate universe way of looking at it. But CCP has said other than using it to log on or set up your interface or graphical changes you will not be allowed to use it to automate actions within the game. Which is what you intend to do. If I see you doing it you will be reported and banned. !!!! |
The Ironfist
Nordbot Capitals
Northern Associates.
73
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 16:45:16 -
[2333] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
Wow! That is an alternate universe way of looking at it. But CCP has said other than using it to log on or set up your interface or graphical changes you will not be allowed to use it to automate actions within the game. Which is what you intend to do. If I see you doing it you will be reported and banned. !!!!
Are you really this dumb? How is it automation please explain to me how when I'm sitting there moving the mouse clicking the keys.. I think you seriously do not understand what automation is or even means. |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
148
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 16:45:47 -
[2334] - Quote
Xander Phoena wrote:As was noted in the CSM Summer Summit Minutes, I pushed hard for this change and I am delighted to see it finally implemented. The grey area that was simultaneous input commands needed to be killed off and I'm over the moon to see CCP go through with it.
Nice one Xander! |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
148
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 16:46:46 -
[2335] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:Bethan Le Troix wrote:
Wow! That is an alternate universe way of looking at it. But CCP has said other than using it to log on or set up your interface or graphical changes you will not be allowed to use it to automate actions within the game. Which is what you intend to do. If I see you doing it you will be reported and banned. !!!!
Are you really this dumb? How is it automation please explain to me how when I'm sitting there moving the mouse clicking the keys.. I think you seriously do not understand what automation is or even means.
I don't have the patience to discuss it with you further. CCP & the CSM have made a decision. You just have to abide by it. |
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 17:00:20 -
[2336] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:That will be breaking the EULA after the new ruling starts. As I understand it you can you use that pesky ISBoxer type software to log on all your clients at once in a matter of seconds. I watch people doing this now by adding them to contacts & watchlists. . But after the new ruling begins you won't be allowed to use that software to start multiple accounts doing the same thing at the same time. Personally I feel it would be clearer & cleaner to make all usage of ISBoxer type software illegal. We can stop beating about the bush then.
Literacy 101? IS boxer isn't banned only 1 of the features it provides is. Logging in with ISboxer takes just as long and regular multiboxing. Doing the same thing at "the same time" (while in game) has been rendered illegal. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4438
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 17:12:23 -
[2337] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Then you are incredibly special. Hey buddy, I'm trying to be civilised, and rational, so if you can't handle that I suggest you just go biomass. There is absolutely zero call for implying people are 'special' because they have a different perspective than you. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're wrong. People are wrong all the time. That makes them 'special'? Go **** yourself. I've had enough of shitstains like you calling people 'special' or 'retards' and belittling people who actually have limited mental capability by using such phrasings as a pejorative. I have picked stuff more precious than fuckwits like you from my ******** in the shower. Sorry if you took offence and went on a tirade, but if you honestly thing that the removal of input broadcasting is the biggest game balance change of late you are legitimately special. You also need to learn to control your anger a little it seems.
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
4438
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 17:18:17 -
[2338] - Quote
Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:You dont understand the concept behind: 1 click = 1 action. and you need to physically click? hell, they way you describe it, it actually does sound a lot like botting which you're doing. (i know isboxer is not a botting program, but this guy sure makes it sound like one) He would be doing one click for one action, he'd just be clicking in one spot for an action elsewhere. It's like a cyclical keybind.
Commentus Nolen wrote:I tried to find this program "Video FX" and all I could find was a video editing program. Is Video FX the correct name?
Yes, it's part of isboxer and can be seen here.
For an eve specific example it can do things like this.
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
4438
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 17:26:16 -
[2339] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:That will be breaking the EULA after the new ruling starts. As I understand it you can you use that pesky ISBoxer type software to log on all your clients at once in a matter of seconds. I watch people doing this now by adding them to contacts & watchlists. . But after the new ruling begins you won't be allowed to use that software to start multiple accounts doing the same thing at the same time. Personally I feel it would be clearer & cleaner to make all usage of ISBoxer type software illegal. We can stop beating about the bush then. Actually, if you read the OP you will still be allowed to use broadcasting for logging in.
And what that guy was suggesting should not be against the EULA, since it will be 1 click per action, no broadcasting.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
78
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 17:27:21 -
[2340] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:Rosewalker wrote:
So if each person averaged 10-20 accounts each, that's 250-500 Inner Space licenses that will not be renewed. At $50 a year, that means Lavish Software is going to lose $12,500 - $25,000 USD in the first year.
A) 34 subs * 50/ y = 1700 5000 subs * 50/y = 250,000 B) We can use Lavish across as many toons as we want. So loosing a 34 char sub = a loss of $50 C) Why would they unsub from Lavish if they can use it on other games? (unless the only use they have for it is Eve) Just to keep numbers rounded.. 1 player with 10 toons and unsubscribes from Eve will drain the Eve cash wallet of $1000 / year (aprox) 1 player with 10 toons and unsubscribes from Lavish will drain the Lavish wallet of $50 / year (aprox) and that is just in subscriptions fees alone. I don't know about you, but I have a feeling that CCP will loose more from boxers unsubbing than Lavish will.
I don't actually understand point A, or how you disagree with me on point B. Are you knocking off points because I didn't show my work?
Also, unless you buy into Lucas' implied argument (which is a reasonable one) that the lowering of the price of the ISK price of PLEX will drive people to buy ISK from shady ISK sellers, thus meaning that CCP loses money, the only financial loss I see from this is from all the ISBoxers who are going to drop accounts that they were using RL currency to pay for. And we don't know that percentage.
However, since CCP has been monitoring the activity of ISBoxer users for months, they probably have a pretty good idea of any potential financial hit. Apparently, they don't mind the results, which could mean that 1) the hit is small enough they won't notice or 2) they believe they will make money on the move. The third option, of course, is that they know they are going to take a significant financial hit, but the negative effects of input broadcasting/multiplexing are so bad for the game that they have no choice but to act.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4438
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 17:31:37 -
[2341] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:There isn't really that much difference between how macro/RMT/bots and the ISboxer type software users work. They are both essentially ISK farming. It damages the economy and ****** other people off when resources get depleted locally. It's very good news to see the back of ISBoxer type software & I wholeheartedly recommend it. Actually there's a huge difference. Bots operate 24/7 and generally fund illicit RMT. ISBoxers are simply hardcore gamers working for efficiency. Thanks for demonstrating your incredibly lack of knowledge on the subject though in this and other posts.
Bethan Le Troix wrote:Wow! That is an alternate universe way of looking at it. But CCP has said other than using it to log on or set up your interface or graphical changes you will not be allowed to use it to automate actions within the game. Which is what you intend to do. If I see you doing it you will be reported and banned. !!!! LOL, it's not automated. Seriously. You clearly do not understand what it is he's talking about. He clicks once, one client gets a click. That's valid under the new rules. It's not broadcasting, it's not automation. It's no different to using a gaming keypad to cluster your standard keys together.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Miomeifeng Alduin
Lithonauts Inc.
35
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 17:38:27 -
[2342] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:You dont understand the concept behind: 1 click = 1 action. and you need to physically click? hell, they way you describe it, it actually does sound a lot like botting which you're doing. (i know isboxer is not a botting program, but this guy sure makes it sound like one) He would be doing one click for one action, he'd just be clicking in one spot for an action elsewhere. It's like a cyclical keybind. Commentus Nolen wrote:I tried to find this program "Video FX" and all I could find was a video editing program. Is Video FX the correct name? Yes, it's part of isboxer and can be seen here. For an eve specific example it can do things like this.
in that case i apologize. from the post it seemed for me, like it would be 1 click -> macro which goes through the list with a slight delay, and automating the process of doing everything. If its indeed 1 click -> 1 action, i believe it isn't against the rules stated. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
289
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 17:52:29 -
[2343] - Quote
Xander Phoena wrote:As was noted in the CSM Summer Summit Minutes, I pushed hard for this change and I am delighted to see it finally implemented. The grey area that was simultaneous input commands needed to be killed off and I'm over the moon to see CCP go through with it.
Anyone else wanna bet that Xander has zero experience with ISBoxer, understands nothing about it, and refuses to understand the fundamental difference between a boxer and a botter?
e: I'd be willing to go so far as to wager that Xander is simply drinking the kool aid. |
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 17:53:37 -
[2344] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Cervix Thumper wrote:Rosewalker wrote:
So if each person averaged 10-20 accounts each, that's 250-500 Inner Space licenses that will not be renewed. At $50 a year, that means Lavish Software is going to lose $12,500 - $25,000 USD in the first year.
A) 34 subs * 50/ y = 1700 5000 subs * 50/y = 250,000 B) We can use Lavish across as many toons as we want. So loosing a 34 char sub = a loss of $50 C) Why would they unsub from Lavish if they can use it on other games? (unless the only use they have for it is Eve) Just to keep numbers rounded.. 1 player with 10 toons and unsubscribes from Eve will drain the Eve cash wallet of $1000 / year (aprox) 1 player with 10 toons and unsubscribes from Lavish will drain the Lavish wallet of $50 / year (aprox) and that is just in subscriptions fees alone. I don't know about you, but I have a feeling that CCP will loose more from boxers unsubbing than Lavish will. I don't actually understand point A, or how you disagree with me on point B. Are you knocking off points because I didn't show my work? Also, unless you buy into Lucas' implied argument (which is a reasonable one) that the lowering of the price of the ISK price of PLEX will drive people to buy ISK from shady ISK sellers, thus meaning that CCP loses money, the only financial loss I see from this is from all the ISBoxers who are going to drop accounts that they were using RL currency to pay for. And we don't know that percentage. However, since CCP has been monitoring the activity of ISBoxer users for months, they probably have a pretty good idea of any potential financial hit. Apparently, they don't mind the results, which could mean that 1) the hit is small enough they won't notice or 2) they believe they will make money on the move. The third option, of course, is that they know they are going to take a significant financial hit, but the negative effects of input broadcasting/multiplexing are so bad for the game that they have no choice but to act.
in part yes, I don't know how you came to get the numbers explained in your previous post. But as outlined above.. CCP would take the larger hit and I suppose it is due to the number of replacement ships they are giving out + labour involved in processing those tickets that has prompted this move.
paying x number of CSMs x amount to process ISboxer gank claims does add up... then there are the # of other boxer transgression (50+ in mining) etc... well either way... I didn't understand where you get your figures from but I can understand with CCPs decision. I may not agree with it, but I do have to comply.
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
78
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 18:00:25 -
[2345] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:Rosewalker wrote:Cervix Thumper wrote:Rosewalker wrote:
So if each person averaged 10-20 accounts each, that's 250-500 Inner Space licenses that will not be renewed. At $50 a year, that means Lavish Software is going to lose $12,500 - $25,000 USD in the first year.
A) 34 subs * 50/ y = 1700 5000 subs * 50/y = 250,000 B) We can use Lavish across as many toons as we want. So loosing a 34 char sub = a loss of $50 C) Why would they unsub from Lavish if they can use it on other games? (unless the only use they have for it is Eve) Just to keep numbers rounded.. 1 player with 10 toons and unsubscribes from Eve will drain the Eve cash wallet of $1000 / year (aprox) 1 player with 10 toons and unsubscribes from Lavish will drain the Lavish wallet of $50 / year (aprox) and that is just in subscriptions fees alone. I don't know about you, but I have a feeling that CCP will loose more from boxers unsubbing than Lavish will. I don't actually understand point A, or how you disagree with me on point B. Are you knocking off points because I didn't show my work? Also, unless you buy into Lucas' implied argument (which is a reasonable one) that the lowering of the price of the ISK price of PLEX will drive people to buy ISK from shady ISK sellers, thus meaning that CCP loses money, the only financial loss I see from this is from all the ISBoxers who are going to drop accounts that they were using RL currency to pay for. And we don't know that percentage. However, since CCP has been monitoring the activity of ISBoxer users for months, they probably have a pretty good idea of any potential financial hit. Apparently, they don't mind the results, which could mean that 1) the hit is small enough they won't notice or 2) they believe they will make money on the move. The third option, of course, is that they know they are going to take a significant financial hit, but the negative effects of input broadcasting/multiplexing are so bad for the game that they have no choice but to act. in part yes, I don't know how you came to get the numbers explained in your previous post. But as outlined above.. CCP would take the larger hit and I suppose it is due to the number of replacement ships they are giving out + labour involved in processing those tickets that has prompted this move. paying x number of CSMs x amount to process ISboxer gank claims does add up... then there are the # of other boxer transgression (50+ in mining) etc... well either way... I didn't understand where you get your figures from but I can understand with CCPs decision. I may not agree with it, but I do have to comply.
Oh, I got the numbers by taking the 5000 accounts that someone else stated were being cancelled and then trying to figure out the average number of accounts someone running ISBoxer would have. I took a wild guess of between 10 and 20, since it seems that people running vanguard sites runs 12 dps + 1 logi. That's why the large range in numbers.
And while I realize that CCP would (we're assuming) take a much larger financial hit, Lavish Software isn't really all that big and losing $18,000 in a year would probably hurt.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2716
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 18:13:29 -
[2346] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Cervix Thumper wrote:If demand was greater than supply there would be none on the market. Only if you think of PLEX as having a limited number, or that players "must" buy it instead of using a credit card or unsubbing for a month or so. Remiel Pollard wrote:if 160 tornado guns can be fired with one button push, by one player who can't be arsed making friends to fly 19 tornados with him in the multiplayer game, then I do have a problem with that. Whether or not I can adapt to it is unrelated to whether or not I like it. Again you participate in some strange form of victim blaming and circular logic, but instead of blaming victims of actual violence you've somehow managed to convince yourself that CCP is Always Right (Incarna, anyone?) and that any change they do Must Be Right because CCP is Always Right, and that if the playerbase objects to a change they Must Be Wrong. CCP is actively limiting our playstyle via the worst way possible. If people have a problem with ISBoxer and the way it's being used right now, (and I've seen more complaints and people quitting because of the local CODE monkeys than a 10-man skiff fleet) then what's to say CCP won't start limiting accounts active in the future? CCP is attempting to appease a vocal minority by implementing a massive change, and whenever a company listens to the vocal minority instead of attempting to get a poll from a greater majority of the playerbase and act upon it, bad things happen.
More or less killing off ISboxer is a good thing, so I support CCP on this.
If CCP did not more or less kill ISboxer they would be in the wrong.
It is not a question of supporting CCP because they are CCP, but a question of doing the right thing by the game in a holistic sense.
In this instance, CCP are doing the right thing.
This is not a signature.
|
Jeven HouseBenyo
Paper Brigade
Resonance.
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 18:31:55 -
[2347] - Quote
Hmmm...
Classy, CCP. As someone who's tangled with an upset multiboxing botting single individual and his mining "fleets", I can see how as a player this is going to change things. I hope for the better, one single GM ruling many moons ago has left a gigantic loophole that just started to implode on itself. As for those perfectly timed exquisite looking bomber drops, well that only happens in movies and when the (RL) Blue Angels get involved. I also have to support anything that blows a hole in the latest Plex inflation run! That's just the bargain hunter typo sale purchaser in me... Shop smart, shop S-Mart.
By the way, CCP. About that spot where the bannable actions list was to be placed after the Titan Bumping fiasco, is that up yet? If so, link it please? Thanks.
>Jeven |
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 18:35:26 -
[2348] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
More or less killing off ISboxer is a good thing, so I support CCP on this.
If CCP did not more or less kill ISboxer they would be in the wrong.
It is not a question of supporting CCP because they are CCP, but a question of doing the right thing by the game in a holistic sense.
In this instance, CCP are doing the right thing.
In your opinion and the opinion of several others but not in mine and several others. Unless there is a poll taken we won't know what the majority think. And the majority are not reading this thread or are involved in the forums. So it is a moot point.
Opinion vs opinion doesn't solve anything.
We have don't have like it, as said before adapt or move on. Some are choosing to move on some are choosing to adapt. We'll suss it out when the time comes.
|
VIXIT CORP
United Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 18:42:10 -
[2349] - Quote
CCP thank you.
On my knees with my hands folded.
Thanks again |
Josef Djugashvilis
2716
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 18:45:57 -
[2350] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
More or less killing off ISboxer is a good thing, so I support CCP on this.
If CCP did not more or less kill ISboxer they would be in the wrong.
It is not a question of supporting CCP because they are CCP, but a question of doing the right thing by the game in a holistic sense.
In this instance, CCP are doing the right thing.
In your opinion and the opinion of several others but not in mine and several others. Unless there is a poll taken we won't know what the majority think. And the majority are not reading this thread nor are involved in the forums. So it is a moot point. Opinion vs opinion doesn't solve anything. We have don't have like it, as said before adapt or move on. Some are choosing to move on some are choosing to adapt. We'll suss it out when the time comes.
Be careful what you wish for...
This is not a signature.
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4441
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 18:50:27 -
[2351] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:More or less killing off ISboxer is a good thing, so I support CCP on this.
If CCP did not more or less kill ISboxer they would be in the wrong.
It is not a question of supporting CCP because they are CCP, but a question of doing the right thing by the game in a holistic sense.
In this instance, CCP are doing the right thing. They aren't at all killing off isboxer. They're banning a single feature, not even the most important feature. It's going to be amazing when people realise how much this doesn't affect the majority of isboxer users.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
292
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 19:17:01 -
[2352] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:More or less killing off ISboxer is a good thing, so I support CCP on this.
If CCP did not more or less kill ISboxer they would be in the wrong.
It is not a question of supporting CCP because they are CCP, but a question of doing the right thing by the game in a holistic sense.
In this instance, CCP are doing the right thing.
Again, you seem to be one of those who makes no effort to distinguish between an ISBoxer with a human behind the keyboard, and a botter with an empty chair. Please sit in the corner till you are willing to do so.
In your opinion CCP is doing the right thing. However the wonderful thing about this is that we are allowed to dispute these changes on the forums. Remember the outcry that was raised for the stealth bombers decloaking each other? Players voiced their opinions and concerns with CCP regarding that change and CCP listened. Unfortunately in this instance they are choosing to listen to a vocal minority without making even any sort of effort to contact those who are affected by the change. Members of the CSM who have zero experience with what they're talking about are attempting to push CCP into banning a part of EVE that has been around for a long time. To us this is akin to CCP telling us we cannot play, and as such we are protesting. If CCP were to completely remove bombers, or T3s, or ABCs, there'd be an outcry as well as CCP would be removing the playstyle of many people.
Most damning is CCP's absolute refusal to explain their reasoning or their thought process, which screams to us that they either do not know why they are doing this, or do not have a reason that is not "there were a few crybabies who got bombed afk on a planet in nullsec and we didn't bother to investigate the lossmails". |
Some RandomAlt Assene
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 20:06:44 -
[2353] - Quote
CCP wants to extract as much monies as they can.. till they can. wow is going down so will ... the rest.. milk while you can.. |
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3497
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 20:58:55 -
[2354] - Quote
*Grabs a broom, turns the sign from "Open" to "Closed".
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
289
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 22:01:12 -
[2355] - Quote
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
See the above link for my write up on why this policy change is heading in a negative direction for CCP and its community.
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
|
The Ironfist
Nordbot Capitals
Northern Associates.
75
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 22:10:29 -
[2356] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/CxsdMHs.gif
Just gonna leave this here because its pretty accurate. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
292
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 22:25:06 -
[2357] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:http://i.imgur.com/CxsdMHs.gif
Just gonna leave this here because its pretty accurate.
Not arguing with VENIO, but i would like to raise a very serious accusation or issue: Banned for boxing before Jan 1st |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
78
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 22:26:02 -
[2358] - Quote
Speechless
Would not read again. 0/10
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2716
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 22:35:07 -
[2359] - Quote
This whole sorry sage is quite confusing.
On the one hand, some ISboxers are going to rage quit because the sky is falling in.
On the other hand, some ISboxers seem to think that the new rules will have little impact.
Maybe they should confer and present a coherent case in defence of ISboxer to CCP.
This is not a signature.
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6065
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 22:37:52 -
[2360] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Rain6637 wrote:They will cry and make their pleas
Rain ISBox ganked me!
And CCP's reply will be
Our records show that Rain
Shotted you manually. For the record, I've never petitioned a multiboxer. As I've stated previously, I've always learned to adapt to the challenges presented to me by both the game itself and other players. I've only ever petitioned one lost ship, which was returned to me, and unrelated to multiboxing (it was a Succubus which I lost due to DDOS'ing), and all other petitions have been bug reports, asking if such-and-such activity and/or possible exploit is allowed, or reporting extreme cases of abuse and/or harassment. And look, if this rule change wasn't happening, I'd continue on my way same as before. But it is happening, and I can't say I don't agree with it. I've never lost a ship to this, but if 160 tornado guns can be fired with one button push, by one player who can't be arsed making friends to fly 19 tornados with him in the multiplayer game, then I do have a problem with that. Whether or not I can adapt to it is unrelated to whether or not I like it. 160 tornado(s) if gunners, then it is 19x8= 152. Or if you mean 160 tornados With would be highly unlikely. well, idk. Anyway. I respect that you don't Petition due to multiboxers ( if you lost and ship etc ) and that DDOS was understandable that you sent in an petition (like, who would not) and, well. o.o (still, it would've been possible to do it tho) (i suppose) idk what else to say. Idk what else to say. o.o
One guy using 20 tornados = 160 guns.
One guy with 19 friends, all of them flying tornados, also makes 20 tornados, because 1 + 19 = 20, so 160 guns.
I meant exactly what I wrote. Don't pick at someone's maths unless you know basic addition, please.
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
6065
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 22:40:53 -
[2361] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:...you've somehow managed to convince yourself that CCP is Always Right ...
Clearly you're new around here, and don't know me very well, so we're gonna move on and pretend you didn't say and base any of your accusations of me on that cuz it's kinda silly to jump to hasty conclusions without a full data set to support them.
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
292
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 22:48:17 -
[2362] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:This whole sorry sage is quite confusing.
On the one hand, some ISboxers are going to rage quit because the sky is falling in.
On the other hand, some ISboxers seem to think that the new rules will have little impact.
Maybe they should confer and present a coherent case in defence of ISboxer to CCP.
One problem is there's overlap between the two. Some of the people quitting don't see this changing too much in the behavior of ISBoxers, but they aren't willing to run the obstacle course every time they want to do something simply because one person slipped at the beginning and started crying to mommy.
Dominix, Rattler, Ishtar, Vexor, Gila, Loki, Huginn, and Nestor prices will rise as suddenly drone assist becomes a very enticing prospect, and we'll no doubt see a slight "gold rush" into nullsec for empty systems to rat in. Providence will most likely become crowded, renter alliances will swell, and C3s will suddenly become very occupied. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
293
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 22:51:02 -
[2363] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:...you've somehow managed to convince yourself that CCP is Always Right ... Clearly you're new around here, and don't know me very well, so we're gonna move on and pretend you didn't say and base any of your accusations of me on that cuz it's kinda silly to jump to hasty conclusions without a full data set to support them.
I call em like I see em. |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6066
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 22:54:32 -
[2364] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Then you are incredibly special. Hey buddy, I'm trying to be civilised, and rational, so if you can't handle that I suggest you just go biomass. There is absolutely zero call for implying people are 'special' because they have a different perspective than you. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're wrong. People are wrong all the time. That makes them 'special'? Go **** yourself. I've had enough of shitstains like you calling people 'special' or 'retards' and belittling people who actually have limited mental capability by using such phrasings as a pejorative. I have picked stuff more precious than fuckwits like you from my ******** in the shower. Sorry if you took offence and went on a tirade, but if you honestly thing that the removal of input broadcasting is the biggest game balance change of late you are legitimately special. You also need to learn to control your anger a little it seems.
My anger is 100% under control. See, I know how to direct it in a measured way at people who deserve it. Like you, for example, for being the kinda person that thinks it's okay to reference people as retards simply because you think they're wrong. See, using retardation references as pejoratives, it's not cool bruh. 'Special' is not a synonym for wrong. Given that you chose to use it anyway, it makes me wonder how capable you are of measuring your observations, because clearly it wasn't an objective one, but just a 'conclusion' you came to based on your own hurt feelings.
So before you accuse anyone of needing anger management, look in a mirror. Because my anger is measured, and justified. Yours is just straight up childish, antagonistic, and inflammatory. And yes, passive aggressive is still aggression. I do also find it quite ironic that you're calling anyone 'special' given the corp you're in...
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
|
Buldra
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 23:00:24 -
[2365] - Quote
Let me explain how its going to be. From the 1st January, i'm going to be unemployed with about 10 of my previous friends.
However, i'm not going to go down without a fight, so in order for me to keep my subs running i'm going to need ISk and your lovely fat haulers and freighters will have to bear the brunt of that. I hope thats ok with you, as I will not be f*ing up your economy too much.
I would actually enjoy the game again, as opposed to shooting stupid rats, I will have a lots of fan mail, i'm sure. There are always consequences to actions, and this is going to be mine. Ganking in high sec is legit. I will need 3-6 accounts and i will manually fly all of them, no need for Isboxer either.
I'm looking forward to your fan mail and thanks for freeing me from the shackles of incursions, it was getting rather tedious running those bloody things anyhow....
PS. I'm an alt, so see you in Hek, Uitander, Bei Deltole, Aufay, Balle or any 05, 06 near you from the 2nd of JAN 2015
Udema is cesspool so i wouldn't go their |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6066
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 23:00:29 -
[2366] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:...you've somehow managed to convince yourself that CCP is Always Right ... Clearly you're new around here, and don't know me very well, so we're gonna move on and pretend you didn't say and base any of your accusations of me on that cuz it's kinda silly to jump to hasty conclusions without a full data set to support them. I call em like I see em.
And again, I will repeat myself in simpler terms for you: you haven't seen enough, and are jumping to conclusions without a full picture to see.
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
293
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 01:07:35 -
[2367] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:And again, I will repeat myself in simpler terms for you: you haven't seen enough, and are jumping to conclusions without a full picture to see.
I'm not about to sort through your entire post history. I will retract my global comment on you white-knighting CCP, and i will instead submit that you're such a staunch supporter of this inane change because you drank the kool aid that ISBoxers are botters. |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6067
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 01:48:19 -
[2368] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:And again, I will repeat myself in simpler terms for you: you haven't seen enough, and are jumping to conclusions without a full picture to see. I'm not about to sort through your entire post history. I will retract my global comment on you white-knighting CCP, and i will instead submit that you're such a staunch supporter of this inane change because you drank the kool aid that ISBoxers are botters.
Your submission is noted and rejected. This publisher refuses to accept uncited and unsubstantiated claims.
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
294
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 02:32:09 -
[2369] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:This publisher refuses to accept uncited and unsubstantiated claims.
Oh the irony.... |
RUS Comannder
Tremor Recorded
Variable Enterprise Training Standards
42
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 03:11:00 -
[2370] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:And again, I will repeat myself in simpler terms for you: you haven't seen enough, and are jumping to conclusions without a full picture to see. I'm not about to sort through your entire post history. I will retract my global comment on you white-knighting CCP, and i will instead submit that you're such a staunch supporter of this inane change because you drank the kool aid that ISBoxers are botters. Your submission is noted and rejected. This publisher refuses to accept uncited and unsubstantiated claims.
You want a negative proven.
A bot (which i think is the lowest form of cheating in this game yet seems to be tolerated more than any other kind of cheating) is something which can operate from a script or macro independently while the player is afk, gone to the movies, or robbing convenience stores.
ISBoxer requires the player to be present and nothing happens in any account until the player presses a button. There are no scripts, macros, or timers. THERE ARE NO SCRIPTS, MACROS OR TIMERS. Isboxer on ten accounts with one player present is no more efficient that 10 players present on 10 single accounts.
A multiboxer pays for each account, (either with a plex someone paid $20 dollars to CCP for so I could cover my $15 sub - see, CCP profits greater with plex than with cash paid subs so paying with plex is not taking money out of CCP's pocket but increasing their profit) and multiboxing puts each one of those subsriptions on par for potential with each each other subscription. Additional subscriptions (remember the buddy plan ads about increasing your gaming pleasure with more accounts?) are not able to be played to the full value of the subscription and the value diminishes with each sub being paid for as the owner of additional subs has to alt-tab to get each account to perform.
That brings it down to the base point - people are butt hurt because another individual person can make as much isk for each multiboxed sub as an individual person can make with one sub, training dependent. A multiboxer can make no more than an equal number of accounts with an individual at the controls because nothing happens until the Multi-boxer presses a button
A multi-boxer even suffers additional risk for the ISK when gankers roll into a hi-sec mining op. Ten people can each stay aligned to different celestials or even to a single celestial and if gankers roll in the ten people will hit the warp out at different times and milli-seconds matter. The multi-boxer can align to a celestial and when hitting the warp out, the ships start banging and bumping. If the ganker manages to down one ship, then 9 of the 10 individual players suffer no loss. A ganker who can take out a single ship, may be able to take out 2 ships from a multiboxer. Regardless of how many ships, the multiboxer will always suffer a loss, which is fair as a multi-boxer should share in all potentials, good or bad to get fair value for the sub of each account.
If fairness is the root intention or more specifically, if each sub is to receive fair value, it has gone off the rails. If the intent is to placate a vocal minority with no consideration to value served for each sub paid, but to soothe the butt hurt, then this is the right move.
The feature in question is not one I use, thus my play will not be affected. I write because I am appalled at the misinformation being spoken as fact largely by people who have never used IS Boxer. I must admit that my first visit to their site scared me away as I scanned through and saw references to macros and thought I'm in the wrong place. A friend told me that IS Boxer was written originally for WOW which has macros embedded apparently in the game mechanics. I treaded lightly as I moved forward and spent time reading their forums and the how to's before I was sure it did not violate the EULA or TOS anymore than a mouse with extra buttons or logitech keyboard with G keys. Even CCP agreed with me as it has been used here within the rules since 2010. I had played Eve for many years and had done every part which drew my interest. Multi-boxing presented me with a new challenge, and as a retired U.S. Army Infantryman used to small team tactics, it appealed to me.
Another reason I write is to voice my disapproval of lumping boxers and botters together, I am, quite frankly, very insulted by it. I am not a cheater. I am rule follower. I am at a loss to understand why EVE has let this go on, unless they too think it is ok to call a boxer an ISBotter as though the two have even the slightest similiarity in purpose or practice.
It takes a lot to insult an Infantryman, especially a Vietnam Veteran who has been pelted with eggs by my countrymen because the elected National Command Authority decided where we would go and the elected members of both houses of Congress funded it.
If some minutia of fairness can be found in this, please start with the name calling, the same successive rants, the rumor mongering and the outright falsehoods.
And no, you cannot haz my stuff - I'm not going anywhere, at least not yet.
Thank you, |
|
|
Some RandomAlt Assene
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 04:41:18 -
[2371] - Quote
RUS Commander, Boxing is overpowered, but knowing it .. why to promote it with buddy programs etc. |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms.
Don't Tell Me The Odds
6067
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 05:24:38 -
[2372] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:This publisher refuses to accept uncited and unsubstantiated claims. Oh the irony....
This word does not mean what you seem to think it means.
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
|
RUS Comannder
Tremor Recorded
Variable Enterprise Training Standards
43
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 05:54:42 -
[2373] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:RUS Comannder wrote:
**************************************************************************************
I celebtrate your happiness of playing with one character
Is it beyond you to be happy that I can be happy playing within the rules and being happy with 12 characters, as frankly, I would fall asleep playing with only one character. The adventure of hopping from character to character is exhiliarating to me. 12 is all I can handle, but there was a time when I thought 8 was as much as I could do.
I use ISBoxer to log in and do housecleaning activities. This change will not affect my style of play in any way.
This isn't what I'm addressing at all. Go ahead and have as many accounts as you want. It's entirely your prerogative, your wallet, your game time, and not my problem.
I'm sorry to have involved you in my reply to the single comment about me having 12 accounts. I don't even know what you wrote and didn't realize or notice your post was referred to in the higher reaches of the quote page, as I just pressed the "quote button" on the poster's page who commented on me having 12 accounts.
I'm terribly sorry to have put you out, and I do thank you for recognizing my right.
Please, enjoy your game. |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
185
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 06:40:39 -
[2374] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Then you are incredibly special. Hey buddy, I'm trying to be civilised, and rational, so if you can't handle that I suggest you just go biomass. There is absolutely zero call for implying people are 'special' because they have a different perspective than you. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're wrong. People are wrong all the time. That makes them 'special'? Go **** yourself. I've had enough of shitstains like you calling people 'special' or 'retards' and belittling people who actually have limited mental capability by using such phrasings as a pejorative. I have picked stuff more precious than fuckwits like you from my ******** in the shower. Sorry if you took offence and went on a tirade, but if you honestly thing that the removal of input broadcasting is the biggest game balance change of late you are legitimately special. You also need to learn to control your anger a little it seems. My anger is 100% under control. See, I know how to direct it in a measured way at people who deserve it. Like you, for example, for being the kinda person that thinks it's okay to reference people as retards simply because you think they're wrong. See, using retardation references as pejoratives, it's not cool bruh. 'Special' is not a synonym for wrong. Given that you chose to use it anyway, it makes me wonder how capable you are of measuring your observations, because clearly it wasn't an objective one, but just a 'conclusion' you came to based on your own hurt feelings. So before you accuse anyone of needing anger management, look in a mirror. Because my anger is measured, and justified. Yours is just straight up childish, antagonistic, and inflammatory. And yes, passive aggressive is still aggression. I do also find it quite ironic that you're calling anyone 'special' given the corp you're in...
Sounds like you have anger issues. You should get that checked. It's unhealthy. |
RUS Comannder
Tremor Recorded
Variable Enterprise Training Standards
43
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 06:41:07 -
[2375] - Quote
Some RandomAlt Assene wrote:RUS Commander, Boxing is overpowered, but knowing it .. why to promote it with buddy programs etc.
I stand by what I wrote and meant.
CCP is constantly encouraging additional accounts.
Anyone who has two accounts loses some amount of time moving from one screen to another and back perhaps several times a minute to enter commands. Granted, with two accounts the lost time is infinitesimal but it goes up with each additional account. That time lost, even with two accounts can mean the loss of a ship. That ship loss may not have happened if the intent of the player to control each character without a loss of time by having each account respond to a key press in the time, the subscribed to time of each character of each account, costing the player the same amount, had the ability to play each account with the same speed. Therefore, each additional account, after 1/1/15, will cost the same, but will not be able to be played equally as fast. In fact, the more one pays in subs, the less that subscriber will be able to command their characters to act at the precise time they decide to press a key to have the first account act. Each subsequent account will receive less value for the same price of the first sub.
Yes, it is up to each player to know his or her limits, and some have decided they can only play with half of the accounts they have now and others have decided the game they want to play is the same game they have been playing since 2010 and leave entirely. Yes, make snide remarks about how much you care. I don't care how much your care and I doubt the ones leaving do either. Regardless of the conjured up financial projections, someone in CCP accounting may care, or not - I don't care about that either.
I just want full measure for what I pay.
If Eve wants to have fewer subs, this is a good start.
OKAY, everyone who is besides themselves with how much humor their words bear can now invite me to not let the door hit me in my six or ask if they can hazz my stuff, or good riddance, or any of the other trite and useless comments made so many times already and not just in this forum but every forum since the being of forumdom.
I am not going anywhere, so no, no one can have my stuff. Depending on how it goes and how many other steps the vocal minority is screaming to have put in place to drive IS Boxer out of business, I'll decide if I can employ my characters efficiently and when I can't, I'll cut back on my workforce.
If anyone believes the entire loss of Eve customers from IS Boxer will affect their business, as I've seen conjured projections of how many millions it will take to hurt them, I encourage you to visit and see how many other games in which it is used and has passed their muster. This is not a supported fact, but an educated estimate from an Inner Space company spokesman who has more insight into this than probably anyone here, that half of the accounts in WOW use IS Boxer. Now look up how many accounts are in WOW. I don't know, I've never played it, but I understand it is the largest MMO out there.
Now we will find out how many people have never heard of Inner Space.
I hope everyone enjoys their game. I will.
Thank you, |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
295
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 06:56:55 -
[2376] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:This publisher refuses to accept uncited and unsubstantiated claims. Oh the irony.... This word does not mean what you seem to think it means.
"Oh the hypocrisy." |
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3497
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 07:43:36 -
[2377] - Quote
Removed some off topic posts.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2716
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 07:58:12 -
[2378] - Quote
Buldra wrote:Let me explain how its going to be. From the 1st January, i'm going to be unemployed with about 10 of my previous friends. However, i'm not going to go down without a fight, so in order for me to keep my subs running i'm going to need ISk and your lovely fat haulers and freighters will have to bear the brunt of that. I hope thats ok with you, as I will not be f*ing up your economy too much. I would actually enjoy the game again, as opposed to shooting stupid rats, I will have a lots of fan mail, i'm sure. There are always consequences to actions, and this is going to be mine. Ganking in high sec is legit. I will need 3-6 accounts and i will manually fly all of them, no need for Isboxer either. I'm looking forward to your fan mail and thanks for freeing me from the shackles of incursions, it was getting rather tedious running those bloody things anyhow.... PS. I'm an alt, so see you in Hek, Uitander, Bei Deltole, Aufay, Balle or any 05, 06 near you from the 2nd of JAN 2015 Udema is cesspool so i wouldn't go there
Good for you!
I wish you every success in your endeavours.
This is not a signature.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2477
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 08:01:42 -
[2379] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:More or less killing off ISboxer is a good thing, so I support CCP on this.
If CCP did not more or less kill ISboxer they would be in the wrong.
It is not a question of supporting CCP because they are CCP, but a question of doing the right thing by the game in a holistic sense.
In this instance, CCP are doing the right thing. They aren't at all killing off isboxer. They're banning a single feature, not even the most important feature. It's going to be amazing when people realise how much this doesn't affect the majority of isboxer users.
Agreed. And keep in mind that on other topics Lucas and I often disagree. Of course Lucas might change his stance now.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4444
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 08:25:19 -
[2380] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:This whole sorry sage is quite confusing.
On the one hand, some ISboxers are going to rage quit because the sky is falling in.
On the other hand, some ISboxers seem to think that the new rules will have little impact.
Maybe they should confer and present a coherent case in defence of ISboxer to CCP. No matter what change comes in you'll always see people ragequitting from the beginning. This is no different. Some people are having a knee-jerk reaction to the announcement. If you look at it rationally though it's really not that big a deal. With input redirection still being allowed (and seemingly no real way to prevent that), with Video FX still being allowed and with fleet warp still in existence, it's still simple to control a whole fleet. Most of the tasks isboxer players perform will still be possible, it will just take 5 more minutes to set up when you undock. I've resubbed and isboxer account and tried out a new setup already which is actually slightly more effective than the broadcasting method, albeit with more clicks. Only the biggest multiboxers need worry about the change.
For me, the biggest problem with the change is that it's pointless. It's going to result in a lot more support tickets from the whining masses, the loss of a few of the biggest mutliboxers the false banning of a fair few normal multiboxers (basically being too quick at controlling you and your alts will appear like multiplexing, and there's no solid way of proving it), and it's all for what? What's the benefit? People keep saying how balanced it will be and how great for the game it is, yet nobody has actually been able to explain what will be different. That's because nothing will be. It's wishful thinking from the uninformed.
This change should be scrapped and the gameplay elements that make multiboxing in scale useful should be looked at instead. If someone can set up 20 characters and control them all blindly using key broadcasting, then that's a good sign that the gameplay element itself sucks and needs to be improved. I'd much rather CCP improved gameplay making multiboxing less viable that way rather than banning something they can't reasonably prove that has been allowed for years.
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
4444
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 08:35:44 -
[2381] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:More or less killing off ISboxer is a good thing, so I support CCP on this.
If CCP did not more or less kill ISboxer they would be in the wrong.
It is not a question of supporting CCP because they are CCP, but a question of doing the right thing by the game in a holistic sense.
In this instance, CCP are doing the right thing. They aren't at all killing off isboxer. They're banning a single feature, not even the most important feature. It's going to be amazing when people realise how much this doesn't affect the majority of isboxer users. Agreed. And keep in mind that on other topics Lucas and I often disagree. Of course Lucas might change his stance now. Nah.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lady Areola Fappington
2351
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 10:24:13 -
[2382] - Quote
Buldra wrote:Let me explain how its going to be. From the 1st January, i'm going to be unemployed with about 10 of my previous friends. However, i'm not going to go down without a fight, so in order for me to keep my subs running i'm going to need ISk and your lovely fat haulers and freighters will have to bear the brunt of that. I hope thats ok with you, as I will not be f*ing up your economy too much. I would actually enjoy the game again, as opposed to shooting stupid rats, I will have a lots of fan mail, i'm sure. There are always consequences to actions, and this is going to be mine. Ganking in high sec is legit. I will need 3-6 accounts and i will manually fly all of them, no need for Isboxer either. I'm looking forward to your fan mail and thanks for freeing me from the shackles of incursions, it was getting rather tedious running those bloody things anyhow.... PS. I'm an alt, so see you in Hek, Uitander, Bei Deltole, Aufay, Balle or any 05, 06 near you from the 2nd of JAN 2015 Udema is cesspool so i wouldn't go there
Awesome, I hope you have tons of fun with your new playstyle!
If you get any interesting or amazing kills, make sure to share them. Sharing is caring, and the gankers are a very caring bunch.
Honestly, never really been a fan of input duplication anyway, and it seems like it squeaked in more because CCP couldn't tell the diff between using a program, and the duct tape and chopsticks method. Just saying "don't do it" regardless of the technique will hopefully improve quality of life in Eve.
Multiboxers still gonna 'box, only now it'll be a little more respectable. Managing a 20 account 'box fleet will require actual skills, and not just a set up input duplication program.
It isn't really hard, but I think there are customers that you can lose in a good way and there's customers that you can lose in a bad way. If people come in and fundamentally don't like EVE Online, then I think that might be a good way of losing customers. . -á--CCP Soundwave
|
Belinda HwaFang
Coreli Corporation
Ineluctable.
38
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 11:15:44 -
[2383] - Quote
Nice one!
Thanks CCP. |
marVLs
680
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 12:58:31 -
[2384] - Quote
So much WIN!
thx CCP :D |
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
366
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 14:34:58 -
[2385] - Quote
Buldra wrote:Let me explain how its going to be. From the 1st January, i'm going to be unemployed with about 10 of my previous friends. However, i'm not going to go down without a fight, so in order for me to keep my subs running i'm going to need ISk and your lovely fat haulers and freighters will have to bear the brunt of that. I hope thats ok with you, as I will not be f*ing up your economy too much. I would actually enjoy the game again, as opposed to shooting stupid rats, I will have a lots of fan mail, i'm sure. There are always consequences to actions, and this is going to be mine. Ganking in high sec is legit. I will need 3-6 accounts and i will manually fly all of them, no need for Isboxer either. I'm looking forward to your fan mail and thanks for freeing me from the shackles of incursions, it was getting rather tedious running those bloody things anyhow.... PS. I'm an alt, so see you in Hek, Uitander, Bei Deltole, Aufay, Balle or any 05, 06 near you from the 2nd of JAN 2015 Udema is cesspool so i wouldn't go there
Hmm. People whine about ISBoxer, CCP nerfs boxing. Boxers go suicide gank. People whine about suicide ganking...
At any rate, good luck in your new career, I wish you all the best. May your antimatter fly true and your loot always drop.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury
|
Annihlator
Estrale Frontiers
Project Wildfire
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 16:46:51 -
[2386] - Quote
I tried to make a Ticket to ask about my own situation as i use a software-based KVM though CiD could only refer me right back to the topic which made me make the whole ticket.
Normally when multiboxing i had always used a regular KVM switch (as far as I know, that would still be allowed).
The physical KVM has however long-ago died and since 2 years i am using InputDirector which swaps over all my input once i cross my desktop or laptop screen-border. Also when developing cross-platform (i.e. Windows and Linux, ID works on many platforms!) (site for reference; http://www.inputdirector.com/ )
As I am not multiplexing my input, just switching to which computer the input actually goes, I wanted to ask if such a software-KVM is also fine?
Wanted to clarify this before the mighty banhammer might strike me while im doing this :) |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4444
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 17:05:07 -
[2387] - Quote
Annihlator wrote:I tried to make a Ticket to ask about my own situation as i use a software-based KVM though CiD could only refer me right back to the topic which made me make the whole ticket. Normally when multiboxing i had always used a regular KVM switch (as far as I know, that would still be allowed). The physical KVM has however long-ago died and since 2 years i am using InputDirector which swaps over all my input once i cross my desktop or laptop screen-border. Also when developing cross-platform (i.e. Windows and Linux, ID works on many platforms!) (site for reference; http://www.inputdirector.com/ ) As I am not multiplexing my input, just switching to which computer the input actually goes, I wanted to ask if such a software-KVM is also fine? Wanted to clarify this before the mighty banhammer might strike me while im doing this :) As far as I can tell, as long as 1 click or button press generates 1 click or button press one 1 client, you are OK. Chances are you will never hear another word about it from CCP Devs unless they decide to ban you.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
368
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 17:22:05 -
[2388] - Quote
Annihlator wrote:I tried to make a Ticket to ask about my own situation as i use a software-based KVM though CiD could only refer me right back to the topic which made me make the whole ticket. Normally when multiboxing i had always used a regular KVM switch (as far as I know, that would still be allowed). The physical KVM has however long-ago died and since 2 years i am using InputDirector which swaps over all my input once i cross my desktop or laptop screen-border. Also when developing cross-platform (i.e. Windows and Linux, ID works on many platforms!) (site for reference; http://www.inputdirector.com/ ) As I am not multiplexing my input, just switching to which computer the input actually goes, I wanted to ask if such a software-KVM is also fine? Wanted to clarify this before the mighty banhammer might strike me while im doing this :)
Again, you need to answer only one question:
When I click a mouse button or press a key on my keyboard, does more than one client react at a time?
If the answer is yes, you have a problem.
If it's no, you're fine - keep calm and carry on.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury
|
Annihlator
Estrale Frontiers
Project Wildfire
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 17:39:47 -
[2389] - Quote
Thanks for the response, seems like i should have no problem then :) |
Millerz Magnum
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 19:17:17 -
[2390] - Quote
So why dont you add windows/linux to the ban list as well, as automation is easily done their as it is with isboxer.
RIP EvE, as now the majority of accounts is with single persons, no longer much of a need for alot of them.
Kinda should of been expected as ccp nerfs all that is good, to the level of ****. #Drake #Cane #JD's #Titans |
|
|
Revis Owen
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
69
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 20:51:46 -
[2391] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:It's going to result in . . . the false banning of a fair few normal multiboxers (basically being too quick at controlling you and your alts will appear like multiplexing, and there's no solid way of proving it)
The sky's not going to fall on "normal multiboxers", Chicken Little. Clearly easy to distinguish them from bot-aspirant multiboxers.
A "normal multiboxer" issues different commands from each client most of the time. In the minority of instances of same command given from each client, the manual alt-tabbing and clicking each time will take beyond nano-seconds.
A bot-aspirant multiboxer issues the same command from more than one client within nano-seconds: 10 clients warp to same asteroid belt at nearly same time, 10 clients target an asteroid at nearly same time, 10 clients activate mining module at nealry same time, etc.
Agent of the New Order
http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html
If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
295
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 21:00:04 -
[2392] - Quote
Revis Owen wrote:The sky's not going to fall on "normal multiboxers", Chicken Little. Clearly easy to distinguish them from bot-aspirant multiboxers.
A "normal multiboxer" issues different commands from each client most of the time. In the minority of instances of same command given from each client, the manual alt-tabbing and clicking each time will take beyond nano-seconds.
A bot-aspirant multiboxer issues the same command from more than one client within nano-seconds: 10 clients warp to same asteroid belt at nearly same time, 10 clients target an asteroid at nearly same time, 10 clients activate mining module at nealry same time, etc.
Except that CCP has already banned multiple people who are using G15s or ISBoxer even though the deadline was Jan 1, so their record is not spotless.
And your usage of "bot-aspirant" indicates you have no clue what "bot" means other than "some program I don't like or don't use". Please try to educate yourself. |
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
373
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 21:14:45 -
[2393] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Revis Owen wrote:The sky's not going to fall on "normal multiboxers", Chicken Little. Clearly easy to distinguish them from bot-aspirant multiboxers.
A "normal multiboxer" issues different commands from each client most of the time. In the minority of instances of same command given from each client, the manual alt-tabbing and clicking each time will take beyond nano-seconds.
A bot-aspirant multiboxer issues the same command from more than one client within nano-seconds: 10 clients warp to same asteroid belt at nearly same time, 10 clients target an asteroid at nearly same time, 10 clients activate mining module at nealry same time, etc. Except that CCP has already banned multiple people who are using G15s or ISBoxer even though the deadline was Jan 1, so their record is not spotless. And your usage of "bot-aspirant" indicates you have no clue what "bot" means other than "some program I don't like or don't use". Please try to educate yourself.
Actually he used the term bot aspirant correctly. And given that CODE coined the term, I'd be prepared to take their definition over yours pretty much any day.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1302
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 21:52:19 -
[2394] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:CCP Falcon, you know that comment on Reddit of yours, where you said you would prefer seeing twenty individuals rather than 20 alts. If you were serious about the RP integrity of EVE, what you would have said was you'd prefer just one running client per player. I hope you see the issue of double dipping that CCP engages in, by selling multiple accounts, without in-client support for multiple clients.
The real problem was the decision to start allowing multiple clients way back when. All that income, all that content... should never have happened.
That's what you should be speaking to, in opinion statements. Denying or ignoring or being unaware of how game-breaking multiboxing can be is just... kind of hard to believe it can happen.
This is an excellent point.
I have no idea whether this genie can ever get stuffed back into the bottle, but it would fix many more structural issues with EVE mechanics (frex: bounties) than this prohibition of input broadcasting and multiplexing. It would have some difficult-to-foresee effects on the sort of roles that are naturally suited to alts: off-grid boosters, static wormhole watchers, functionally or literally AFK auto piloting haulers running in a background window, and so forth. It would nerf the mass-of-AFK-cloaking-alts style of gameplay into the ground. And oh, man, the hit to pilots in capital sized, jump-capable ships. Ouch.
I'm not optimistic. I'm still smarting from CCP's jaw-dropping decision to make alts a canonical part of the lore in that comic book.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
296
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 22:01:37 -
[2395] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Revis Owen wrote:The sky's not going to fall on "normal multiboxers", Chicken Little. Clearly easy to distinguish them from bot-aspirant multiboxers.
A "normal multiboxer" issues different commands from each client most of the time. In the minority of instances of same command given from each client, the manual alt-tabbing and clicking each time will take beyond nano-seconds.
A bot-aspirant multiboxer issues the same command from more than one client within nano-seconds: 10 clients warp to same asteroid belt at nearly same time, 10 clients target an asteroid at nearly same time, 10 clients activate mining module at nealry same time, etc. Except that CCP has already banned multiple people who are using G15s or ISBoxer even though the deadline was Jan 1, so their record is not spotless. And your usage of "bot-aspirant" indicates you have no clue what "bot" means other than "some program I don't like or don't use". Please try to educate yourself. Actually he used the term bot aspirant correctly. And given that CODE coined the term, I'd be prepared to take their definition over yours pretty much any day.
Meh. I guess I'm used to the old school "bot" meaning "a program that will constantly input actions without human interaction" I.E. D2NT autobot, where you'd hit "run" and you didn't have to do a thing afterwards. I don't buy into the CODE kool-aid where i gotta pay to mine, and if I don't I'm instantly labeled a botter, even if I stepped away from the keyboard to snag a beer from the fridge.
I'm not saying CCP should give actual bots a free pass; far from it. But when CCP's attempts to bring the hammer down on bots impedes other people's gameplay, then I have a problem with it. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4444
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 22:06:40 -
[2396] - Quote
Revis Owen wrote:The sky's not going to fall on "normal multiboxers", Chicken Little. Clearly easy to distinguish them from bot-aspirant multiboxers.
A "normal multiboxer" issues different commands from each client most of the time. In the minority of instances of same command given from each client, the manual alt-tabbing and clicking each time will take beyond nano-seconds.
A bot-aspirant multiboxer issues the same command from more than one client within nano-seconds: 10 clients warp to same asteroid belt at nearly same time, 10 clients target an asteroid at nearly same time, 10 clients activate mining module at nealry same time, etc. First off, nobody is "bot aspirant". This is not a discussion about code (who arguably support bots more than any other group).
And no, a "normal" multiboxer with multiple characters performing the same task will often be doign the same thing on all clients. They'll step through the clients clicking the same button on each, which can be done very quickly with well laid out windows or global keybinds (either of which are supposedly banned). A player doing that too fast will appear to be a broadcaster with a delay between clients. I've seen CCPs enforcement backfire enough times to know that this will result in plenty of legitimate players being banned.
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
4445
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 22:09:02 -
[2397] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Actually he used the term bot aspirant correctly. And given that CODE coined the term, I'd be prepared to take their definition over yours pretty much any day. Considering CODE refer to actively playing players, ones not even multiboxing as being "bot aspirant", and the majority of them are kids looking to grief other players, I'd tend to not take their definition of anything.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Jack Miton
Isogen 5
3978
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 23:09:32 -
[2398] - Quote
Excellent change :) +1
Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe:-á http://downthepipe-wh.com/
|
Shadow' Broker
Nuclear-Blast
12
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 23:09:55 -
[2399] - Quote
Hello everyone;
I just wanted to chip in and tell you guys my opinion about thins whole isboxer manifesto.
I use isboxer myself in eve since 3 years and I find it to be incredibly useful. Yet I don't understand the Tears and Quitting posts, and rage by so many isboxer users.
ME being a isboxer user for years, I have no problem whatsoever with this "change" in policy, for using it. (AND I FULLY SUPPORT CCPs DECISION ON THAT MATTER).
AS CCP HAS STATED; you may still use isboxer and its features ; BUT the only feature that you are not allowed to use is the ONE feature that allows you to broadcast your commands through all your clients at the same time.
I mainly use isboxer because it automatically reduces the framerates on the clients running in the background, and because I can see my overview, ... local, ... d-scan, ... or whatever from other clients in one screen; without having my Computer crashing.
Honestly I have a pretty ancient computer and without the use of isboxer I could not run more than one client. (If I run 2 clients without isboxer), using the alt - tab function my computer needs almost 2 minutes till I can see anything on my screen; and the loading process has not even completed yet, so I cant do anything and have to wait. Is boxer is pretty good to help with this.
BUT on the other hand I really believe that having a single person controlling a bomber-fleet just with a few clicks is totally uneccaptable, and should not be possible ingame.
SO AS I UNDERSTOOD THE STATEMENT BY CCP; it says that only the broadcasting of commands is gonna be prohibited.
You can still use isboxer and be fine just have to control your characters yourself instead of flying 20 at once ships by just clicking a button.
And if I read CCP Falcons post right, you are still allowed to use the broadcast function for the login process of your clients, the correction of your ingame window settings and also the client settings.
So I really don't understand what all the fuzz is about. Seriously; ... if you need to control 20 bombers as a single player to be able to kill an ennemy by yourself; ... honestly that doesnt make you a hero. It makes you a poser whithout reason to be proud of.
AM I RIGHT WITH THIS? |
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Absolution Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 23:25:37 -
[2400] - Quote
Going to go out and say this. I own 7 accounts.
They are not all in the same space but infact spread out in different regions. They mine. I control the all via Innerspace (isoboxers form broadcasting commands to multiple clients). Now with Innerspace being banned how will I be caught. I can see you would pull the logs of someone suspected of breaking this new rule. Highly doubt you can catch someone doing this.
I can see possibly pulling Ip and check the accounts running from that ip but that seems a little over the top to catch someone trying to mine and make ships.
I honestly think this has no effect on gameplay. I see this biting ccp in the ass more than anything. They will constanly get mails about groups 20+ using "botting". Maybe it is 1 person controlling 20 accounts or maybe its 20 actual people. 20 bombers is 20 bombers. doenst matter who is controlling them.
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
|
|
Lupe Meza
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 00:37:02 -
[2401] - Quote
JGar Rooflestein wrote:Going to go out and say this. I own 7 accounts.
They are not all in the same space but infact spread out in different regions. They mine. I control the all via Innerspace (isoboxers form broadcasting commands to multiple clients). Now with Innerspace being banned how will I be caught. I can see you would pull the logs of someone suspected of breaking this new rule. Highly doubt you can catch someone doing this.
I can see possibly pulling Ip and check the accounts running from that ip but that seems a little over the top to catch someone trying to mine and make ships.
I honestly think this has no effect on gameplay. I see this biting ccp in the ass more than anything. They will constantly get mails about groups 20+ using "botting". Maybe it is 1 person controlling 20 accounts or maybe its 20 actual people. 20 bombers is 20 bombers. doenst matter who is controlling them.
I give whatever team is going to be on the case a bit more credit than that. I'm sure they have detection tools in place and when the changes go into effect they'll be able to sort out false reports or not even be relying on reports at all if they have software in place to detect things on their end. Between the variance in response time a group of people has and their different latencies I find it hard to believe that area between one player multicasting and a group of players that are just really coordinated will be all that grey.
It is refreshing to see them doing anything at all, as I said before I think it stands to improve their product for the long haul as it makes for a much more equitable playfield in the sandbox. Sure they could have thrown their hands in the air and said "well it won't work anyway", but in my opinion they've been doing a lot of nothing about some glaring inequities in the game and I'm encouraged to see them at least making attempts at rectifying some of the more glaring issues.
It may be futile, but I'm betting it won't be. Hell, if it was so futile it wouldn't have produced what amounts to a 100 page temper tantrum.
It will be an uphill battle when this goes into effect as I'm sure tool makers are already trying to workaround whatever detection measures they anticipate CCP having in place (and CCP is of course smart not divulging what exactly what they will look for), but as the people that try to get around this and are caught and banned 10, 20, 30 accounts at a time there will be a shift in the game. They cheaters will either quit, play by the rules, or have their places in New Eden taken by new and returning players that may have been turned off by some of the issues that come with competing with large isboxer fleets. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
297
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 01:02:11 -
[2402] - Quote
Lupe Meza wrote:It may be futile, but I'm betting it won't be. Hell, if it was so futile it wouldn't have produced what amounts to a 100 page temper tantrum.
You're forgetting the massive threadnaught that was spawned when CCP tried to change cloaking. CCP was told in no uncertain terms that it wouldn't change multibox bombing, and the boxers gave CCP a number of very viable changes that would cripple multibox bombing, which they ignored. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
297
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 03:01:30 -
[2403] - Quote
Yet another page-long, detailed argument. Funny that the detractors of ISBoxer can't write a page about the subject without attempting to compare it to something like StealthMiner, or trying to argue it's "unfair for non-boxers." I'm sorry, but using an argument about fairness in EVE, a game with implants, links, boosters, and EWAR, is silly.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sisibu |
Madd Adda
UEASC Technologies
Black Thorne Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 04:20:17 -
[2404] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Yet another page-long, detailed argument. Funny that the detractors of ISBoxer can't write a page about the subject without attempting to compare it to something like StealthMiner, or trying to argue it's "unfair for non-boxers." I'm sorry, but using an argument about fairness in EVE, a game with implants, links, boosters, and EWAR, is silly.http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sisibu
But those are a part of the game, ISBOXER isn't, there is a difference. |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
78
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 04:54:09 -
[2405] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Yet another page-long, detailed argument. Funny that the detractors of ISBoxer can't write a page about the subject without attempting to compare it to something like StealthMiner, or trying to argue it's "unfair for non-boxers." I'm sorry, but using an argument about fairness in EVE, a game with implants, links, boosters, and EWAR, is silly. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sisibu
So I take it that you would regard any argument justifying the change due to game balance issues as invalid?
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
299
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 05:16:39 -
[2406] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:So I take it that you would regard any argument justifying the change due to game balance issues as invalid?
So long as you don't use any argument that can be used against EWAR, drone assist, or capitals, I'll happily read it.
Madd Adda wrote:But those are a part of the game, ISBOXER isn't, there is a difference.
ISBoxer has been a part of EVE for a very long time. If it was thought to be detrimental to the health of EVE, it would have been banned ages ago. As it stands, it's both too much of an integral part of EVE much the way 3rd party fitting tools, Siggy, and EVEMon are, as well as not being a bot or against the EULA as it still requires a person behind the keyboard. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1282
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 05:31:25 -
[2407] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rosewalker wrote:So I take it that you would regard any argument justifying the change due to game balance issues as invalid? So long as you don't use any argument that can be used against EWAR, drone assist, or capitals, I'll happily read it. The only commonality to those is that they are a force multiplier that can be balanced by CCP directly. Oh wait... no, that leaves ISBoxer and similar tools out.
Quote:ISBoxer has been a part of EVE for a very long time. If it was thought to be detrimental to the health of EVE, it would have been banned ages ago. As it stands, it's both too much of an integral part of EVE much the way 3rd party fitting tools, Siggy, and EVEMon are, as well as not being a bot or against the EULA as it still requires a person behind the keyboard. No, it's in no way too much a part of EVE. It's actually in no way a part of EVE. Such tools lie entirely outside of the client, which alone isn't an issue, but like any other outside tool CCP can at their discretion decide it's not acceptable to continue using it.
Even if we take the position of popularity meaning it's a part of the game, we would have to accept that botting is also acceptable as a practice that has been enjoying various levels of popularity and has continued over the years. We could use the argument that CCP has banned it, but then we have the issue that the acts described in the op can receive a legitimate ban as well since CCP's discretion is a thing again. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2479
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 05:37:36 -
[2408] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Yet another page-long, detailed argument. Funny that the detractors of ISBoxer can't write a page about the subject without attempting to compare it to something like StealthMiner, or trying to argue it's "unfair for non-boxers." I'm sorry, but using an argument about fairness in EVE, a game with implants, links, boosters, and EWAR, is silly.http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sisibu But those are a part of the game, ISBOXER isn't, there is a difference.
Using logic with Nolak is like using butter knife to chop down a tree.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
26382
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 05:39:15 -
[2409] - Quote
that would do absolutely nothing, though, so how would that even work. a butter knife.
I don't get it.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
299
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 05:41:18 -
[2410] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:The only commonality to those is that they are a force multiplier that can be balanced by CCP directly. Oh wait... no, that leaves ISBoxer and similar tools out.
CCP is attempting to treat a severed femoral artery with a band-aid. CCP needs to nerf or balance the usefullness of the weapon systems and ships that are the underlying cause of the sickness and the symptoms will go away. I mentioned several such balance passes or options that would work tremendously. Namely, mining minigame for active miners, 4-digit code for bombs, and lowering isk while increasing LP for incursions.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Even if we take the position of popularity meaning it's a part of the game, we would have to accept that botting is also acceptable as a practice that has been enjoying various levels of popularity and has continued over the years. We could use the argument that CCP has banned it, but then we have the issue that the acts described in the op can receive a legitimate ban as well since CCP's discretion is a thing again.
Except that botting (a program w/o person behind keyboard) has always been strictly against the EULA since day 1 as it requires no player input. ISBoxing is simply on the table because someone spilled their milk and, instead of thinking about how they could stop milk being spilled in the future, ran up to mommy and cried about it and demanded that he get a brand new cup of milk. |
|
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1282
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 05:42:11 -
[2411] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:that would do absolutely nothing, though, so how would that even work. a butter knife.
I don't get it.
"That's the joke"
Sorry, felt somewhat obligatory. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2479
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 05:43:44 -
[2412] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rosewalker wrote:So I take it that you would regard any argument justifying the change due to game balance issues as invalid? So long as you don't use any argument that can be used against EWAR, drone assist, or capitals, I'll happily read it. Madd Adda wrote:But those are a part of the game, ISBOXER isn't, there is a difference. ISBoxer has been a part of EVE for a very long time. If it was thought to be detrimental to the health of EVE, it would have been banned ages ago. As it stands, it's both too much of an integral part of EVE much the way 3rd party fitting tools, Siggy, and EVEMon are, as well as not being a bot or against the EULA as it still requires a person behind the keyboard.
By this convoluted logic one could argue botting has been a part of Eve too.
And no it may not have been banned ages ago. Seriously you keep using specious arguments to try and convince everyone that broadcasting is just peachy.
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.
Recall the update about cache scraping? My guess is CCP wont care if you do cache scraping so long as the results are made widely available. If you we cache scraping and getting an advantage the CCP deemed unfair....well you might have an issue.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
299
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 05:52:43 -
[2413] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:By this convoluted logic one could argue botting has been a part of Eve too.
Botting =/= ISBoxing. Botting has always been against the EULA and requires no human input. Quite different from boxing.
Quote:And no it may not have been banned ages ago. Seriously you keep using specious arguments to try and convince everyone that broadcasting is just peachy.
So if CCP thought ISBoxer was detrimental to EVE's health when it first came out, you think they would have ignored it? Right.
Quote: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.
There is no barrier to using ISBoxer, and there are many free alternatives that work just as well.
Quote:get an advantage the CCP deemed unfair....well you might have an issue.
Again, there is no "Ignore all forms of EWAR and incoming DPS" button on ISBoxer that would provide an unfair advantage over a fleet of the same size and makeup. There is no "Turn my guns into capital blasters with infinite tracking and optimal" button either. Each pilot is affected by the same EWAR and DPS that a regular pilot would be subject to, with the added negative that he will not be able to easily manually pilot to attempt to minimize DPS, or move out of a bubble, or avoid a gank. ISBoxers knowingly place themselves at a disadvantage over a fleet of non-boxers because of their inability to react to these situations and thus we attempt to compensate for that disadvantage. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2479
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 05:54:57 -
[2414] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:The only commonality to those is that they are a force multiplier that can be balanced by CCP directly. Oh wait... no, that leaves ISBoxer and similar tools out. CCP is attempting to treat a severed femoral artery with a band-aid. CCP needs to nerf or balance the usefullness of the weapon systems and ships that are the underlying cause of the sickness and the symptoms will go away. I mentioned several such balance passes or options that would work tremendously. Namely, mining minigame for active miners, 4-digit code for bombs, and lowering isk while increasing LP for incursions. Tyberius Franklin wrote:Even if we take the position of popularity meaning it's a part of the game, we would have to accept that botting is also acceptable as a practice that has been enjoying various levels of popularity and has continued over the years. We could use the argument that CCP has banned it, but then we have the issue that the acts described in the op can receive a legitimate ban as well since CCP's discretion is a thing again. Except that botting (a program w/o person behind keyboard) has always been strictly against the EULA since day 1 as it requires no player input. ISBoxing is simply on the table because someone spilled their milk and, instead of thinking about how they could stop milk being spilled in the future, ran up to mommy and cried about it and demanded that he get a brand new cup of milk. edit: Quote:Using logic with Nolak is like using butter knife to chop down a tree. If you use logic that can't be applied to literally every other part of EVE, or isn't "my feelings got hurt", then I'll listen. Until such time, I will continue to laugh at your pathetic attempts to justify running to mommy.
CCP is attempting to balance things out with regards to ships, guns, etc. The jump range nerf and fatigue? You did know about that right?
4 digit code for bombers...WTF? We should nerf actual players so we can nerf ISBoxers? Really? No. Just No. If you suggest ANYTHING that nerfs actual players who are playing the game to try and get at ISBoxers, that is just bad and lazy game design.
As for Botting and always being against the EULA, perhaps you missed the part of the EULA that gives CCP broad discretionary powers over THEIR game. ISBoxer fell into a grey area and CCP has finally made their position on the use of certain features extremely clear.
Your ideas are bad and illogical.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Madd Adda
UEASC Technologies
Black Thorne Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 05:56:20 -
[2415] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
ISBoxer has been a part of EVE for a very long time. If it was thought to be detrimental to the health of EVE, it would have been banned ages ago. As it stands, it's both too much of an integral part of EVE much the way 3rd party fitting tools, Siggy, and EVEMon are, as well as not being a bot or against the EULA as it still requires a person behind the keyboard.
ISBoxer is external the game, regardless if it's been used in conjunction with EVE for X amount of time. Everything else you listed before were created for the game itself and is completely integrated. That was the point i was making. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1282
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 05:56:58 -
[2416] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:CCP is attempting to treat a severed femoral artery with a band-aid. CCP needs to nerf or balance the usefullness of the weapon systems and ships that are the underlying cause of the sickness and the symptoms will go away. I mentioned several such balance passes or options that would work tremendously. Namely, mining minigame for active miners, 4-digit code for bombs, and lowering isk while increasing LP for incursions. So basically for the sake of dealing with multiboxers with outside tools everyone else, including single client players and non-assisted multiboxers should suffer severe income, capability nerfs and/or usability frustrations? They should redesign the game for everyone to frustrate a few? So rather than address the issue we should invite poor design to everyone and just hope it works out?
Please never become a dev.
Nolak Ataru wrote:Except that botting (a program w/o person behind keyboard) has always been strictly against the EULA since day 1 as it requires no player input. ISBoxing is simply on the table because someone spilled their milk and, instead of thinking about how they could stop milk being spilled in the future, ran up to mommy and cried about it and demanded that he get a brand new cup of milk. And some things haven't been out of bounds since day 1 but are now, saying it has in no way invalidates the fact that it may have been an issue from the start but not abused to a critical point, or that internal debate finally reached a decision point. Either way, the EULA makes 2 things clear, 1 CCP can decide balance at their leisure, 2 if you don't like it you can take your ball (isboxer) and go home.
Nolak Ataru wrote:edit: Quote:Using logic with Nolak is like using butter knife to chop down a tree. If you use logic that can't be applied to literally every other part of EVE, or isn't "my feelings got hurt", then I'll listen. Until such time, I will continue to laugh at your pathetic attempts to justify running to mommy. This one's not really mine to reply to, but since you left it in, crying about other people crying is pathetic. Suck it up buttercup. Tears don't help your position.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2481
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 06:11:51 -
[2417] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Botting =/= ISBoxing. Botting has always been against the EULA and requires no human input. Quite different from boxing.
See there is that illogical nonsense. Did I say ISBoxer = botting? No. I pointed out that your argument via popularity is nonsense.
Quote:So if CCP thought ISBoxer was detrimental to EVE's health when it first came out, you think they would have ignored it? Right.
There you go again, setting up a nice straw man that you can knock down. Maybe CCP didn't know if it would be good or bad, so they decided not to act on it right out of the gate. I don't know, I'm not privy to those discussion and neither are you.
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 plateform? If the answers are "No, and yes," then those are barriers.
Quote:
Again, there is no "Ignore all forms of EWAR and incoming DPS" button on ISBoxer that would provide an unfair advantage over a fleet of the same size and makeup. There is no "Turn my guns into capital blasters with infinite tracking and optimal" button either. Each pilot is affected by the same EWAR and DPS that a regular pilot would be subject to, with the added negative that he will not be able to easily manually pilot to attempt to minimize DPS, or move out of a bubble, or avoid a gank. ISBoxers knowingly place themselves at a disadvantage over a fleet of non-boxers because of their inability to react to these situations and thus we attempt to compensate for that disadvantage.
You are completely missing the point here and you are using arguments I have not made and attribute them to me (nowhere ITT have I suggested that ISBoxer allows a player to circumvent game mechanics). 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.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
80
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 06:13:27 -
[2418] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Except that botting (a program w/o person behind keyboard) has always been strictly against the EULA since day 1 as it requires no player input. ISBoxing is simply on the table because someone spilled their milk and, instead of thinking about how they could stop milk being spilled in the future, ran up to mommy and cried about it and demanded that he get a brand new cup of milk.
You keep ignoring the fact that ISBoxer (aka "the multiboxing software") was mentioned in the Third Party Policies from spring of 2013 until last week. Quote:
Previous Version Of Policy On Client Modification wrote:
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. We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay. For instance, the use of programs that provide in-game overlays (Mumble, Teamspeak) and the multiboxing application is not something we plan to actively police at this time. 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.
For over a year-and-a-half, CCP had posted on its website a statement proclaiming that ISBoxer (aka "the multiboxing software") violated provisions of the EULA, but that CCP would just not enforce the EULA. CCP also retained the right to prohibit the use of ISBoxer if the company feels that the software gave an unfair advantage to ISBoxer users.
Well, the day that CCP feels it has to take action came last week, and ISBoxer users were given 35 days notice. But CCP chose not to ban the entire program, just the optional parts that it felt gave ISBoxer users "an unfair advantage." Which means that people like Goonswarm fleet commander Lazarus Telraven can continue to use ISBoxer to not only FC, but to stream on Twitch as well. Other people can continue to enjoy the Windows FX features that allow them to run more clients on older computers than they would normally be able to when they are multiboxing.
You got to use input broadcasting for a very long time, a practice that seems to violate Section 6A3 of the EVE EULA. Now CCP has done a review and decided that input broadcasting is overpowered and needs to be banned in all cases that affect the EVE universe. I haven't read or heard anyone explain why input broadcasting is not overpowered. All I've heard is that CCP didn't ban people for it before and they shouldn't change their minds. I haven't heard an explanation of why input broadcasting is good for EVE. Since CCP believes that input broadcasting is bad for EVE, I would expect somone to at least try to explain why CCP is wrong.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2481
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 06:20:46 -
[2419] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Except that botting (a program w/o person behind keyboard) has always been strictly against the EULA since day 1 as it requires no player input. ISBoxing is simply on the table because someone spilled their milk and, instead of thinking about how they could stop milk being spilled in the future, ran up to mommy and cried about it and demanded that he get a brand new cup of milk.
You keep ignoring the fact that ISBoxer (aka "the multiboxing software") was mentioned in the Third Party Policies from spring of 2013 until last week. Quote: Previous Version Of Policy On Client Modification wrote:
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. We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay. For instance, the use of programs that provide in-game overlays (Mumble, Teamspeak) and the multiboxing application is not something we plan to actively police at this time. 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.
For over a year-and-a-half, CCP had posted on its website a statement proclaiming that ISBoxer (aka "the multiboxing software") violated provisions of the EULA, but that CCP would just not enforce the EULA. CCP also retained the right to prohibit the use of ISBoxer if the company feels that the software gave an unfair advantage to ISBoxer users. Well, the day that CCP feels it has to take action came last week, and ISBoxer users were given 35 days notice. But CCP chose not to ban the entire program, just the optional parts that it felt gave ISBoxer users "an unfair advantage." Which means that people like Goonswarm fleet commander Lazarus Telraven can continue to use ISBoxer to not only FC, but to stream on Twitch as well. Other people can continue to enjoy the Windows FX features that allow them to run more clients on older computers than they would normally be able to when they are multiboxing. You got to use input broadcasting for a very long time, a practice that seems to violate Section 6A3 of the EVE EULA. Now CCP has done a review and decided that input broadcasting is overpowered and needs to be banned in all cases that affect the EVE universe. I haven't read or heard anyone explain why input broadcasting is not overpowered. All I've heard is that CCP didn't ban people for it before and they shouldn't change their minds. I haven't heard an explanation of why input broadcasting is good for EVE. Since CCP believes that input broadcasting is bad for EVE, I would expect somone to at least try to explain why CCP is wrong.
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.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2482
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 06:33:02 -
[2420] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Yet another page-long, detailed argument. Funny that the detractors of ISBoxer can't write a page about the subject without attempting to compare it to something like StealthMiner, or trying to argue it's "unfair for non-boxers." I'm sorry, but using an argument about fairness in EVE, a game with implants, links, boosters, and EWAR, is silly. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sisibu
OMG...yet another argument relying on an IN GAME feature that is available to everyone. Drone assist, fleet warping, oh wait and of course autopilot. Why that is automation and cheating! Cheating not only sanctioned by CCP but aided and abetted by CCP. Why its tantamount to murder...or something bad at any rate. These features are a pure outrage and should be nerfed immediately. Oh, and docking up and going AFK. Why that's just horrible too, because ~reasons I'll fill in later~.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
|
Sibyyl
Gallente Federation
15546
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 06:36:43 -
[2421] - Quote
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.
Friendship is the best ship.
|
Sibyyl
Gallente Federation
15550
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 06:57:49 -
[2422] - Quote
I will add one more thing.
The worst thing about this decision, is that its motivation (in part) appears to me to be to attract new, bright eyed players to the game without some unwashed veteran assaulting them with 30 bombers, or eating up their ice fields with a locust swarm of mining ships.
I've realized one thing about EVE. The game is designed for a special type of human being who comes with a blend of patience, sociopathy, persistence, intelligence, and sociability (the proportions are different from EVE player to EVE player). This game could be altered to the point that the mainstream MMO player could wander in and feel comfortable, but I feel that would require that EVE as we know it is destroyed.
The hardcore input multiplexer is obssessed with the game. They like it enough that they've spent hours upon days upon weeks trying to perfect their setup and skill up tens of accounts and spend hours gathering ISK or kills. It takes a special brand of "crazy" to go to that level, and it is without a doubt the type of player who loves EVE.
CCP has every right to amend the EULA. I think a company also should try to do the best they can for customers who seem to really like and enjoy the game.
"35 days and then GTFO" is a terrible way of handling the change. CCP is kicking players out when there is absolutely no need to handle things that way.
Friendship is the best ship.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4446
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 07:10:23 -
[2423] - Quote
Shadow' Broker wrote:if you need to control 20 bombers as a single player to be able to kill an ennemy by yourself; ... honestly that doesnt make you a hero. It makes you a poser whithout reason to be proud of. Bombers will be the least effected by the change. Bombing runs are done in smaller subgroups (so the bombs don't destroy each other), the warp in is done by fleet warp (still allowed) and the commands on the client can be executed by a round robin keybind, which can be hammered so that all bombs launch within a second or two. Fleet warp can then take them back out. I'd be very surprised if this had any impact on multibox bombers at all.
Lupe Meza wrote:I give whatever team is going to be on the case a bit more credit than that. I'm sure they have detection tools in place and when the changes go into effect they'll be able to sort out false reports or not even be relying on reports at all if they have software in place to detect things on their end. Hahahaha, this is CCP you're talking about. I wouldn't be surprised if they started banning each other. Hoestly though, thre's no reliable way to tell the difference between a broadcaster with a delay and a round robin keybind or global keybinds being pressed too quickly. CCP will be either be punishing people for being able to click and press keys too fast, or not even remotely preventing broadcast keys.
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?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
81
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 07:11:52 -
[2424] - 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.
Note, ISBoxer is not banned, just its optional capability to conduct keystroke duplication across multiple clients. I keep reading and hearing that ISBoxer users claim that the removal of keystroke duplication will make things more awkward and require more keystrokes, but that it won't keep them from being able to effectively use ISBoxer to multibox.
Also, I wonder if the changes in interpretation and the introduction of new terminology such as "input broadcasting" and "input multiplexing" will require a rewrite of parts of the EULA, specifically Section 6A3. If there is a material change in the EULA that requires players to accept a new version of the EULA after downtime on 1 January, then players will have the option of not pressing the "Accept" button, thus terminating the EULA. Here is what Section 5C3 states:
5 Termination; Suspension of Account C. By You (3) For a Change in the EULA wrote:
If an amendment alters a material term of the EULA that is unacceptable to you, you may, as your sole and exclusive remedy, terminate the EULA and close your Accounts by: (a) clicking the "DECLINE" button when you are prompted to review and agree to the amended EULA; or (b) notifying CCP via electronic mail within thirty (30) days after the amended EULA was communicated to you, provided that you have not clicked the "ACCEPT" button, accessed the System or played the Game during that period. Your notice must state: (i) that you do not agree to the amended EULA, specifically describing the amendment(s) with which you disagree, and request CCP to close all of your Accounts; (ii) your player name and (iii) your login name. You may receive a refund of any prepaid subscription fees, prorated as of the effective date of your termination, by sending CCP a request via electronic mail within thirty (30) days of your termination notice. If you click "ACCEPT" or otherwise continue to access the System or play the Game, you shall be deemed to have accepted the amended EULA and waive your rights to terminate under this section.
So according to this, it is possible that you could receive a prorated refund, assuming that players will need to re-accept the EULA. I think that means, however, that you have to completely stop playing EVE. No stopping 8 accounts and continuing to play on one. However, CCP Falcon's statement did state they were just interpreting the rules differently, not changing any of the wording. We'll find out on 1 January, but if you really feel strongly, pay attention and don't just click the "Accept" button if the EULA shows up on the screen.
Finally, I have to point out the weaselly worded final sentence of the section of the Third Party Policies I quoted: "Please use such third party applications or other software at your own risk."
Quite frankly, I wish CCP had banned the use of ISBoxer when the issue of the software engaging in client modification was first brought up by Team Security at the beginning of 2013. But ISBoxer users won the debate and we got the Third Party Policies instead.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Sibyyl
Gallente Federation
15550
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 07:16:03 -
[2425] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:can be executed by a round robin keybind, which can be hammered so that all bombs launch within a second or two
With all due respect, I've seen you mention this scheme a few times.
You will get banned for this. The EULA change isn't some written technicality that you can rules-lawyer your way around. The input multiplexing stance in Falcon's OP is a license to blanket ban anything that gives the appearance of input multiplexing, regardless of whether or not it narrowly falls within the language of bannable behavior. What you are advocating is against the spirit of the rule.
You can start introducing random delays and alt+tabs all you like, but the totally unpredictable banhammer will come down after someone reports you (and they will).
Friendship is the best ship.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4446
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 07:20:53 -
[2426] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:So basically for the sake of dealing with multiboxers with outside tools everyone else, including single client players and non-assisted multiboxers should suffer severe income, capability nerfs and/or usability frustrations? They should redesign the game for everyone to frustrate a few? So rather than address the issue we should invite poor design to everyone and just hope it works out? While I don;t agree with a 4 digit code or mini games, yes, the way they should approach this is by making the gameplay more involved. Mutliboxers do what they do and will continue to do so even without key broadcasting because the gameplay elements they are multiboxing are too simple and require no skill. Mining for example has needed a complete overhaul for just about ever.
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.
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?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Carmen Electra
The Scope
Gallente Federation
13827
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 07:23:40 -
[2427] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:[quote=Lucas Kell]The input multiplexing stance in Falcon's OP is a license to blanket ban anything that gives the appearance of input multiplexing, regardless of whether or not it narrowly falls within the language of bannable behavior. What you are advocating is against the spirit of the rule.
I agree with this. Some boxers I know are currently scrambling together crazy alternate ISBoxer setups that attempt to allow them to pick right back where they'll leave off on Jan 1st. It seems clear to me that the intent of this policy change is to stop these sorts of activities dead in their tracks. Trying to find workarounds for my setup never even crossed my mind as I have little doubt that the devs/GMs will much care about my clever ways to skirt around the spirit of the law.
Bacon makes us stronger
|
Sibyyl
Gallente Federation
15552
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 07:24:31 -
[2428] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Finally, I have to point out the weaselly worded final sentence of the section of the Third Party Policies I quoted: "Please use such third party applications or other software at your own risk."
Legally CCP can keep every dollar already relinquished to them, and not have to refund a single cent.
I think my point was simply that EVE is not a game that people are kicking down the doors to come subscribe to. It doesn't seem like it's a great idea to kick existing customers (who happen to really like the game) and keep their money in the event of a completely altered EULA.
These ISBoxers aren't ragequitters who can't deal with the fundamentals of EVE gameplay. They are enthusiastic gamers like us who feel terrible that their style of gameplay, which is uniquely tied to a a large number of concurrent game subscriptions, has received less of a heads up that most skill and naming transitions and that CCP doesn't care that they've already paid for a game that is being totally altered (as far as their style of play is concerned).
Friendship is the best ship.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4446
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 07:25:56 -
[2429] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Previous Version Of Policy On Client Modification wrote:
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. We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay. For instance, the use of programs that provide in-game overlays (Mumble, Teamspeak) and the multiboxing application is not something we plan to actively police at this time. 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.
For over a year-and-a-half, CCP had posted on its website a statement proclaiming that ISBoxer (aka "the multiboxing software") violated provisions of the EULA, but that CCP would just not enforce the EULA. CCP also retained the right to prohibit the use of ISBoxer if the company feels that the software gave an unfair advantage to ISBoxer users. Actually, it stated that it could be used in ways which are EULA violating because of the way it interfaces with the game. If you read that again you'' also see that teamspeak and mumble are listed in the same sentence. That line has nothing to do with input broadcasting, it's talking about the graphical overlays the software provides. Those overlays will still be allowed even after January 1st.
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 07:38:57 -
[2430] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:can be executed by a round robin keybind, which can be hammered so that all bombs launch within a second or two With all due respect, I've seen you mention this scheme a few times. You will get banned for this. The EULA change isn't some written technicality that you can rules-lawyer your way around. The input multiplexing stance in Falcon's OP is a license to blanket ban anything that gives the appearance of input multiplexing, regardless of whether or not it narrowly falls within the language of bannable behavior. What you are advocating is against the spirit of the rule. You can start introducing random delays and alt+tabs all you like, but the totally unpredictable banhammer will come down after someone reports you (and they will). 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.
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.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
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
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. |
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4447
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 10:29:29 -
[2461] - 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. Actually isboxer users are less effective per character than solo players (broadcasting is dumb, it doesn;t take into accoutn different circumstatnces like nearly depleted rocks, etc). So when you say they gain an advantage, you mean that individual has an advantage over someone with less miners. That is true regardless of whether or not they use isboxer. More characters = advantage. I've used isboxer in the past, and I've multiboxed without it. Either way I crushed the single character players.
Botters are bad because they are generally harvesting 24/7 at a far more efficient rate than a single player ever could and doing so to support RMT. Comparing isboxer players to botters is utterly ridiculous.
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
4447
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 10:34:01 -
[2462] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote: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. Yeah, I like the CPU and FPS restrictions in isboxer. Lowers the amount of impact running extra clients has. The rapid screen swapping (I don't need to alt tab, have 2 global hotkeys which cycle back and forth through windows) and Video FX to dxNothing bit is pretty cool too. Amusingly, following this announcement I've resubbed isboxer and played around to get a decent no broadcast setup.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
15
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 10:37:44 -
[2463] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote: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. Yeah, I like the CPU and FPS restrictions in isboxer. Lowers the amount of impact running extra clients has. The rapid screen swapping (I don't need to alt tab, have 2 global hotkeys which cycle back and forth through windows) and Video FX to dxNothing bit is pretty cool too. Amusingly, following this announcement I've resubbed isboxer and played around to get a decent no broadcast setup.
yea, the CPU and FPS Restrictions in isb boxer is Nice :) And the work setting up (DxNothing) Take some time, (obviously) and what i kinda like and at the same .. is that you can always improve Your setup :)'etc
Edit: :) |
Adicuss Starfyre
Sushi Takeout
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 11:49:03 -
[2464] - Quote
So reading the Dev Blog and some of the 44pages of posts, I've probably missed one that is talking about what I'm going to write below.
If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4449
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 12:08:51 -
[2465] - Quote
Adicuss Starfyre wrote:If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters? Fleet warping is fine.
Chances are they will be looking at how closely commands on multiple clients from the same IP come in. If they all happen together they are likely broadcasting. Where they set the threshhold for that will be internal, but I do expect to see false positives banned, who will then petition it, and get ignored or told "tough luck" as is the usual case.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Sentenced 1989
Quantum Anomaly Corporation
141
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 12:09:32 -
[2466] - Quote
Adicuss Starfyre wrote:So reading the Dev Blog and some of the 44pages of posts, I've probably missed one that is talking about what I'm going to write below.
If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters?
Erm.. by reading game logs, which they can do....
Fleet warped -> reason: FC clicked warped fleet button in game, nothing to see here, move along
Fleet warped -> reason: Ships warped themselves x 10 at same time... hmm lets look at this toon a bit more for next few minutes to see if this happens often, if yes banhammer, if not then its coincidence.
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4353
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 12:10:21 -
[2467] - Quote
Adicuss Starfyre wrote:So reading the Dev Blog and some of the 44pages of posts, I've probably missed one that is talking about what I'm going to write below.
If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters?
Uh, no.
No third party software installed.
One command sent to CCPs servers, saying 'warp all the ships in my fleet'
It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous. It's far from hard to see the difference between using a built in command, and using a totally different bit of software.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Daneau
Unconstrained Design
19
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 12:12:05 -
[2468] - Quote
Sentenced 1989 wrote:Adicuss Starfyre wrote:So reading the Dev Blog and some of the 44pages of posts, I've probably missed one that is talking about what I'm going to write below.
If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters? Erm.. by reading game logs, which they can do.... Fleet warped -> reason: FC clicked warped fleet button in game, nothing to see here, move along Fleet warped -> reason: Ships warped themselves x 10 at same time... hmm lets look at this toon a bit more for next few minutes to see if this happens often, if yes banhammer, if not then its coincidence.
Lies!
We all know the logs show nothing,
|
Sentenced 1989
Quantum Anomaly Corporation
141
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 12:26:25 -
[2469] - Quote
Daneau wrote:Sentenced 1989 wrote:Adicuss Starfyre wrote:So reading the Dev Blog and some of the 44pages of posts, I've probably missed one that is talking about what I'm going to write below.
If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters? Erm.. by reading game logs, which they can do.... Fleet warped -> reason: FC clicked warped fleet button in game, nothing to see here, move along Fleet warped -> reason: Ships warped themselves x 10 at same time... hmm lets look at this toon a bit more for next few minutes to see if this happens often, if yes banhammer, if not then its coincidence. Lies! We all know the logs show nothing,
Hit crtl+shift+alt+m ingame and also start logserver.exe in your root from EVE installation folder and it will become clear how they will know :)
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4449
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 12:39:46 -
[2470] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous. It's far from hard to see the difference between using a built in command, and using a totally different bit of software. You say that Steve, but someone with 4 clients tiled on their desktop can hit a button on each very quickly. Isboxer broadcasting with a slight delay between clients would look no different. There has to be a threshold and some are worried about that.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Sentenced 1989
Quantum Anomaly Corporation
141
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 12:41:58 -
[2471] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous. It's far from hard to see the difference between using a built in command, and using a totally different bit of software. You say that Steve, but someone with 4 clients tiled on their desktop can hit a button on each very quickly. Isboxer broadcasting with a slight delay between clients would look no different. There has to be a threshold and some are worried about that.
Yes, but I'm not going to click each time on same spot, isboxer even with delays will hit same spot... Sometimes I might be jer**** off and will use F1-F4, sometimes I'll use my mouse. Sometimes you miss to activate guns on your alt on that specific enemy, or you miss click, or million other stuff... I don't think there will be that many false positives.
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
Karana Yotosala
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 12:42:16 -
[2472] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
[quote=Karana Yotosala]I'll be going back to using just 1, maybe 2 accounts due to the outlawing of key broadcasting. This means I have advance subs paid on accounts that I won't be using. Rather than seeing that game time credit go to waste, It'd be nice if it were possible to swap that credit to the 1 or 2 accounts that I will continue to use.
Please note, this isn't a request for a refund of cash, it's a request to transfer game time credits. CCP wouldn't lose any money as it's already been paid, but it would soften the blow for folk like me that won't be able to use multiple accounts effectively due to the changes.
Why? Set up your isboxer right and you can still be as effective if not slightly more effective up to about 20 chars. I've actually resubbed my old isboxer account specifically so I can ensure the crying noobs continue to cry. You can still crush their spirits without input broadcasting. I'm checking with CCP, but reading their change, using the Video FX viewers to create clickable zones for the extra windows will still be fine as long as you click each one, not all of them together. That pretty much makes input broadcasting irrelevant for any but the biggest multiboxers.
I hear what you're saying and understand the concept of Vfx/clickthroughs, although I'm not sure if this would be classed as broadcasting or not.
Either way, it won't make much difference to me. As I mentioned in my post, some of us don't have the manual dexterity to control numerous clients without key/mouse broadcasts (I know it would be a struggle for me to manage my mini mining fleet without).
From a personal viewpoint, I get the impression that philosophies within CCP are shifting and I don't particularly want to invest hundreds of pounds a year subbing accounts to then have something that should be fun turn into something that becomes an unnecessary struggle with dexterity.. if you get what I mean.
I'd rather streamline my accounts down to a level I can physically manage without the aid of broadcasting and maybe try doing something other than mining.
It is disappointing to not be able to do what I enjoy and want and also disappointing that CCP seemed not to take into account that some of it's subcribers might suffer from medical conditions before deciding to implement this change, but at the end of the day CCP own Eve and we just pay for access.
Who knows? I might be able to carve myself a different little niche within the game that I might enjoy?
Anyhoo, thanks for trying to give me a heads up. ;)
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4356
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 13:06:25 -
[2473] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous. It's far from hard to see the difference between using a built in command, and using a totally different bit of software. You say that Steve, but someone with 4 clients tiled on their desktop can hit a button on each very quickly. Isboxer broadcasting with a slight delay between clients would look no different. There has to be a threshold and some are worried about that.
This is fleet warp being talked about.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4449
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 13:43:33 -
[2474] - Quote
Sentenced 1989 wrote:Yes, but I'm not going to click each time on same spot, isboxer even with delays will hit same spot... Sometimes I might be jer**** off and will use F1-F4, sometimes I'll use my mouse. Sometimes you miss to activate guns on your alt on that specific enemy, or you miss click, or million other stuff... I don't think there will be that many false positives. As far as I am aware, they don't transmit the spot that is clicked, only the action. And yes, "sometimes" people miss and such, but it will also be pretty common for people to run it like clockwork. Without isboxer I've been playing long enough for everything to pretty much be automatic.
Steve Ronuken wrote:This is fleet warp being talked about. In this instance, yes, but when you say "It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous.", I imagine since I've not seen anyone else raise up fleet warp as an issue you are talking about the people suggesting that false positives will occur, which is a legitimate concern, especially considering CCPs response (or lack thereof) to people who petition after being banned in error.
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
4449
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 13:51:14 -
[2475] - Quote
Karana Yotosala wrote:From a personal viewpoint, I get the impression that philosophies within CCP are shifting and I don't particularly want to invest hundreds of pounds a year subbing accounts to then have something that should be fun turn into something that becomes an unnecessary struggle with dexterity.. if you get what I mean. It certainly seems that way lately, yes. Whether it will work in their favour or not is yet to be determined.
Karana Yotosala wrote:I'd rather streamline my accounts down to a level I can physically manage without the aid of broadcasting and maybe try doing something other than mining.
It is disappointing to not be able to do what I enjoy and want and also disappointing that CCP seemed not to take into account that some of it's subcribers might suffer from medical conditions before deciding to implement this change, but at the end of the day CCP own Eve and we just pay for access. Yeah, that's understandable. To me it's a real shame, not that they've declared it against the rules, but that it's been allowed for so long and they've suddenly done a 180 due to a change in policy for some unknown reason and with little consideration to the effects. Worse still, when people realise that for many multiboxers it doesn't change much, the status quo remains the same and the whiners are back here whining for further action to be taken.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
373
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 14:22:07 -
[2476] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Actually he used the term bot aspirant correctly. And given that CODE coined the term, I'd be prepared to take their definition over yours pretty much any day. Considering CODE refer to actively playing players, ones not even multiboxing as being "bot aspirant", and the majority of them are kids looking to grief other players, I'd tend to not take their definition of anything.
Meh, CODE just formalized what was already prevalent in the game and gave it an immersive backstory. They're like yammering puppies - annoying, but easy to avoid if you pay attention.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
148
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 16:23:12 -
[2477] - Quote
Adicuss Starfyre wrote:So reading the Dev Blog and some of the 44pages of posts, I've probably missed one that is talking about what I'm going to write below.
If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters?
No. There have been quite a few reply posts using the in-game client ability to form up fleets of ships then warp them all at once to a destination as an excuse to use ISBoxer software. There is no connection between functions that the in-game client allows you to do and what ISBoxer type software does to bastardise those actions.
For example if I watch fourteen accounts with pilots all in NPC accounts log on within 15 seconds of each other on my contacts I will be suspicious. If twelve of those accounts are piloting Skiffs and then turn on mining lasers within a few seconds of each other I will be asking for them to be banned. |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
148
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 16:30:13 -
[2478] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sentenced 1989 wrote:Yes, but I'm not going to click each time on same spot, isboxer even with delays will hit same spot... Sometimes I might be jer**** off and will use F1-F4, sometimes I'll use my mouse. Sometimes you miss to activate guns on your alt on that specific enemy, or you miss click, or million other stuff... I don't think there will be that many false positives. As far as I am aware, they don't transmit the spot that is clicked, only the action. And yes, "sometimes" people miss and such, but it will also be pretty common for people to run it like clockwork. Without isboxer I've been playing long enough for everything to pretty much be automatic. Steve Ronuken wrote:This is fleet warp being talked about. In this instance, yes, but when you say "It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous.", I imagine since I've not seen anyone else raise up fleet warp as an issue you are talking about the people suggesting that false positives will occur, which is a legitimate concern, especially considering CCPs response (or lack thereof) to people who petition after being banned in error.
If you look back through the replies to this update on multiboxing you will find quite a few people trying to use legal activities in the game such as being able to form ships into fleets as a justification or excuse for ISBoxer use to continue. |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
148
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 16:38:31 -
[2479] - Quote
A lot of ordinary non-CODE players of EVE have been hacked off at the amount of obvious ISBoxer use for ages. Members of the CSM have responded to this and CCP is doing something about it. I'm not sure whether CCP will lose out financially as a result of this decision or not. Not all decision can be just financially based though and it is good to keep the player-base happy by doing something like this. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4450
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 16:43:57 -
[2480] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:For example if I watch fourteen accounts with pilots all in NPC accounts log on within 15 seconds of each other on my contacts I will be suspicious. Suspicious of what? You're allowed to use broadcasting for logging in. Go ahead and check the OP.
Bethan Le Troix wrote:If twelve of those accounts are piloting Skiffs and then turn on mining lasers within a few seconds of each other I will be asking for them to be banned. And you would be wrong to do so, and your petition would likely be ignored. I could click 12 buttons manually in "a few seconds". What you are looking for is them activating laser simultaneously. Just because your level of carebear entitlement makes you hate everyone better than you doesn't mean they should be punished for it.
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
4451
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 16:49:22 -
[2481] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:A lot of ordinary non-CODE players of EVE have been hacked off at the amount of obvious ISBoxer use for ages. Yes, they have been hacked off about the completely legitimate and explicitly allowed multiboxing application ISBoxer. But being hacked off at something doesn't mean the something is inherently wrong. Unfortunately lately it seems it means CCP will come in and nuke it without thought. People were hacked off about awoxing too. Lots of people are hacked off at wardecs, ganking, ninja salvagers and margin scammers. I suppose all of those should go too then, yes?
Bethan Le Troix wrote: Not all decision can be just financially based though and it is good to keep the player-base happy by doing something like this. We'll see how happy "the player-base" (by which I mean "the vocal minority") is when they realise it doesn't suddenly mean all of the ice belts are empty of other players. They are happy right now because they think there's going to be a profound difference, which there won't be.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4360
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 16:59:31 -
[2482] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:This is fleet warp being talked about. In this instance, yes, but when you say "It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous.", I imagine since I've not seen anyone else raise up fleet warp as an issue you are talking about the people suggesting that false positives will occur, which is a legitimate concern, especially considering CCPs response (or lack thereof) to people who petition after being banned in error.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5243034#post5243034
You were saying?
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
299
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 16:59:58 -
[2483] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:A lot of ordinary non-CODE players of EVE have been hacked off at the amount of obvious ISBoxer use for ages. Members of the CSM have responded to this and CCP is doing something about it. I'm not sure whether CCP will lose out financially as a result of this decision or not. Not all decision can be just financially based though and it is good to keep the player-base happy by doing something like this.
I guess we interact with different sets of the playerbase. I've seen more new players ragequit or leave after being ganked by CODE because they stood up to get a beer or haul the trash out than I have seen players quit after running into an ISBoxer. As mentioned earlier, there are distinct disadvantages and penalties players put upon themselves when they start ISBoxing. The fact that the average player is more content to run screaming to mommy instead of, heavens forbid, considering how to disrupt the ISBoxer is reminding me of The EVEOnion article regarding the new "petition fleet" doctrine. There are literally hundreds of options available to the average player when it comes to ISBoxers, from gank Catalysts to smartbombing Rokhs for clustered miners. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4451
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 17:05:21 -
[2484] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:This is fleet warp being talked about. In this instance, yes, but when you say "It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous.", I imagine since I've not seen anyone else raise up fleet warp as an issue you are talking about the people suggesting that false positives will occur, which is a legitimate concern, especially considering CCPs response (or lack thereof) to people who petition after being banned in error. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5243034#post5243034 You were saying? Well clearly I was being wrong, My apologies.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
185
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 18:29:59 -
[2485] - Quote
Are macro keys on mice, keyboards and headsets allowed to be used?
Is the program Voice Attack that gives ability to play EVE with voice commands allowed? This is a valuable tool for players who are physically handicapped. |
Lord Battlestar
Faulcon de Lazy
195
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 18:47:20 -
[2486] - Quote
Lucus Kell wrote: 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.
Then in that case I would support the banning of all functions in ISBoxer and other software with related functions, you shouldn't need a third party software to be able to compete within the client.
I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart.
|
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
108
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 18:57:32 -
[2487] - Quote
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Are macro keys on mice, keyboards and headsets allowed to be used?
Is the program Voice Attack that gives ability to play EVE with voice commands allowed? This is a valuable tool for players who are physically handicapped.
I reckon, that would depend. What do your macros do?
If you press one button and your client does 5 things (or 5 different chars do one thing) it's probably not ok.
Same should hold for voice commands. If you tell your ship to warp to gate XYZ and all it actually does is warp there, it should be ok imhol. However, if you tell your ship "go rat in havens until such time that I return" while you go take a hot bath ... that's botting. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4454
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 19:08:03 -
[2488] - Quote
Lord Battlestar wrote:Lucus Kell wrote: 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. Then in that case I would support the banning of all functions in ISBoxer and other software with related functions, you shouldn't need a third party software to be able to compete within the client. Of course you would, then following that you'd look to get rid of the people with multiple monitors who are able to multibox better I'm sure. But even if CCP were to lose their minds and do that, how would they realistically prevent it? Key broadcasting is simple, they can see if multiple clients from the same IP are firing commands at the same time. They have no way of telling how your screen is laid out.
Ab'del Abu wrote:I reckon, that would depend. What do your macros do?
If you press one button and your client does 5 things (or 5 different chars do one thing) it's probably not ok. What if I lined up my modules from F1 to F4, then pusehd F1, F2, F3, F4 all at the same time. Would my fingers be banned from playing EVE together?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
118
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 19:10:27 -
[2489] - Quote
Ab'del Abu wrote:Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Are macro keys on mice, keyboards and headsets allowed to be used?
Is the program Voice Attack that gives ability to play EVE with voice commands allowed? This is a valuable tool for players who are physically handicapped. I reckon, that would depend. What do your macros do? If you press one button and your client does 5 things (or 5 different chars do one thing) it's probably not ok. Same should hold for voice commands. If you tell your ship to warp to gate XYZ and all it actually does is warp there, it should be ok imhol. However, if you tell your ship "go rat in havens until such time that I return" while you go take a hot bath ... that's botting.
one button multiple mods activated on one client is fine. |
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
291
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 19:11:09 -
[2490] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Godren Storm wrote:Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought. However, fleet warp isn't using third party software to do so. It's not food for thought at all. It's a disingenuous attempt to derail this.
if you really wanted to stop multiboxing bombers, removing fleet warping would do major damage to their ability to warp around.
stopping input duplication is a minor annoyance, fleet warping is a major one.
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
|
|
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
118
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 19:14:18 -
[2491] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Godren Storm wrote:Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought. However, fleet warp isn't using third party software to do so. It's not food for thought at all. It's a disingenuous attempt to derail this. if you really wanted to stop multiboxing bombers, removing fleet warping would do major damage to their ability to warp around. stopping input duplication is a minor annoyance, fleet warping is a major one.
do we have alliance wide bm's? (not a troll don't actual know) |
Niskin
League of the Lost
123
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 19:15:19 -
[2492] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:As far as I am aware, they don't transmit the spot that is clicked, only the action.
As a developer, if I had to police my policies and required a minor software change to do it, I would do it. Passing back a couple integers with an action is trivial. In fact I'd be surprised if they didn't make any changes that improve their "intel" in this area to address the policy change. And if they log the appropriate data it's not hard to go back and confirm or deny a pattern.
Of course they are going to get false positives, any system relying on pattern recognition will. Whether or not they ban based on them is yet to be seen. From the sound of it the bans won't be automatic and will need CCP's involvement before pulling the trigger.
Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.
-MooMooDachshundCow
|
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
291
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 19:26:16 -
[2493] - Quote
Godren Storm wrote:
do we have alliance wide bm's? (not a troll don't actual know)
Not yet, but rumors are "soon".
However squad warping bombers is a much safer way to operate when doing bomb runs
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4454
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 19:26:33 -
[2494] - Quote
Niskin wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:As far as I am aware, they don't transmit the spot that is clicked, only the action. As a developer, if I had to police my policies and required a minor software change to do it, I would do it. Passing back a couple integers with an action is trivial. In fact I'd be surprised if they didn't make any changes that improve their "intel" in this area to address the policy change. And if they log the appropriate data it's not hard to go back and confirm or deny a pattern. Of course they are going to get false positives, any system relying on pattern recognition will. Whether or not they ban based on them is yet to be seen. From the sound of it the bans won't be automatic and will need CCP's involvement before pulling the trigger. So you'd log positional data on every click made in the client? That would be quite a lot of data to collect and store, and would be defeated in numerous ways. I mean ISBoxer alone doesn't click anything for you for starters, you move your pointer on one client and it moves on all of them, so you'd only have to worry about making sure each client had a different position, which is a pretty simple setup. So sure, they could store masses of data and still be no closer to determining what is a player breaking the rules and what is a multiboxer clicking quickly.
Edit: Or for that matter you'd just use hotkeys. What would you do then, say "You never click buttons with your mouse so you are banned cos obvious hax are obvious"?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Niskin
League of the Lost
123
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 19:47:59 -
[2495] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Niskin wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:As far as I am aware, they don't transmit the spot that is clicked, only the action. As a developer, if I had to police my policies and required a minor software change to do it, I would do it. Passing back a couple integers with an action is trivial. In fact I'd be surprised if they didn't make any changes that improve their "intel" in this area to address the policy change. And if they log the appropriate data it's not hard to go back and confirm or deny a pattern. Of course they are going to get false positives, any system relying on pattern recognition will. Whether or not they ban based on them is yet to be seen. From the sound of it the bans won't be automatic and will need CCP's involvement before pulling the trigger. So you'd log positional data on every click made in the client? That would be quite a lot of data to collect and store, and would be defeated in numerous ways. I mean ISBoxer alone doesn't click anything for you for starters, you move your pointer on one client and it moves on all of them, so you'd only have to worry about making sure each client had a different position, which is a pretty simple setup. So sure, they could store masses of data and still be no closer to determining what is a player breaking the rules and what is a multiboxer clicking quickly. Edit: Or for that matter you'd just use hotkeys. What would you do then, say "You never click buttons with your mouse so you are banned cos obvious hax are obvious"?
Pattern recognition isn't always about recognizing the pattern people think you are trying to recognize. I bolded where you avoided the original pattern and created another detectable one. I'm not saying CCP can police this 100% perfectly on the actual-positive and false-positive sides. I was just pointing out that the client can collect various things that not everybody would expect would be useful in detecting these patterns.
You've pointed out pretty clearly that you have workarounds for all of these changes, which is fine, you probably won't get banned due to those adaptations. But for those who refuse to change their behavior there is now a clear line as to what can get them banned. CCP isn't going to make promises they can't keep, that's why they banned the behavior based on how it appears on their end, not how you do it on your end. As such I'd be most worried about how my behavior looked on their end, and any changes they could make, without me knowing, to improve their ability to see what I'm doing.
Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.
-MooMooDachshundCow
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4454
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 19:56:59 -
[2496] - Quote
Niskin wrote:Pattern recognition isn't always about recognizing the pattern people think you are trying to recognize. I bolded where you avoided the original pattern and created another detectable one. I'm not saying CCP can police this 100% perfectly on the actual-positive and false-positive sides. I was just pointing out that the client can collect various things that not everybody would expect would be useful in detecting these patterns. Indeed it can, but in a game that allows multiboxing, it's near impossible to reliably detect allowed vs banned controls.
Niskin wrote:You've pointed out pretty clearly that you have workarounds for all of these changes, which is fine, you probably won't get banned due to those adaptations. But for those who refuse to change their behavior there is now a clear line as to what can get them banned. CCP isn't going to make promises they can't keep, that's why they banned the behavior based on how it appears on their end, not how you do it on your end. As such I'd be most worried about how my behavior looked on their end, and any changes they could make, without me knowing, to improve their ability to see what I'm doing. I'm (hopefully) not going to get banned because I'm not going to do anything that is against the rules. But the entire point of this discussion to begins with is that they can't prevent false positives very well (and their track record dealing with unfair bans is not great to say the least), they can't stop violators very well, and the system they've banned will make a minimal impact at most. It's a pointless change which will cause more harm than good, all so that a vocal minority of whining carebears will stop whining for a few weeks until they realise the multiboxers still multibox.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Niskin
League of the Lost
123
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 20:13:06 -
[2497] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Indeed it can, but in a game that allows multiboxing, it's near impossible to reliably detect allowed vs banned controls.
Without knowing the capabilities of the dev team and how the code works and what data is collected, this is just speculation.
Lucas Kell wrote:I'm (hopefully) not going to get banned because I'm not going to do anything that is against the rules. But the entire point of this discussion to begins with is that they can't prevent false positives very well (and their track record dealing with unfair bans is not great to say the least), they can't stop violators very well, and the system they've banned will make a minimal impact at most. It's a pointless change which will cause more harm than good, all so that a vocal minority of whining carebears will stop whining for a few weeks until they realise the multiboxers still multibox.
I don't agree with the people who want to end multiboxing, and I've only ever had one account. But it's not a pointless change at all. If nothing else it clarifies their intent for how the game should be played. I've read pretty much this entire thread and there were people applauding that from both sides, the clarification that is. You seem to think that it can't be policed properly and so it shouldn't be banned or policed at all. The majority of posts in this thread seem to disagree with that. Whether it can policed to a level you think is good enough, simply knowing they are willing to risk subscriptions to do it is good enough for a lot of people.
As far as their track record with unfair bans, you'll have to provide some references in that department. I've never even seen that on the radar as something that people complain about in this game.
Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.
-MooMooDachshundCow
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4454
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 20:55:46 -
[2498] - Quote
Niskin wrote:I don't agree with the people who want to end multiboxing, and I've only ever had one account. But it's not a pointless change at all. If nothing else it clarifies their intent for how the game should be played. I've read pretty much this entire thread and there were people applauding that from both sides, the clarification that is. What exactly is clarified? That you shouldn't be able to click mutliple buttons at once, but other clients mods which make multiboxing just as easy are fine? They haven't explained whether things like VideoFX or round robin keybinds are allowed. Let's be honest here, they aren't doing this for clarification, they are doing it because the loudest minority are whining about this now. How long will they buckle to whiners before enough is enough?
And let's face it, this time round it's because bomber fleets are massively overpowered, but when they tried to nerf those the whining began about how it's isboxers fault, not bombers. Now isboxer will still be able to be used for bombers (fleet warp + round robin keybind), and they are *more* overpowered than they were before because they are getting the buff that was to go along with their nerf.
Niskin wrote:You seem to think that it can't be policed properly and so it shouldn't be banned or policed at all. The majority of posts in this thread seem to disagree with that. Whether it can policed to a level you think is good enough, simply knowing they are willing to risk subscriptions to do it is good enough for a lot of people. Of course I don't. There's absolutely no gameplay benefit to attacking a playstyle like this, and if even a single person gets banned unfairly and trapped in the never ending cycle of CCPs non-existent support system, then that's one too many.
Niskin wrote:As far as their track record with unfair bans, you'll have to provide some references in that department. I've never even seen that on the radar as something that people complain about in this game. That would be because once someone is banned, fairly or not, they aren't in game. CCP often refuse to respond to tickets about it, some people have even been banned without being told why and tickets asking for clarification have been ignored. If they come back and try to talk about it here, they get banned again for talking about bans.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
185
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 21:02:10 -
[2499] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Ab'del Abu wrote:Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Are macro keys on mice, keyboards and headsets allowed to be used?
Is the program Voice Attack that gives ability to play EVE with voice commands allowed? This is a valuable tool for players who are physically handicapped. I reckon, that would depend. What do your macros do? If you press one button and your client does 5 things (or 5 different chars do one thing) it's probably not ok. Same should hold for voice commands. If you tell your ship to warp to gate XYZ and all it actually does is warp there, it should be ok imhol. However, if you tell your ship "go rat in havens until such time that I return" while you go take a hot bath ... that's botting. one button multiple mods activated on one client is fine.
CCP needs to clarify this. |
Niskin
League of the Lost
123
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 22:05:02 -
[2500] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:What exactly is clarified? That you shouldn't be able to click mutliple buttons at once, but other clients mods which make multiboxing just as easy are fine? They haven't explained whether things like VideoFX or round robin keybinds are allowed.
Going Forward
As of 15th of March 2013 we have been policing input automation based on a two-strike policy
GÇó1st strike for input automation is a 30 day ban
GÇó2nd strike for input automation is a permanent ban
Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy.
Based on the discussion in this area and our will to be more clear and concise with the community regarding this part of our rules, we have decided to also apply this two-strike policy to prohibited forms of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing as of January 1st 2015.
We would like to add, however, that we will not be taking action retroactively and will only be policing this policy as of January 1st, 2015.
Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters
Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇóEVE Online client settings
GÇóWindow positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
GÇóThe login process
NOTE: Please keep in mind that using the same password for multiple accounts as well as storing your password in a third party tool or script which helps you to automate the login process can increase the risk of account theft and hacking drastically. It is strongly recommended that you do not engage in this type of activity.
We are closely monitoring all game events for suspicious activity suggesting illicit behaviors, including Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing.
We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe.
You seem like a smart enough guy to read this and understand it. If you still think VideoFX is a problem after reading that I can't help you. Round robin is a grey area, if it is too efficient then it might get flagged. Again, this is why the change is ideal, it is based on how it looks on their end. Anything that is too much like multicasting might as well be multicasting, the means by which it was achieved is irrelevant.
Lucas Kell wrote:Let's be honest here, they aren't doing this for clarification, they are doing it because the loudest minority are whining about this now. How long will they buckle to whiners before enough is enough?
I'm being honest, they are doing it because it's affecting the game in negative ways for actual players. They have to draw the line so they have a basis to police it on. And they drew it in a pretty fair place considering that isboxer will still see widespread use for it's various other features going forward.
Lucas Kell wrote:Of course I don't. There's absolutely no gameplay benefit to attacking a playstyle like this, and if even a single person gets banned unfairly and trapped in the never ending cycle of CCPs non-existent support system, then that's one too many.
They took away one aspect of a playstyle with this change, multiboxing is still valid, isboxer is still useful. I don't think they will just pull the trigger on any old ban, they are going to have a case built with data. Only time will tell though.
Lucas Kell wrote:That would be because once someone is banned, fairly or not, they aren't in game. CCP often refuse to respond to tickets about it, some people have even been banned without being told why and tickets asking for clarification have been ignored. If they come back and try to talk about it here, they get banned again for talking about bans.
Is there a collection of blogs made by the hordes of unfairly banned players out there somewhere detailing this injustice? I'm just not seeing it. It's not like CCP has a global mafia that silences the banned. If this were rampant it would be on gaming news sites or something somewhere.
Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.
-MooMooDachshundCow
|
|
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1285
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 22:09:06 -
[2501] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Niskin wrote:I don't agree with the people who want to end multiboxing, and I've only ever had one account. But it's not a pointless change at all. If nothing else it clarifies their intent for how the game should be played. I've read pretty much this entire thread and there were people applauding that from both sides, the clarification that is. What exactly is clarified? That you shouldn't be able to click mutliple buttons at once, but other clients mods which make multiboxing just as easy are fine? They haven't explained whether things like VideoFX or round robin keybinds are allowed. Let's be honest here, they aren't doing this for clarification, they are doing it because the loudest minority are whining about this now. How long will they buckle to whiners before enough is enough? And let's face it, this time round it's because bomber fleets are massively overpowered, but when they tried to nerf those the whining began about how it's isboxers fault, not bombers. Now isboxer will still be able to be used for bombers (fleet warp + round robin keybind), and they are *more* overpowered than they were before because they are getting the buff that was to go along with their nerf. What is the threshold for a legitimate complaint vs a whine. I see a number of accusations about whining, but also a lot of concessions of the advantages of assisted multiboxing, as if to suggest that it cannot be valid for someone to find that the use of tools outside of the client to drastically boost effectiveness and coordination inside of the client cannot be legitimate.
That seems like a very strong case to dismiss the claims that this is a response to whining. Add to that the fact that nothing that actually supports this decision being the result of anything other than balancing the affect a player can have on the game and we have the crux of the issue with this claim. No one is stating objectively why this change shouldn't happen.
|
Eryn Velasquez
80
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 22:18:18 -
[2502] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:..... But the entire point of this discussion to begins with is that they can't prevent false positives very well (and their track record dealing with unfair bans is not great to say the least), they can't stop violators very well, and the system they've banned will make a minimal impact at most. It's a pointless change which will cause more harm than good, all so that a vocal minority of whining carebears will stop whining for a few weeks until they realise the multiboxers still multibox.
The more i read your posts, the more i'm hoping 3rd party tools like ISBoxer will get banned completely.
May the EVE client detect them running in the same address space, using ressources on the graphics card, whatever.
It's people like you, using those external tools and pushing them to the edge, gaining advantages over regular players which only use what the client allows.
The user interface as provided by CCP is optimized by ISBoxer in a way i call cheating.
Good night.
_GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á_
|
Adicuss Starfyre
Sushi Takeout
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 22:36:32 -
[2503] - Quote
the only thing this is going to do is change how the software is used, I've been using ISBoxer for years, while mining. Mainly because it allows you to reduced the sizes of windows for the client. As this software also scales everything down making life alot easier for the miners anyway ... so instead of 2 clients overlapping due to the client restriction ... I can fit 8 clients on one screen if need be.
So all I see this doing is making the bomber fleets ( and this is essentially what all the complaining is about ) look at other ways of doing it.
If they ban ISBoxer or other multi boxing software they'll only hurt the player base as mostly logistics pilots that use cynos that I know use the software to log in all the cyno alts and have them up at the same time so they don't spend 5 hours logging in and out of various accounts rather than 1hour complete the jump and go to bed.
That being said are they going to ban Macro enabled keyboards and mice also as they can have a broadcast added to the macro, that will enable the same or similar hotkeys to be pressed. |
Eryn Velasquez
81
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 22:40:07 -
[2504] - Quote
Adicuss Starfyre wrote:......
If they ban ISBoxer or other multi boxing software they'll only hurt the player base as mostly logistics pilots that use cynos that I know use the software to log in all the cyno alts and have them up at the same time so they don't spend 5 hours logging in and out of various accounts rather than 1hour complete the jump and go to bed.
That being said are they going to ban Macro enabled keyboards and mice also as they can have a broadcast added to the macro, that will enable the same or similar hotkeys to be pressed.
How much sense does this make after the recent jump fatigue changes?
_GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á_
|
Adicuss Starfyre
Sushi Takeout
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 22:44:09 -
[2505] - Quote
Eryn Velasquez wrote:Adicuss Starfyre wrote:......
If they ban ISBoxer or other multi boxing software they'll only hurt the player base as mostly logistics pilots that use cynos that I know use the software to log in all the cyno alts and have them up at the same time so they don't spend 5 hours logging in and out of various accounts rather than 1hour complete the jump and go to bed.
That being said are they going to ban Macro enabled keyboards and mice also as they can have a broadcast added to the macro, that will enable the same or similar hotkeys to be pressed. How much sense does this make after the recent jump fatigue changes?
with the 90% drop for JFs, and most ( haven't checked all indys ) haulers. Can jump from Jita to the bottom or top of eve with only a couple of hours fatigue, even 24hours ... I'd rather do it quickly in a short amount of time then waste an entire day farting round sitting in station waiting for the timer to run down.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1285
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 23:18:24 -
[2506] - Quote
Logistics pilots aren't hurt as logging accounts in at the same time isn't banned anyways. That said taking 5 hours to do so either way means they're probably not the best person to trust with logistics as they are horribly slow and/or inefficient. |
Kiryen O'Bannon
Veritas Theory
Fidelas Constans
168
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 23:59:12 -
[2507] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:30+ pages and no significant CODE. presence cheering the massive blow to "bot aspirants"? Forget the tear collectors, we need pooper-scoopers around here....
(To clarify: I have no particular issue with CODE., CODE. members, or hisec suicide ganking. I just find it highly ironic that they of all people would be silent about this given that they claim to work so hard to stop such bot-like activity for the benefit of New Eden.)
That's because CODE has never actually been about stopping or preventing anything. It's been about dressing suicide ganking up as good for the health of the game in a "if some is good (which it is) then more is better (which it isn't)" kind of way.
This update is a potential disaster for CODE as a major source of propaganda is now gone.
CODE players are not particularly good at critical thinking and think nerfs directed at suicide ganking are the result of "carebear whining". They aren't. If that were the case, CCP would have already banned it outright or made it impossible. Increasing regulation of suicide ganking is about keeping suicide ganking viable.
Highsec can only support so many predators to prey, and that ratio is lower than most people think. CODE is a counterproductive movement in that regard.
Unfortuantely for them both their prey and their argument just got nerfed. Hopefully they can realize that constantly presenting the behaviors they get their gameplay from as a problem is not conucive to them continuing to do what they do. I'm not optimistic though; critical thinking seems to be hard. |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
84
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 00:21:11 -
[2508] - Quote
Are people still claiming the CCP has no good reason for coming up with the policy interpretations contained in CCP Falcon's opening post? If so, I jotted down a few things that CCP may have considered when coming up with their new rulings. Or at least these are things that the new rulings will possibly accomplish.
1. A clear, unequivical statement that multiboxing is allowed. However, I realize that some people think that software is required to multibox. A lot of those people are posting in this thread. This is not true.
2. Overall, a move away from players needing to understand how a program works (a requirement in Section 9C) to avoid receiving a ban. With this new way of thinking, they just need to understand what the software does. A real positive shift in thinking from CCP.
3. Clarification of Section 6 paragraph A, sub-section 2 stating that windows management software whether the software is ISBoxer's Windows FX or the windows management software currently listed on these forums, does not violate the EULA. This part of the EULA actually refers to the types of UI modifications that are popular in games like World of Warcraft.
4. The terms "input broadcasting" and "input multiplexing" giving greater clarity to Section 6, paragraph 2, sub-section 3 of the EULA. How many fights have occurred over this sentence from the EULA?
"You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play."
Now, we will just need to say, don't do input broadcasting and input multiplexing. However, I'd really like a clarification of exactly what "input multiplexing" is.
5. If certain activities are no longer performed at an unnaturally accelerated rate, then we will see three positive affects on the in-game economy.
a. A reduction in the resource faucet in EVE. This basically refers to ore and ice mining. For those people who will continue to software box, their efficiency will degrade, according to the claims of those in this forum thread, by a small degree. But the bigger effects will be felt as accounts that can no longer be efficiently used are either repurposed to do other tasks or are just unsubbed. This should make resource gathering more profitable on an ISK/hour basis and thus, a more attractive activity.
b. A reduction in the ISK faucet in EVE. In the hands of a skilled multiboxer, software that performs input broadcasting and input multiplexing can outperform PvE fleets consisting of individual players on a consistent basis. These activities range from high sec incursions to null sec anomalies to wormhole sleeper sites. The big decline in the ISK faucet won't come from those skilled enough to continue to run the content with perhaps only a 10-20% decline in dps. No, just like the slowdown in the resource faucet, the big decline in the ISK faucet will come from those accounts that will be either repurposed toward another activity or just outright unsubscribed.
c. The decline in the ISK faucet will have a trickle down effect on the price of PLEX. If, as many players claim, thousands of accounts will unsubscribe over the banning of input broadcasting/multiplexing, then the price of PLEX should decline based on the lower demand. As long as the price does not fall to far down, I do not believe that people will flock to shady ISK sellers instead of purchasing nice clean PLEX from CCP and the authorized PLEX resellers.
6. A reduction of the effectiveness of multiboxed bomber and suicide ganking gangs. Players will accept losing to other players. Players hate losing to software. Okay, victims of suicide ganks in high sec for the most part will always complain. But I don't think CCP sees the ability of one player to destroy 100 ships in a few seconds or a minute as a good thing. If CCP found the titan's AoE doomsday overpowered, does anyone think that the devs might find the AoE bombs of a couple of bomber gangs under the control of one player any more acceptable? After all, what's the difference between an AoE titan and a couple of squads of bombers? Oh yeah, several billion ISK less risk for the multiboxer over the titan pilot.
7. A reduction in the amount of accounts will lead to more interaction between players. CCP believes that the more social interaction between players, the better. I'm not sure how successful making players shrink the number of accounts will be as an incentive to work with others, but I believe CCP believes that it's a possible positive side-effect of the changes.
I have a few more effects for the changes that CCP might find positive, but as you can tell from point 7, the reasons are getting weaker.
I still haven't read a good explanation of why input broadcasting/multiplexing is good for EVE.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
300
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 00:22:08 -
[2509] - Quote
Eryn Velasquez wrote:The user interface as provided by CCP is optimized by ISBoxer in a way i call cheating.
Thank god you aren't in charge. There is literally no way, even with the most general and spacious definition of "cheat", that moving and reorganizing UI can be considered cheating. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
300
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 00:45:19 -
[2510] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:1. A clear, unequivical statement that multiboxing is allowed. However, I realize that some people think that software is required to multibox. A lot of those people are posting in this thread. This is not true.
2. Overall, a move away from players needing to understand how a program works (a requirement in Section 9C) to avoid receiving a ban. With this new way of thinking, they just need to understand what the software does. A real positive shift in thinking from CCP.
3. Clarification of Section 6 paragraph A, sub-section 2 stating that windows management software whether the software is ISBoxer's Windows FX or the windows management software currently listed on these forums, does not violate the EULA. This part of the EULA actually refers to the types of UI modifications that are popular in games like World of Warcraft.
4. The terms "input broadcasting" and "input multiplexing" giving greater clarity to Section 6, paragraph 2, sub-section 3 of the EULA. How many fights have occurred over this sentence from the EULA?
"You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play."
5. If certain activities are no longer performed at an unnaturally accelerated rate, then we will see three positive affects on the in-game economy.
a. A reduction in the resource faucet in EVE.
b. A reduction in the ISK faucet in EVE. In the hands of a skilled multiboxer, software that performs input broadcasting and input multiplexing can outperform PvE fleets consisting of individual players on a consistent basis.
c. The decline in the ISK faucet will have a trickle down effect on the price of PLEX
6. A reduction of the effectiveness of multiboxed bomber and suicide ganking gangs. Players will accept losing to other players. Players hate losing to software. Okay, victims of suicide ganks in high sec for the most part will always complain. But I don't think CCP sees the ability of one player to destroy 100 ships in a few seconds or a minute as a good thing. If CCP found the titan's AoE doomsday overpowered, does anyone think that the devs might find the AoE bombs of a couple of bomber gangs under the control of one player any more acceptable? After all, what's the difference between an AoE titan and a couple of squads of bombers? Oh yeah, several billion ISK less risk for the multiboxer over the titan pilot.
7. A reduction in the amount of accounts will lead to more interaction between players. CCP believes that the more social interaction between players, the better. I'm not sure how successful making players shrink the number of accounts will be as an incentive to work with others, but I believe CCP believes that it's a possible positive side-effect of the changes.
I have a few more effects for the changes that CCP might find positive, but as you can tell from point 7, the reasons are getting weaker.
I still haven't read a good explanation of why input broadcasting/multiplexing is good for EVE.
1. Again, this argument is not against multiboxing in general. CCP has always encouraged the usage of multiple accounts, and it is silly to think that people are using the argument that multiple accounts is cheating as an excuse to get rid of something they have an irrational hatred of.
2. This is strange considering how much time and effort people have put into understanding EVE's code in general, to the point of constructing 3rd party programs and websites to both assist their understanding, and to do further research. Banning a subset of EVE with the argument "because they spend more time theorycrafting" is silly to say the least.
3. No argument here. EVE does not allow that sort of modification via mods.
4. Again, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a per toon basis, and there is nothing that an ISBoxed fleet can do that a non-boxed fleet can't do as well if not better.
5. Please watch the Fanfest videos regarding faucets and sinks in EVE. Incursion "faucets" have a massive sink as well in the LP store's ISK requirements. I can't comment much on blue loot, but nanoribbons are sold to other players, not NPC buy orders, and are thus not an isk faucet but a closed system. And "trickle down" economics was debunked ages ago as a complete failure. Ore and minerals are sold to player buy orders and are not an infinite stream of ISK without a corresponding sink. You also make the claim that ISBoxer fleets are somehow advantaged over non-ISBoxed fleets when this is simply not true. Humans can react to the ever-changing realities of grid warfare. ISBoxers are limited by the amount of clients they use and by the software itself. ISBoxer is not something you plug into your brain Matrix style and can instantly respond on each separate client.
6. CCP has steadfastly refused to acknowledge the myriad of threads dedicated to reducing the effectiveness of bombers. As for suicide ganks, believing that they'll magically disappear when ISBoxer is gone is childish. Suicide ganks will be around forever. If ISboxers are using bombers at a disproportional ratio to the exclusion of all other ships, CCP should take a look at bombers, not ISBoxers. You're asking why there are more PCs than Macs as gaming rigs while ignoring the fact that most new games are coded for the PC, and that PC hardware is interchangeable.
7. A lot of ISBoxers are members of corps and alliances, and as such, interact a great deal with the playerbase, including new players. I personally used to hand out ships and ISK to new players I ran across.
And for your final sentence, I've yet to hear an argument as to why ISBoxing should be banned other than "my feelings got hurt" and "I don't wanna put effort into EVE so he shouldn't box." |
|
|
Hakaari Uisen
Legion of the Southern Cross
8
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 01:06:12 -
[2511] - Quote
Eryn Velasquez wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:..... But the entire point of this discussion to begins with is that they can't prevent false positives very well (and their track record dealing with unfair bans is not great to say the least), they can't stop violators very well, and the system they've banned will make a minimal impact at most. It's a pointless change which will cause more harm than good, all so that a vocal minority of whining carebears will stop whining for a few weeks until they realise the multiboxers still multibox. The more i read your posts, the more i'm hoping 3rd party tools like ISBoxer will get banned completely. May the EVE client detect them running in the same address space, using ressources on the graphics card, whatever. It's people like you, using those external tools and pushing them to the edge, gaining advantages over regular players which only use what the client allows. The user interface as provided by CCP is optimized by ISBoxer in a way i call cheating. Good night.
+100. Isboxing is cheating plain and simple, and it should be banned. It gives a one player one man fleet a tactical advantage over people who are playing legit.
I applaud CCP for taking this move. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
309
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 01:12:26 -
[2512] - Quote
Hakaari Uisen wrote:
+100. Isboxing is cheating plain and simple, and it should be banned. It gives a one player one man fleet a tactical advantage over people who are playing legit.
I applaud CCP for taking this move.
How does it give them an advantage over even numbers of real people? An ISboxer, be they ever so good and use whatever method to maximize their chances of information getting to them, is at serious risk of information overload in any rapidly changing situation.
Co-ordinated alpha? Use a countdown or actually get people to train all the way to rapid firing 5 across the whole fleet.
Locking the targets called? get people to listen. Should be fairly easy.
Able to make decisions quickly? What else is an FC for?
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1285
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:03:58 -
[2513] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:And for your final sentence, I've yet to hear an argument as to why ISBoxing should be banned other than "my feelings got hurt" and "I don't wanna put effort into EVE so he shouldn't box." The only way you get only that is if you don't read what's being posted to you. It also requires some level of intentional blindness to the fact that assisted multiboxing is less effort intensive that unassisted multiboxing.
Really the complaint is that you want all the rewards of a series of clients running but don't want to exert the effort of managing them independently. The fact that CCP may have devised an effort barrier for the benefits managing multiple clients is a reason, or that they intend to use this as a means to cap that advantage, but I'm almost sure you will continue to refuse considering those possibilities. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1285
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:10:52 -
[2514] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Hakaari Uisen wrote:
+100. Isboxing is cheating plain and simple, and it should be banned. It gives a one player one man fleet a tactical advantage over people who are playing legit.
I applaud CCP for taking this move.
How does it give them an advantage over even numbers of real people? An ISboxer, be they ever so good and use whatever method to maximize their chances of information getting to them, is at serious risk of information overload in any rapidly changing situation. Co-ordinated alpha? Use a countdown or actually get people to train all the way to rapid firing 5 across the whole fleet. Locking the targets called? get people to listen. Should be fairly easy. Able to make decisions quickly? What else is an FC for? Tool assured perfect coordination is not a possibility with any number of real people. It eliminates the need for target calling and countdowns. It assures that even if mistakes are made in target selection by a single individual, fire is still focused. Also, an ISBoxer guilty of the banned activities, which are limited to broadcasting commands, often doesn't have an issue with information overload as that would require the ships controlled by the clients to be in significantly different positions, marginalizing the usefulness of command broadcasting if not making it a hindrance.
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
314
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:13:26 -
[2515] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:
I still haven't read a good explanation of why input broadcasting/multiplexing is good for EVE.
It isn't inherently good for EvE. I is essential to the current state of the markets, which means doing something like this with a months notice is creating more than a bit of turbulance.
Nolak wrote:And for your final sentence, I've yet to hear an argument as to why ISBoxing should be banned other than "my feelings got hurt" and "I don't wanna put effort into EVE so he shouldn't box."
It does create force multiplication on a per player basis. The effort barrier to get IS boxer up and running and the asset barrier to effectively get the boxes running does mostly mean that ISboxers are self-selecting from the most talented or stubborn players to begin with, and so it does create an illusion of even greater force multiplication for the vast masses who are bad at eve, because boxers tend to be less bad to begin with.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
314
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:19:47 -
[2516] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:James Baboli wrote:Hakaari Uisen wrote:
+100. Isboxing is cheating plain and simple, and it should be banned. It gives a one player one man fleet a tactical advantage over people who are playing legit.
I applaud CCP for taking this move.
How does it give them an advantage over even numbers of real people? An ISboxer, be they ever so good and use whatever method to maximize their chances of information getting to them, is at serious risk of information overload in any rapidly changing situation. Co-ordinated alpha? Use a countdown or actually get people to train all the way to rapid firing 5 across the whole fleet. Locking the targets called? get people to listen. Should be fairly easy. Able to make decisions quickly? What else is an FC for? Tool assured perfect coordination is not a possibility with any number of real people. It eliminates the need for target calling and countdowns. It assures that even if mistakes are made in target selection by a single individual, fire is still focused. Also, an ISBoxer guilty of the banned activities, which are limited to broadcasting commands, often doesn't have an issue with information overload as that would require the ships controlled by the clients to be in significantly different positions, marginalizing the usefulness of command broadcasting if not making it a hindrance.
Only being able to do broadcasting is a hindrance in almost all cases. Being able to broadcast some commands and not others (current) means that you can do some things very very effectively, as you can shoot your target as a broadcast, broadcast the toon which got primaried (if you notice before it dies), anchor up your characters on your broadcaster or the official anchor, manage some of your ewar, etc. Not being able to broadcast, but allowing the sort of management that is still allowed just widens the gap between the best and worst boxers, while leaving <10 client boxers almost untouched if they are willing to expend the effort.
But to see how it gets to be a problem for one of the very best boxers in a pvp situation that isn't a blob fight, and wasn't entirely one sided, go take a look at the NEO video of team cube. He's one of the people who has done alot of things in eve as a boxer, and second and third string teams of real people anhilated him in a small gang fight.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1285
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:29:57 -
[2517] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Only being able to do broadcasting is a hindrance in almost all cases. Being able to broadcast some commands and not others (current) means that you can do some things very very effectively, as you can shoot your target as a broadcast, broadcast the toon which got primaried (if you notice before it dies), anchor up your characters on your broadcaster or the official anchor, manage some of your ewar, etc. Not being able to broadcast, but allowing the sort of management that is still allowed just widens the gap between the best and worst boxers, while leaving <10 client boxers almost untouched if they are willing to expend the effort.
But to see how it gets to be a problem for one of the very best boxers in a pvp situation that isn't a blob fight, and wasn't entirely one sided, go take a look at the NEO video of team cube. He's one of the people who has done alot of things in eve as a boxer, and second and third string teams of real people anhilated him in a small gang fight. A fundamental miss is considering this from only a PvP perspective. A multiboxing PvP'er will be situationally at a disadvantage when engaging a group of individuals, but in PvE, with considerably fewer chances of the unexpected and largely singular need for awareness the benefits shine. Further, the limitations of PvP'ing with multiple clients will work towards assuring that while isk earning is being multiplied without considerable long term effort, isk expenditure for PvP will be capped at what a smaller number of clients can field, adding triviality to losses. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
314
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:36:45 -
[2518] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:James Baboli wrote:Only being able to do broadcasting is a hindrance in almost all cases. Being able to broadcast some commands and not others (current) means that you can do some things very very effectively, as you can shoot your target as a broadcast, broadcast the toon which got primaried (if you notice before it dies), anchor up your characters on your broadcaster or the official anchor, manage some of your ewar, etc. Not being able to broadcast, but allowing the sort of management that is still allowed just widens the gap between the best and worst boxers, while leaving <10 client boxers almost untouched if they are willing to expend the effort.
But to see how it gets to be a problem for one of the very best boxers in a pvp situation that isn't a blob fight, and wasn't entirely one sided, go take a look at the NEO video of team cube. He's one of the people who has done alot of things in eve as a boxer, and second and third string teams of real people anhilated him in a small gang fight. A fundamental miss is considering this from only a PvP perspective. A multiboxing PvP'er will be situationally at a disadvantage when engaging a group of individuals, but in PvE, with considerably fewer chances of the unexpected and largely singular need for awareness the benefits shine. Further, the limitations of PvP'ing with multiple clients will work towards assuring that while isk earning is being multiplied without considerable long term effort, isk expenditure for PvP will be capped at what a smaller number of clients can field, adding triviality to losses.
Which brings up the issue of PVP balance vs. PVE balance vs. holistic balance vs. perceived balance.
In my opinion, Isboxing is mostly a form of self defense against how dull the PvE content is in eve, and how much grind there is to produce things and similarly, to acquire the isk to be worth it to get other people to run other forms of PvE or industrial content reliably.
In other words, content so grindy and boring that people want to spend as little time at it as possible is the problem which creates the PvE boxing, and so creates an environment where people will go to fairly great lengths to spend less time on it for the same result.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
300
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:40:09 -
[2519] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:And for your final sentence, I've yet to hear an argument as to why ISBoxing should be banned other than "my feelings got hurt" and "I don't wanna put effort into EVE so he shouldn't box." The only way you get only that is if you don't read what's being posted to you. It also requires some level of intentional blindness to the fact that assisted multiboxing is less effort intensive that unassisted multiboxing. Really the complaint is that you want all the rewards of a series of clients running but don't want to exert the effort of managing them independently. The fact that CCP may have devised an effort barrier for the benefits managing multiple clients is a reason, or that they intend to use this as a means to cap that advantage, but I'm almost sure you will continue to refuse considering those possibilities.
I'm sorry, what? Literally everything you've posted was "I don't want to exert the effort that ISBoxers do ergo they should not be allowed to multibox", "I know nothing about what a group of trained players can do in regards to alpha strikes and general fleet PVP, especially small scale T3 wormhole PVP", and "I know nothing about an economy".
And in your second paragraph you again make the rather ludicrous assumption that multiple accounts do not require $$$ or PLEX to start, do not require time to skill, do not require $$$ or PLEX to keep them active every month, do not require major adjustments on the player's part, and do not require untold hours of fiddling with settings, windows, and VFX that would otherwise be spent earning ISK with a single account.
As I and many others have pointed out countless times, there's a thousand threads in F&I talking about balancing bombers, mining, and incursions. Browse those, specifically the ones regarding the activation code for bombs, the minigame for mining to reward active players that aren't boxed, and reducing ISK payout while increasing LP payouts, then look me in the eye and tell me that none of those would hurt ISBoxers. |
Stragak
13
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:45:38 -
[2520] - Quote
As owner of 5 accounts that do industry. ISboxing kills the fun of running multiple accounts. What is the challenge? +1 ban ISboxing
"Oh look, the cat is sitting in the litter box and pooping over the side again" every time we go through these "rough patches".
In good humor, and slight annoyance,
Boiglio -á-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238130&p=82
|
|
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1285
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 03:28:10 -
[2521] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:And for your final sentence, I've yet to hear an argument as to why ISBoxing should be banned other than "my feelings got hurt" and "I don't wanna put effort into EVE so he shouldn't box." The only way you get only that is if you don't read what's being posted to you. It also requires some level of intentional blindness to the fact that assisted multiboxing is less effort intensive that unassisted multiboxing. Really the complaint is that you want all the rewards of a series of clients running but don't want to exert the effort of managing them independently. The fact that CCP may have devised an effort barrier for the benefits managing multiple clients is a reason, or that they intend to use this as a means to cap that advantage, but I'm almost sure you will continue to refuse considering those possibilities. I'm sorry, what? Literally everything you've posted was "I don't want to exert the effort that ISBoxers do ergo they should not be allowed to multibox", "I know nothing about what a group of trained players can do in regards to alpha strikes and general fleet PVP, especially small scale T3 wormhole PVP", and "I know nothing about an economy". Again, not the least bit surprised by this intentionally failed interpretation. You are entirely determined to not hear any opposing arguments. You will continue to mischaracterize opposing views and pretend that only complete incompetents ever make mistakes or move outside of perfect unison and all have identical in game skillsets to support synchronization.
Quote:And in your second paragraph you again make the rather ludicrous assumption that multiple accounts do not require $$$ or PLEX to start, do not require time to skill, do not require $$$ or PLEX to keep them active every month, do not require major adjustments on the player's part, and do not require untold hours of fiddling with settings, windows, and VFX that would otherwise be spent earning ISK with a single account. Quick rundown of a simple pair of concepts.
1. Initial investment for a permanent advantage from out of game assets doesn't counterbalance that permanent advantage. Lets be generous and give you 100 hours of actual configuration to bring such a setup to functionality. At 10 clients in an isk earning activity you have restored parity with a single account player in 10 hours of gameplay. This conceptually overshadows by a wide and far margin any initial efforts by being quickly compensated and never stopping to return a reward. It also requires the same effort after that initial investment.
2. The plex or $$$ argument reaks of the expectation to have a P2W scenario more so than now. And with plex it becomes even worse. Not being able to broadcast commands reduces the effectiveness and accuracy of multi-boxing as well as at a point capping the number of concurrent clients that can be used. If all accounts are making plex and more the ability to add more clients near perfectly adds that extra income beyond plex for each client running. A non-assisted multi-boxer runs at a lower return per client and if saturated a lower client count. This creates a clear advantage.
I made no assumptions regarding what it takes to run several accounts, I know because I DO run several accounts.
Quote:As I and many others have pointed out countless times, there's a thousand threads in F&I talking about balancing bombers, mining, and incursions. Browse those, specifically the ones regarding the activation code for bombs, the minigame for mining to reward active players that aren't boxed, and reducing ISK payout while increasing LP payouts, then look me in the eye and tell me that none of those would hurt ISBoxers. So what you are saying is that we have ways to do this including mechanically retool everything to rid us of the vast majority of even unassisted multi-boxing, and for that matter adding annoyances to solo boxing. I've already stated to you that they would hurt multi-boxers, and in the same post told you that the effects wouldn't be limited to multi-boxers, hurting those who don't use tools the worst. To be honest this position doesn't even make sense. the result is still the effective elimination of assisted multi-boxing, but at the expense of wiping out unassisted multi-boxing and creating annoyances in solo client play.
Also increasing LP payouts/decreasing isk specifically confuses me as this does nothing but move the multiplied income to another source. Even if you are counting on market saturation of LP goods to lower overall income the result is still the same in that both single and multi-client players are using the same saturated market but with the multi client players still having more stock to sell. Comparatively it changes nothing (seriously calling into question your barb about understanding the economy after that one).
Some of what you describe makes sense when trying to eliminate all multi-boxing, but that isn't the stated goal. Also there is no justification regarding this issue itself to damage solo play. Captchas and codes especially are very poor player experiences. Making solo players endure them because of some multi-boxers makes far less sense than banning the activity of the offending multiboxers. Such a suggestion reeks of retaliatory intent, ruining everyones experience if yours is nerfed. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
118
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 03:40:41 -
[2522] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:And for your final sentence, I've yet to hear an argument as to why ISBoxing should be banned other than "my feelings got hurt" and "I don't wanna put effort into EVE so he shouldn't box." The only way you get only that is if you don't read what's being posted to you. It also requires some level of intentional blindness to the fact that assisted multiboxing is less effort intensive that unassisted multiboxing. Really the complaint is that you want all the rewards of a series of clients running but don't want to exert the effort of managing them independently. The fact that CCP may have devised an effort barrier for the benefits managing multiple clients is a reason, or that they intend to use this as a means to cap that advantage, but I'm almost sure you will continue to refuse considering those possibilities. I'm sorry, what? Literally everything you've posted was "I don't want to exert the effort that ISBoxers do ergo they should not be allowed to multibox", "I know nothing about what a group of trained players can do in regards to alpha strikes and general fleet PVP, especially small scale T3 wormhole PVP", and "I know nothing about an economy". And in your second paragraph you again make the rather ludicrous assumption that multiple accounts do not require $$$ or PLEX to start, do not require time to skill, do not require $$$ or PLEX to keep them active every month, do not require major adjustments on the player's part, and do not require untold hours of fiddling with settings, windows, and VFX that would otherwise be spent earning ISK with a single account. As I and many others have pointed out countless times, there's a thousand threads in F&I talking about balancing bombers, mining, and incursions. Browse those, specifically the ones regarding the activation code for bombs, the minigame for mining to reward active players that aren't boxed, and reducing ISK payout while increasing LP payouts, then look me in the eye and tell me that none of those would hurt ISBoxers.
they would hurt isboxing as much as they hurt me a guy with only 4 accounts. isboxer is still legal. muti input or whatever they are calling is not stop calling that isboxer cause its lieing about the better features of the program. Its like saying that evemon is just a cachescraping program. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2486
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 04:03:07 -
[2523] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: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.
You are making a good argument to ban ISBoxer entire Lucas.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2486
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 04:19:13 -
[2524] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Rosewalker wrote:
I still haven't read a good explanation of why input broadcasting/multiplexing is good for EVE.
It isn't inherently good for EvE. I is essential to the current state of the markets, which means doing something like this with a months notice is creating more than a bit of turbulance.
Baloney. The market will be fine. Sure it may change, but this notion that the market is dependent on ISBoxer is nonsense.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
300
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 04:27:37 -
[2525] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:they would hurt isboxing as much as they hurt me a guy with only 4 accounts. isboxer is still legal. muti input or whatever they are calling is not stop calling that isboxer cause its lieing about the better features of the program. Its like saying that evemon is just a cachescraping program.
The general broadcast ban was aimed at multiple account users using any form of software to play EVE, despite not doing any research into the penalties the usage of ISBoxer incurs. I do apologize for not making enough of a distinction from multi-account users, multiboxers, ISBoxers without broadcasting, ISBoxers with broadcasting, and people who claim they have single accounts but know all about ISBoxer. I will attempt to make better distinctions in the future. I do hope you weren't triggered by my misplaced pronouns. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
118
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 05:30:52 -
[2526] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Lady Rift wrote:they would hurt isboxing as much as they hurt me a guy with only 4 accounts. isboxer is still legal. muti input or whatever they are calling is not stop calling that isboxer cause its lieing about the better features of the program. Its like saying that evemon is just a cachescraping program. The general broadcast ban was aimed at multiple account users using any form of software to play EVE, despite not doing any research into the penalties the usage of ISBoxer incurs. I do apologize for not making enough of a distinction from multi-account users, multiboxers, ISBoxers without broadcasting, ISBoxers with broadcasting, and people who claim they have single accounts but know all about ISBoxer. I will attempt to make better distinctions in the future. I do hope you weren't triggered by my misplaced pronouns.
really didn't know it was aimed at people that multi box. Also it was aimed specific at those who multi broadcast. Isbox is still a valid tool and I really did enjoy my free trials with it but as my accounts tend to do different things at the same time it wasn't worth the money involved for me. As we don't know how many people use it only for that feature we cant know how many are quitting, this might not hurt eve at all.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4455
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 07:49:34 -
[2527] - Quote
Niskin wrote:You seem like a smart enough guy to read this and understand it. If you still think VideoFX is a problem after reading that I can't help you. Round robin is a grey area, if it is too efficient then it might get flagged. Again, this is why the change is ideal, it is based on how it looks on their end. Anything that is too much like multicasting might as well be multicasting, the means by which it was achieved is irrelevant. Right, but VideoFX isn't multicasting, so it will be within the rules. It's not really different from sticking the windows side by side, but you can do it with 50 windows without them being too tiny to see.
Niskin wrote:I'm being honest, they are doing it because it's affecting the game in negative ways for actual players. They have to draw the line so they have a basis to police it on. And they drew it in a pretty fair place considering that isboxer will still see widespread use for it's various other features going forward. How? How exactly is this affecting the game in negative ways? People keep saying this, yet when asked what exactly is being affected they start mumbling about ice and looking at their feet. Following this change there will be no improved gameplay. Multiboxers will still have the advantage over non-multiboxers because players with more characters can do more than players with 1. The only difference is that the multiboxers will have to click a few more times. Considering how little input is required (mining for example takes around 6 clicks every 10 minutes) this is pretty much irrelevant.
Niskin wrote:They took away one aspect of a playstyle with this change, multiboxing is still valid, isboxer is still useful. I don't think they will just pull the trigger on any old ban, they are going to have a case built with data. Only time will tell though. Still though, they aren't improving the game. They are attacking a playstyle because the vocal minority doesn't like it. It's like if they made concord react twice as fast. They wouldn't be removing ganking, but they'd be attacking the playstyle. The difference being that if they did that they'd actually be improving the game for the vocal minority, where in this case the effect will be practically nil.
Niskin wrote:Is there a collection of blogs made by the hordes of unfairly banned players out there somewhere detailing this injustice? I'm just not seeing it. It's not like CCP has a global mafia that silences the banned. If this were rampant it would be on gaming news sites or something somewhere. There have been in the past. Honestly, I'm not going to sit around arguing about CCPs crappy support and risking getting myself banned for talking about stuff that is off the table. Hopefully one day you'll get you're ass banned for something you didn't do and realise there's sod all you can do about it though. Then you'll know.
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
4455
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 08:02:24 -
[2528] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:What is the threshold for a legitimate complaint vs a whine. I see a number of accusations about whining, but also a lot of concessions of the advantages of assisted multiboxing, as if to suggest that it cannot be valid for someone to find that the use of tools outside of the client to drastically boost effectiveness and coordination inside of the client cannot be legitimate. Well when you are complaining because someone else is playing the game more effectively than you, and you want a change not to improve the gamplay but to simply attack the other players playstyle because you don;t like it, that's a whine. In this case it's even more so, because the thing they are complaining about - outside tools improving efficiency - exists all over the place. EFT, jeveassests, eve-central, eve-market data for example. Hell, elinor automatically takes market exports and copies prices to your clipboard for you. Why is it that the only people being attacked are the ones looking to reduce RSI while multiboxing in a game where the UI and control system is terribly designed?
Tyberius Franklin wrote:That seems like a very strong case to dismiss the claims that this is a response to whining. Add to that the fact that nothing that actually supports this decision being the result of anything other than balancing the affect a player can have on the game and we have the crux of the issue with this claim. No one is stating objectively why this change shouldn't happen. Nobody is stating objectively why it *should* happen. Even with the change, multiboxers will still multibox and be better than a non-multiboxer (even without tools), so the thing they think is unfair will still exist. There will still be parts of the tools which still give them a massive advantage (round robin keybinds and VideoFX beign the biggest). The thing is, the complaint is made by people who don't understand how isboxer works and implemented by people who seemingly don't know how isboxer work, to solve a problem which exists because of bad gameplay design and the promotion of multiboxing in the first place. It's a pointless change implemented to stop the whiners whining, which it will fail to do once those whiners realise it doesn't mean that all mutliboxers quit. Arguably, the group of players who this change was finally triggered by, the bombers running bomb fleets, will be the least affected, since the only thing they have to replicate across clients is the "launch bomb" command. The rest of the run can be done by fleet warping.
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
4455
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 08:09:12 -
[2529] - Quote
Eryn Velasquez wrote:The more i read your posts, the more i'm hoping 3rd party tools like ISBoxer will get banned completely.
May the EVE client detect them running in the same address space, using ressources on the graphics card, whatever.
It's people like you, using those external tools and pushing them to the edge, gaining advantages over regular players which only use what the client allows.
The user interface as provided by CCP is optimized by ISBoxer in a way i call cheating.
Good night. I have multiple monitors and multiple PCs as well. Should that be banned too, since I can tile so many windows across my monitors without using any tools at all?
At the end of the day, people will optimise their play to gain the most advantage over competitors. Regardless of what rules they put in place, this will always be the case. Don't like it? Think it's unfair? Well life isn't fair. If you don't want to put he effort in to optimising the way you play, don't come whining every time someone does better than you.
By the way, when you say "people like you", you do realise I haven't used isboxer in a long time, right? I've actually resubbed it specifically because this rule change is coming in and I wanted to get a setup which requires no broadcasting. The thing is I make far more isk roflstomping the market, using custom built analytics tools so I don't need to even thing about what to trade, where and for how much. I guess I should also be banned for that too right?
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
4455
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 08:26:47 -
[2530] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:You are making a good argument to ban ISBoxer entirely Lucas. That might be the case. And if they did, it would at least have an actual impact on what the whiners are whining about. As it stands the change is pointless because the impact will be minimal. Considering I don't use ISBoxer generally, I'm not particularly invested in it and don't really care if it goes. What I care about is knee-jerk changes with no gameplay value being added to appease whining carebears for a week until they realise it didn't change much. People playing with ISBoxer are generally going to be better at the game than a solo carebear whining in an ice belt. Even if all tools were completely banned they would still be at the bottom of the most peasant level income.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2716
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 08:42:42 -
[2531] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:You are making a good argument to ban ISBoxer entirely Lucas. That might be the case. And if they did, it would at least have an actual impact on what the whiners are whining about. As it stands the change is pointless because the impact will be minimal. Considering I don't use ISBoxer generally, I'm not particularly invested in it and don't really care if it goes. What I care about is knee-jerk changes with no gameplay value being added to appease whining carebears for a week until they realise it didn't change much. People playing with ISBoxer are generally going to be better at the game than a solo carebear whining in an ice belt. Even if all tools were completely banned they would still be at the bottom of the most peasant level income.
So, an ISboxer mining ice is a 'player' but the solo ice miner next to him is a 'whining carebear'?
One of my favourite things about the Eve forums is the casual use of the supposed insult' 'carebear' to descibe anyone who holds a contrary view.
This is not a signature.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4455
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 08:54:08 -
[2532] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:You are making a good argument to ban ISBoxer entirely Lucas. That might be the case. And if they did, it would at least have an actual impact on what the whiners are whining about. As it stands the change is pointless because the impact will be minimal. Considering I don't use ISBoxer generally, I'm not particularly invested in it and don't really care if it goes. What I care about is knee-jerk changes with no gameplay value being added to appease whining carebears for a week until they realise it didn't change much. People playing with ISBoxer are generally going to be better at the game than a solo carebear whining in an ice belt. Even if all tools were completely banned they would still be at the bottom of the most peasant level income. So, an ISboxer mining ice is a 'player' but the solo ice miner next to him is a 'whining carebear'? One of my favourite things about the Eve forums is the casual use of the supposed insult' 'carebear' to descibe anyone who holds a contrary view. No, a whining carebear is someone who refuses to learn how to play the game and instead whines to CCP to change eveything so their inferior style of play is no longer inferior. Someone who sits there mining in a solo, unboosted, untanked barge, whining that someone else is taking all of "their" ice is a whining carebear. If they were to think for 5 minutes and jump to one of the hundreds of methods of taking the initiative and competing with of fighting the other player, they wouldn't be a whining carebear.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2716
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 09:18:36 -
[2533] - Quote
Dear Lucas, I was a happy chap when my Dominix had a 10% drone tracking bonus, but those whinging carebears moaned and cried to CCP and got the tracking bonus nerfed.
So I can see where you are coming from with this.
With regard to ISboxer, I would be pleased if everyone in the game (except me of course) used ISboxer all the time to mine so that my ships became dirt cheap.
I am broadly opposed to ISboxer because being ganked by 10 players seems 'right' being ganked by on player controlling X ships with one key press just seems wrong to me.
My favourite ISbox defence thus far is, 'but it took me ages to set up, so I should be allowed to continue to use it as currently allowed'
This is not a signature.
|
Eryn Velasquez
84
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 09:30:26 -
[2534] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:.... and do not require untold hours of fiddling with settings, windows, and VFX that would otherwise be spent earning ISK with a single account.
Would be nice if you stop complaining about the "countless hours" you had to invest to set up your cheating prog. It's completely irrelevant.
_GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á_
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
15
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 09:40:43 -
[2535] - Quote
Stragak wrote:As owner of 5 accounts that do industry. ISboxing kills the fun of running multiple accounts. What is the challenge? +1 ban ISboxing
edit: PS should have done a long time ago
'etc? what are you doing?
Whats is the Challenge? , well. tell me in what combination you have used it. or you just have watched youtube videos? And if you dislike, it doesn't mean that everyone dislikes it, but for others it might be funny? every player might have different things they like and prefer, so. yeah. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
15
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 09:41:52 -
[2536] - Quote
Eryn Velasquez wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:.... and do not require untold hours of fiddling with settings, windows, and VFX that would otherwise be spent earning ISK with a single account. Would be nice if you stop complaining about the "countless hours" you had to invest to set up your cheating prog. It's completely irrelevant.
you even know what he's talking about? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4455
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 09:59:01 -
[2537] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:I am broadly opposed to ISboxer because being ganked by 10 players seems 'right' being ganked by on player controlling X ships with one key press just seems wrong to me. It's not quite 1 keypress. It's 1 keypress per action, so with a 6 man gank it's 1 for the warp, 1 to lock, 1 to fire guns scram and web, 1 to evac, 1 to dock. Following the change it's 1 to warp, 6 to lock, 6 to fire guns scram and web, 1 to evac, 6 to dock. Multibox ganking will still be a thing, especially with round robin keybinds which will make the change almost irrelevant.
ISBoxer is really no different to how I used to have to click sell on 100 different items I'm selling, enter the prices on each, and click OK on each. Now I can select the whole lot, click sell once, put in all of the amounts, then click OK once. It's just a way of not getting RSI from the badly designed UI.
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:My favourite ISbox defence thus far is, 'but it took me ages to set up, so I should be allowed to continue to use it as currently allowed' And while that's a pretty dumb defense on it's own, it's a response to the people who seem to think you just install isboxer and it's ready to go with as many clients as you want. Realistically, it takes a while to set up, and it's reduces per character efficiency. A 10 man broadcast mining fleet for example achieves a far lower actual:potential yield ratio than a manually controlled fleet as you can't reasonably take individual character circumstance into account if you are controlling via broadcast. That's why many people who use broadcasting in ISBoxer mining fleets up to ~20 characters only use it to undock and set up. After that they switch between characters as required.
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
4455
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 10:01:29 -
[2538] - Quote
Eryn Velasquez wrote:Would be nice if you stop complaining about the "countless hours" you had to invest to set up your cheating prog. It's completely irrelevant. Would be nice if you stopped referring to a program that has been explicitly allowed by the developers, still is allowed and will still be allowed minus a single feature after January as a "cheating" program. Just because you don't understand or like ISBoxer doesn't make it cheating.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
189
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 10:56:23 -
[2539] - Quote
I see certain players on here are still trying to put smoke screens up about the real problem.
So called multiboxing has nothing to do with why this ban was brought in, multiboxing by itself isn't an issue whether it's 3 accounts or 303 accounts.
The issue is how they are controlled in game.
When anyone has to use an outside programme to directly control multiple clients and what they are doing in the game, it's cheating..
Let's face it, how many of these fleets would exist without these programmes? Would any player actually contemplate 10,20,30+ accounts without some way of automating what happens? Or without third party help?
There's players on here already talking about how they could possibly have found a work around, if that's the case then you obviously have far too many accounts to control effectively using the tools provided by CCP, but I hope you succeed, and get hit by the ban hammer.
Because guys like you never learn, you'll just go down kicking and screaming. Bye. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
325
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 10:59:49 -
[2540] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:
When anyone has to use an outside programme to directly control multiple clients and what they are doing in the game, it's cheating..
.
SO, spreadsheets to track what capital parts you are building on which account is cheating? sweet. Lemme just dial up the banhammer for EVERY ALLIANCES CAPITAL PRODUCTION TEAM.
So, Dotlan to figure out JDC 4 vs JDC 5 compliant routes is cheating? sweet. That's death to all supers right there.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
|
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 11:02:22 -
[2541] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:
When anyone has to use an outside programme to directly control multiple clients and what they are doing in the game, it's cheating..
.
SO, spreadsheets to track what capital parts you are building on which account is cheating? sweet. Lemme just dial up the banhammer for EVERY ALLIANCES CAPITAL PRODUCTION TEAM. So, Dotlan to figure out JDC 4 vs JDC 5 compliant routes is cheating? sweet. That's death to all supers right there.
'Directly control multiple clients' from a spreadsheet?
Wow I gotta learn my XML better |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
189
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 11:04:38 -
[2542] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:
When anyone has to use an outside programme to directly control multiple clients and what they are doing in the game, it's cheating..
.
SO, spreadsheets to track what capital parts you are building on which account is cheating? sweet. Lemme just dial up the banhammer for EVERY ALLIANCES CAPITAL PRODUCTION TEAM. So, Dotlan to figure out JDC 4 vs JDC 5 compliant routes is cheating? sweet. That's death to all supers right there.
Well done on the deliberate misunderstanding. Smoke screens. I'll rephrase it, when a player directly controls multiple clients logged on and in game with a single click...that better? |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
325
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 11:05:52 -
[2543] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:James Baboli wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:
When anyone has to use an outside programme to directly control multiple clients and what they are doing in the game, it's cheating..
.
SO, spreadsheets to track what capital parts you are building on which account is cheating? sweet. Lemme just dial up the banhammer for EVERY ALLIANCES CAPITAL PRODUCTION TEAM. So, Dotlan to figure out JDC 4 vs JDC 5 compliant routes is cheating? sweet. That's death to all supers right there. 'Directly control multiple clients' from a spreadsheet? Wow I gotta learn my XML better
Nah, need SQL interacting with the right CREST endpoint for it.
Sarc aside, I missed the directly in the above. However, ISboxer doesn't directly control anything. It does not issue commands. It overrides the "this window is active and thus the only thing taking input" flag
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Tiberius Zol
turaagaq
GANOR INC.
41
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 11:20:40 -
[2544] - Quote
The rule should be: one keystroke should result in exact one action and this action should be limited to exact one client.. no round robin, no broadcast no other shenanigan..
In my opinion, this is what CCP tries to define with this change. |
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 11:28:20 -
[2545] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:
Nah, need SQL interacting with the right CREST endpoint for it.
Sarc aside, I missed the directly in the above. However, ISboxer doesn't directly control anything. It does not issue commands. It overrides the "this window is active and thus the only thing taking input" flag
Which is fine.
It's when it does that AND MULTIPLIES (almost limitlessly) the action that the issues begin...
Whether on the industry side of things it's having multiple miners all starting their lasers in sync: which devalues the mineral market - which then affects solo miners by slimming their margins and results in cheaper than intended ship prices = 'meh just another titan loss, it's already replaced' attitudes from the big coalitions. Industry is still pvp.
Or for the combat toons we have multiboxed bomber, catalyst and dreadnaught fleets all requiring pretty much the same attention and direction as a single pilot, yet arguably being more effective than a corresponding number of individuals; which obviously imbalances the pvp side of things as well as the multiboxing incursion fleets causing inflation from the isk rewards and devalued LP exchange rates from the pve side of things - which also affects the pvp side of things because these pilots/alts can replace their losses far more quickly and easily than solo pilots.
Personally I multibox just 2 clients without any external software and just a single (24") screen and as a result I have to be very passive with one account whilst the other is actively doing stuff. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
326
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 11:37:50 -
[2546] - Quote
Tiberius Zol wrote:The rule should be: one keystroke should result in exact one action and this action should be limited to exact one client.. no round robin, no broadcast no other shenanigan..
In my opinion, this is what CCP tries to define with this change.
Then get them to state it as such. Because right now:
Input combination, where multiple actions are set to one keystroke (i.e. I set G1 to hit alt +f1+f2+f3.....) to turn perma-run modules is at worst a grey area in the current EULA, and historically allowed and not explictly banned via this change.
Several commands in the client result in multiple actions or actions across multiple clients, specifically Fleet/wing/squad warps and module activation with assigned drones.
Non-EVE commands like window swapping as bannable is silly and likely unenforcable without a creepy level of clientside monitoring.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4455
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 11:44:48 -
[2547] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:When anyone has to use an outside programme to directly control multiple clients and what they are doing in the game, it's cheating.. Wrong. You don't like it, that doesn't make it cheating. Even with broadcasting removed, there will still be other allowed methods and tools for assisting in the control of multiple accounts.
Drago Shouna wrote:Let's face it, how many of these fleets would exist without these programmes? Would any player actually contemplate 10,20,30+ accounts without some way of automating what happens? Or without third party help? Most of them. Most multiboxing vets were multiboxing long before we were using ISBoxer. ISBoxer simply trades a loss in per character efficiency for a reduction in effort.
Drago Shouna wrote:There's players on here already talking about how they could possibly have found a work around, if that's the case then you obviously have far too many accounts to control effectively using the tools provided by CCP, but I hope you succeed, and get hit by the ban hammer. Wrong again. There are many players who improve their ability to play with out of game tools, like James Baboli pointed out. People seem to have no issue using eve-market data, EFT, dotlan, Elinor, Eve-praisal, etc.
And the workarounds being discussed are allowed and valid methods of using ISBoxer without broadcasting. ISBoxer itself isn't banned. CCP won't (or at least shouldn;t, legitimate players are very likely to get banned in error) swing the ban hammer at people who are following the rules.
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
4455
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 11:55:46 -
[2548] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:'Directly control multiple clients' from a spreadsheet?
Wow I gotta learn my XML better Actually, you can control other applications from a spreadsheet. I was challenged to write a DirectX driven game editor at work once using just office applications, and used VBA in excel to accomplish just that.
Tiberius Zol wrote:The rule should be: one keystroke should result in exact one action and this action should be limited to exact one client.. no round robin, no broadcast no other shenanigan..
In my opinion, this is what CCP tries to define with this change. That is the new rule. Round robin only sends one keypress to one client. Round robin is basically a key which rebinds itself to a new client when pressed
For example if I set up a round robin keybind for F1 on 4 clients, then press F1, it does this for each press:
Press 1 - F1 on Client 1
Press 2 - F1 on Client 2
Press 3 - F1 on Client 3
Press 4 - F1 on Client 4
Press 5 - F1 on Client 1
Press 6 - F1 on Client 2
Each key press only executes one command on one client, but I don't need to alt tab, I simply hit the F1 key multiple times while looking at the screen I'm controlling them from.
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
4455
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 12:03:28 -
[2549] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Whether on the industry side of things it's having multiple miners all starting their lasers in sync: which devalues the mineral market - which then affects solo miners by slimming their margins and results in cheaper than intended ship prices = 'meh just another titan loss, it's already replaced' attitudes from the big coalitions. Industry is still pvp. Solo miners will never have high margins. Even if ISboxer were banned completely, they would still fall behind multiboxing miners. And their income wouldn't go up that much under any circumstances, because there will always be someone willing to do the same job for less. As for null groups, they don't get the bulk of their income from multibox mining. Most of their income comes from moon goo and rental income. Again, removing multibox mining would not affect this at all.
Eli Apol wrote:Or for the combat toons we have multiboxed bomber, catalyst and dreadnaught fleets all requiring pretty much the same attention and direction as a single pilot, yet arguably being more effective than a corresponding number of individuals; which obviously imbalances the pvp side of things as well as the multiboxing incursion fleets causing inflation from the isk rewards and devalued LP exchange rates from the pve side of things - which also affects the pvp side of things because these pilots/alts can replace their losses far more quickly and easily than solo pilots. And all of these things happen without ISBoxer as well. And if you look at per-character efficiency, multiboxers are below individual pilots. Your issue is entirely that one physical player is getting the reward. If you didn't know it was one player, it wouldn't be a problem. Therefore it seems your issue is envy rather than a balance issue.
Eli Apol wrote:Personally I multibox just 2 clients without any external software and just a single (24") screen and as a result I have to be very passive with one account whilst the other is actively doing stuff. That's your choice. You are allowed to play the way you want to. Why should other people be force to play your way, just because you prefer it?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tiberius Zol
turaagaq
GANOR INC.
44
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 12:10:13 -
[2550] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:That is the new rule. Round robin only sends one keypress to one client. Round robin is basically a key which rebinds itself to a new client when pressed
For example if I set up a round robin keybind for F1 on 4 clients, then press F1, it does this for each press:
Press 1 - F1 on Client 1
Press 2 - F1 on Client 2
Press 3 - F1 on Client 3
Press 4 - F1 on Client 4
Press 5 - F1 on Client 1
Press 6 - F1 on Client 2
Each key press only executes one command on one client, but I don't need to alt tab, I simply hit the F1 key multiple times while looking at the screen I'm controlling them from.
As i read in this thread before, you can use round robin to nearly automat input (ex: with programmed timers). In my opinion there shouldn't be any function allowed, that changes bindings on the fly after you set up a bunch of rules or any other stuff like you described above. |
|
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 12:15:59 -
[2551] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Whether on the industry side of things it's having multiple miners all starting their lasers in sync: which devalues the mineral market - which then affects solo miners by slimming their margins and results in cheaper than intended ship prices = 'meh just another titan loss, it's already replaced' attitudes from the big coalitions. Industry is still pvp. Solo miners will never have high margins. Even if ISboxer were banned completely, they would still fall behind multiboxing miners. And their income wouldn't go up that much under any circumstances, because there will always be someone willing to do the same job for less. As for null groups, they don't get the bulk of their income from multibox mining. Most of their income comes from moon goo and rental income. Again, removing multibox mining would not affect this at all. Correct, solo miners would still be less efficient than unreplicated multiboxers, but replication makes the multiboxing even easier to do. Same amount of effort for ever increasing gains...just start a new mining fleet in a new system and they can be pretty much perfectly replicated.
Eli Apol wrote:Or for the combat toons we have multiboxed bomber, catalyst and dreadnaught fleets all requiring pretty much the same attention and direction as a single pilot, yet arguably being more effective than a corresponding number of individuals; which obviously imbalances the pvp side of things as well as the multiboxing incursion fleets causing inflation from the isk rewards and devalued LP exchange rates from the pve side of things - which also affects the pvp side of things because these pilots/alts can replace their losses far more quickly and easily than solo pilots. And all of these things happen without ISBoxer as well. And if you look at per-character efficiency, multiboxers are below individual pilots. Your issue is entirely that one physical player is getting the reward. If you didn't know it was one player, it wouldn't be a problem. Therefore it seems your issue is envy rather than a balance issue. The fact that instead of 20, only 1 player has to spend manhours doing something which affects the markets and safety of other players? I think that's a pretty big deal in an MMO where some of the alliances have thousands of players and where attrition is a big part of the warfare metagame.
Eli Apol wrote:Personally I multibox just 2 clients without any external software and just a single (24") screen and as a result I have to be very passive with one account whilst the other is actively doing stuff. That's your choice. You are allowed to play the way you want to. Why should other people be force to play your way, just because you prefer it?[/quote]It is partially a decision, but also I don't choose to spend $50/year on software to do it for me, is this pay2win that you require such software (or laughably bad free competitors) to compete in this game as a solo player? |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
326
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 12:18:27 -
[2552] - Quote
Tiberius Zol wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:That is the new rule. Round robin only sends one keypress to one client. Round robin is basically a key which rebinds itself to a new client when pressed
For example if I set up a round robin keybind for F1 on 4 clients, then press F1, it does this for each press:
Press 1 - F1 on Client 1
Press 2 - F1 on Client 2
Press 3 - F1 on Client 3
Press 4 - F1 on Client 4
Press 5 - F1 on Client 1
Press 6 - F1 on Client 2
Each key press only executes one command on one client, but I don't need to alt tab, I simply hit the F1 key multiple times while looking at the screen I'm controlling them from. As i read in this thread before, you can use round robin to nearly automat input (ex: with programmed timers). In my opinion there shouldn't be any function allowed, that changes bindings on the fly after you set up a bunch of rules or any other stuff like you described above.
Programmed timers is explicitly bannable as input automation.
This is a clever workaround setting up a 1-1 correspondence of key-presses to clients receiving commands.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
326
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 12:23:10 -
[2553] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: It is partially a decision, but also I don't choose to spend $50/year on software to do it for me, is this pay2win that you require such software (or laughably bad free competitors) to compete in this game as a solo player?
No one is saying you need it to be a decent solo player, and it is almost entirely useless to you as a solo player, multiboxing being by definition not solo. The fact that there exist configurable tools which reduce effort to do something (usually with a strong loss of precision or efficiency) just means that people are not shoehorned into only playing a single character.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
190
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 13:08:05 -
[2554] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Eli Apol wrote: It is partially a decision, but also I don't choose to spend $50/year on software to do it for me, is this pay2win that you require such software (or laughably bad free competitors) to compete in this game as a solo player? No one is saying you need it to be a decent solo player, and it is almost entirely useless to you as a solo player, multiboxing being by definition not solo. The fact that there exist configurable tools which reduce effort to do something (usually with a strong loss of precision or efficiency) just means that people are not shoehorned into only playing a single character.
Sorry but I don't feel shoehorned into using only one account, in fact I have 3, and I never so much as configured a button on my keyboard...I just use it to put in 3 different passwords and then it's all done by mouse clicks in 3 separate clients.
I would also consider multiboxing to be solo play, purely because regardless of the amount of accounts, it's still one, solo, player behind them.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4455
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 13:09:27 -
[2555] - Quote
Tiberius Zol wrote:As i read in this thread before, you can use round robin to nearly automat input (ex: with programmed timers). In my opinion there shouldn't be any function allowed, that changes bindings on the fly after you set up a bunch of rules or any other stuff like you described above. Well you can automate input without round robin too. Automation is not allowed regardless, since that's botting. Round robin just means you don't need to go alt-tabbing between clients all the time, the button itself just diverts to the next client when it's pressed.
Eli Apol wrote:Correct, solo miners would still be less efficient than unreplicated multiboxers, but replication makes the multiboxing even easier to do. Same amount of effort for ever increasing gains...just start a new mining fleet in a new system and they can be pretty much perfectly replicated. That really depends on what you mean when you say "efficient". For most, efficiency is measure at Actual Yield/Potential Yield on a per-character basis. So if you can pull 1000m3/min and you pull 950/min, you are 95% efficient. In this regard, a solo player will *always* be able to achieve higher efficiency than a multiboxer, as it's simple to keep track of ore amount in rocks and do partial cycles. A "normal" multiboxer will be better off than a braodcaster because they will be able to do the same, albeit with less precision than a solo player. Again I think you confuse efficiency with total amount a players (not character) can pull, which will always be more with more characters regardless of how they are controlled.
Eli Apol wrote:The fact that instead of 20, only 1 player has to spend manhours doing something which affects the markets and safety of other players? I think that's a pretty big deal in an MMO where some of the alliances have thousands of players and where attrition is a big part of the warfare metagame. Which happens with or without isboxer. The game is designed to support multiboxing as a key feature. Power of two is there for that exact reason.
Eli Apol wrote:It is partially a decision, but also I don't choose to spend $50/year on software to do it for me, is this pay2win that you require such software (or laughably bad free competitors) to compete in this game as a solo player? So yes, it's a choice. And I don't "require" any software. I choose to pay for helpful software, just as a choose to have multiple monitors and decent PC. Don't mistake luxury for necessity. I've multiboxed without isboxer in the past, and up until this thread I wasn't subscribed to isboxer since I would down multiboxing a while back.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
327
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 13:15:32 -
[2556] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:
Sorry but I don't feel shoehorned into using only one account, in fact I have 3, and I never so much as configured a button on my keyboard...I just use it to put in 3 different passwords and then it's all done by mouse clicks in 3 separate clients.
I would also consider multiboxing to be solo play, purely because regardless of the amount of accounts, it's still one, solo, player behind them.
Ah, yes. Semantics. Solo play is tricky to pin down in eve, because mult-boxing is so prevalent. While it is single player, running 3 characters isn't solo. Not even if only one of them is on grid and the other two are giving you links.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4455
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 13:17:57 -
[2557] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Sorry but I don't feel shoehorned into using only one account, in fact I have 3, and I never so much as configured a button on my keyboard...I just use it to put in 3 different passwords and then it's all done by mouse clicks in 3 separate clients. Good for you.
Drago Shouna wrote:I would also consider multiboxing to be solo play, purely because regardless of the amount of accounts, it's still one, solo, player behind them. It's clear the terminology being used here is solo: single client, multiboxer: multiple clients. Don't be deliberately obtuse.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Niskin
League of the Lost
124
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 14:01:14 -
[2558] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Right, but VideoFX isn't multicasting, so it will be within the rules. It's not really different from sticking the windows side by side, but you can do it with 50 windows without them being too tiny to see.
You're the one who wanted clarification, I was pointing out that the original post was clear enough regarding that feature. You seem to understand that now, so I'm not sure why you were looking for clarification.
Lucas Kell wrote:How? How exactly is this affecting the game in negative ways? People keep saying this, yet when asked what exactly is being affected they start mumbling about ice and looking at their feet. Following this change there will be no improved gameplay. Multiboxers will still have the advantage over non-multiboxers because players with more characters can do more than players with 1. The only difference is that the multiboxers will have to click a few more times. Considering how little input is required (mining for example takes around 6 clicks every 10 minutes) this is pretty much irrelevant.
Bullsh*t, it's been explained many times in depth over the last 109 pages, some of us actually read them so we know that. But to make it crystal clear: Multiplexing allows levels of efficiency and productivity that surpass a normal multiboxer with the same number of accounts. A person can run incursions with 12 accounts more efficiently by broadcasting to clients with similar roles. The same goes for other things like mining or bombing. A person with a single account operates at one level of efficiency. A person with multiple accounts operates at a higher level even though each account is slightly less efficient than running a single one. A multiplexer running multiple accounts can operate all of those accounts at near single account efficiency, mitigating the affect of running those accounts simultaneously. CCP and many players have a problem with that. They are saying you can have all the accounts you want, but multiplexing is no longer a legal option for mitigating the affects of running multiple account simultaneously.
Lucas Kell wrote:Still though, they aren't improving the game. They are attacking a playstyle because the vocal minority doesn't like it. It's like if they made concord react twice as fast. They wouldn't be removing ganking, but they'd be attacking the playstyle. The difference being that if they did that they'd actually be improving the game for the vocal minority, where in this case the effect will be practically nil.
You keep using that word, minority, I don't think it means what you think it means. You really don't seem to understand how many people are happy with this change. Once again, read the last 109 pages and realize it's a couple guys saying "no, not in the face" and a lot of other people, solo and multiboxers alike, saying "this is great, thanks." Banning multiplexing isn't attacking a playstyle because it was never about the playstyle, it was about the results. Multiboxing is a playstyle, improved efficiency through linked input is one aspect of that playstyle that not even all multiboxers use. Who's the minority now?
Lucas Kell wrote:There have been in the past. Honestly, I'm not going to sit around arguing about CCPs crappy support and risking getting myself banned for talking about stuff that is off the table. Hopefully one day you'll get you're ass banned for something you didn't do and realise there's sod all you can do about it though. Then you'll know.
Unlikely, as I tread carefully and take care to know the rules. I'm fine with a loss of efficiency or missed opportunity if the result is that I'm not skirting the rules. I enjoy the game for what it is, not what I can squeeze out of it by pushing the limits of legality.
Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.
-MooMooDachshundCow
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4455
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 14:29:06 -
[2559] - Quote
Niskin wrote:A person with a single account operates at one level of efficiency. A person with multiple accounts operates at a higher level even though each account is slightly less efficient than running a single one. A multiplexer running multiple accounts can operate all of those accounts at near single account efficiency, mitigating the affect of running those accounts simultaneously. Complete and utter rubbish. This is the classic argument from someone with absolutely no idea what they are talking about. A multiplexer will operate at a per-character efficiency which is lower than a manual multiboxer. It's a trade of efficiency for ease of control.
Niskin wrote:They are saying you can have all the accounts you want, but multiplexing is no longer a legal option for mitigating the affects of running multiple account simultaneously. Which make no difference. You'll still be back here whining again by February that it's still too easy to multibox. It's got nothing to do with efficiency, or gameplay or the economy. Your problem is that you don't like that a single person might be making more isk than you are because you refuse to use the tools available to you. It's envy, plain and simple. There are marketing tools that do far far FAR more for people's ability to generate isk at a staggering rate, but because they aren't obvious people don't cry about them.
Niskin wrote:You keep using that word, minority, I don't think it means what you think it means. You really don't seem to understand how many people are happy with this change. Once again, read the last 109 pages and realize it's a couple guys saying "no, not in the face" and a lot of other people, solo and multiboxers alike, saying "this is great, thanks." Banning multiplexing isn't attacking a playstyle because it was never about the playstyle, it was about the results. Multiboxing is a playstyle, improved efficiency through linked input is one aspect of that playstyle that not even all multiboxers use. Who's the minority now? If everyone on the entire forum were to post and say "we like this" it would *still* be a minority. In this case there are 659 unique posters in this thread. Most people don't actually care how other players in the game play. Of course, the ones on the forum are going to be the most vocal of the playerbase. If they posted up an announcement saying "ganking is banned", you can guarantee that you would have hundreds of players cheering. Do you honestly think that would be a good change too?
Niskin wrote:Unlikely, as I tread carefully and take care to know the rules. I'm fine with a loss of efficiency or missed opportunity if the result is that I'm not skirting the rules. And that still doesn't mean you won't be banned. Players have been banned for accepting public contracts which have later turned out to be from players involved in RMT.
Niskin wrote:I enjoy the game for what it is, not what I can squeeze out of it by pushing the limits of legality. And because you are a casual player, nobody should be allowed to minmax? There's no "wrong" way to play. Why can't people like you simply not whine about how unfair you think it is that other players don't play the way you do?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 15:21:04 -
[2560] - Quote
I wonder how much prices for everything will go up since all minerals in the new year will go up in price?
Wont affect vets since they have a ton of isk.
New players will look at the cost of ships and what little isk they can earn and go wtf.......... |
|
|
Seven Seas
F-I-N-K PROPERTY
Northern Associates.
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 15:23:52 -
[2561] - Quote
this....n:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqJN3N1wDOw
****** reacts to CCP Falcon |
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 15:51:23 -
[2562] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:A multiplexer will operate at a per-character efficiency which is lower than a manual multiboxer. It's a trade of efficiency for ease of control. As a non-boxing incursion runner (my second account is PI and trading), my efficiency is zero when I have no fleet to fly with, when other players are busy/asleep, there are no FCs available or on the contrary when there are too many active players at the weekends and it takes forever getting into a fleet in the first place. What's the multiboxer's efficiency at those points? Log on x12 (or 40!), start running instantly at 95%? 95 > 0
Lucas Kell wrote:You'll still be back here whining again by February that it's still too easy to multibox. It's got nothing to do with efficiency, or gameplay or the economy. Multiboxers earning more isk affects the economy for everyone - likewise for multiboxing miners flooding the markets with minerals.
Lucas Kell wrote:If everyone on the entire forum were to post and say "we like this" it would *still* be a minority. In this case there are 659 unique posters in this thread. So you're a minority of a minority that's whining here? I don't really see how saying 'it's only the 1% of forum users' will help or hinder either sides' arguments. |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1306
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 15:52:21 -
[2563] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:To me it's a real shame, not that they've declared it against the rules, but that it's been allowed for so long and they've suddenly done a 180 due to a change in policy for some unknown reason and with little consideration to the effects.
I'm curious where the idea comes from that there's anything sudden about this. The Third-Party Policies document published months ago says, in a nutshell, that "it's against the EULA, but we're letting it slide for now," which should have been a cue for any users of "the multiboxing software" to start contingency planning. CCP was pretty obviously uneasy with ISBoxer at the time.
This is only a sudden 180 to people who ignored the way the wind was blowing.
Also, I agree with some previous posters that you're in or awfully near a grey area with your little market helpers. Whenever you find yourself playing internet lawyer with the EULA, you shoudn't be at all surprised if a judge isn't impressed with your self-serving semantic analysis.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4455
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 16:26:43 -
[2564] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:As a non-boxing incursion runner (my second account is PI and trading), my efficiency is zero when I have no fleet to fly with, when other players are busy/asleep, there are no FCs available or on the contrary when there are too many active players at the weekends and it takes forever getting into a fleet in the first place. What's the multiboxer's efficiency at those points? Log on x12 (or 40!), start running instantly at 95%? 95 > 0 So you are saying that your problem with isboxer is that you don;t have enough friends to be able to actively pursue your interests whenever you want? So I guess someone in a highly active corp that constantly runs incursions should also be banned, since they are unfairly able to do incursions all day long.
What if an isboxer miner wants to go out and mine some ice but there's no belt! Onoes!
Eli Apol wrote:Multiboxers earning more isk affects the economy for everyone - likewise for multiboxing miners flooding the markets with minerals. Uhhh, not really, no. The mineral prices didn't drastically drop when eve players started using isboxer, and it's unlikely to drastically rise even if isboxers stop altogether. The whole "the economy!" argument is put forward by people with absolutely no idea how the economy actually functions. People won't suddenly be making billions of isk/hours from their minerals, because as the price increases the amount of people running the activity does too, bringing it back to a normal price, not to metion the trillions of minerals sitting around being trickle fed to the market to keep it from crashing. On top of that, the amount of multiboxers will barely change. Even without isboxers it's easy to run 20 miners all day long. EVE is not a click intensive game.
Eli Apol wrote:So you're a minority of a minority that's whining here? I don't really see how saying 'it's only the 1% of forum users' will help or hinder either sides' arguments. Well since whining carebears tend to say "look, we're whining, therefore this is obviously a problem" it's worth mentioning. and yes, on both sides there's a minority. The vast majority of users do not care how everyone else is playing.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 16:39:14 -
[2565] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:So you are saying that your problem with isboxer is that you don;t have enough friends to be able to actively pursue your interests whenever you want? So I guess someone in a highly active corp that constantly runs incursions should also be banned, since they are unfairly able to do incursions all day long. Not at all, I'm just saying it's less efficient for me than for ISboxers. I still make plenty of isk and have fun doing other stuff when fleets are down (like get some fresh air, venture outside of my pit etc). I was merely disproving your point about multiboxers having bad efficiency. Not to mention that even though they're earning isk on a per character basis at the same rate, it's unlikely that the isk is going to be spent on a per character basis, it all goes into one pot for the user to lavish on one pvp addiction rather than twenty.
Lucas Kell wrote:as the price increases the amount of people running the activity does too, bringing it back to a normal price, not to metion the trillions of minerals sitting around being trickle fed to the market to keep it from crashing. So what you're saying is: because ISboxers are lowering the profitability of an activity (by flooding LP stores, mineral markets etc) it becomes less incentive for other individuals to do it on a smaller scale? So unless you're going to ISbox you may as well completely remove the possibility of mining as a profession... That sounds a bit unfair when you flip it like that doesn't it?
Lucas Kell wrote:Well since whining carebears tend to say "look, we're whining, therefore this is obviously a problem" it's worth mentioning. and yes, on both sides there's a minority. The vast majority of users do not care how everyone else is playing. zzzz let's just leave the whole minority discussing things in a forum thing alone shall we
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4455
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 16:43:10 -
[2566] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:I'm curious where the idea comes from that there's anything sudden about this. The Third-Party Policies document published months ago says, in a nutshell, that "it's against the EULA, but we're letting it slide for now," which should have been a cue for any users of "the multiboxing software" to start contingency planning. CCP was pretty obviously uneasy with ISBoxer at the time. Third party tools have always been against the EULA. Multiple times over, CCP devs have stated that as long as no automation was taking place, it's fine.
Let's not forget that EVEMon and several other 3rd party tools are also against the EULA, and those are also still allowed.
Dersen Lowery wrote:Also, I agree with some previous posters that you're in or awfully near a grey area with your little market helpers. Whenever you find yourself playing internet lawyer with the EULA, you shoudn't be at all surprised if a judge isn't impressed with your self-serving semantic analysis. Well then CCP should ban them. And EVE-central, dotlan, jeveassets, eft, eve-mentat, elinor, eve-mogul, the list goes on and on and ends with several thousands spreadsheets used by traders every day. The fact is that CCP allow tools to augment gameplay. They always have. They even have a whole new site up designed to help people create more third party applications, so it's unlikely they are going to go down that route, no matter how many whining idiots cry about how unfair it is.
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
4456
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 17:04:09 -
[2567] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Not at all, I'm just saying it's less efficient for me than for ISboxers. I still make plenty of isk and have fun doing other stuff when fleets are down (like get some fresh air, venture outside of my pit etc). I was merely disproving your point about multiboxers having bad efficiency. Not to mention that even though they're earning isk on a per character basis at the same rate, it's unlikely that the isk is going to be spent on a per character basis, it all goes into one pot for the user to lavish on one pvp addiction rather than twenty. My point was that players performing the actions are more efficient when they are able to take into account individual character circumstance. Yes, in any task someone who is actually performing that task will always be more efficient than someone who is not doing it, but that's unrelated to the point being made.
Eli Apol wrote:So what you're saying is: because ISboxers are lowering the profitability of an activity (by flooding LP stores, mineral markets etc) it becomes less incentive for other individuals to do it on a smaller scale? So unless you're going to ISbox you may as well completely remove the possibility of mining as a profession... That sounds a bit unfair when you flip it like that doesn't it? No, what I'm saying is that isboxer or not, the mineral market will get filled, generally by multiboxers and large scale miners. Joe Bloggs in his retriever will be providing a tiny tiny fraction of that ore. Mining done at a single character scale is pointless if your goal is to make isk. Most other methods of earning isk will be better. That won;t be changed by removing broadcasting. Should CCP ever lose their minds and remove multiboxing altogether, then mining might be worthwhile solo.
So if we swap out one word in your final sentence there:
Quote:unless you're going to multibox you may as well completely remove the possibility of mining as a profession Then yes, I'd agree. Mining as a profession is terrible for a solo player, which is why mining, as a profession, needs to be looked at in terms of balance (as do a lot of mechanics). Players actively mining and focusing on a single character should have more opportunities to improve than someone who is semi-AFK. Attacking a single function of ISBoxer as if that's going to suddenly fix everything is ludicrously stupid.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
328
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 17:10:33 -
[2568] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Not at all, I'm just saying it's less efficient for me than for ISboxers. I still make plenty of isk and have fun doing other stuff when fleets are down (like get some fresh air, venture outside of my pit etc). I was merely disproving your point about multiboxers having bad efficiency. Not to mention that even though they're earning isk on a per character basis at the same rate, it's unlikely that the isk is going to be spent on a per character basis, it all goes into one pot for the user to lavish on one pvp addiction rather than twenty.
And how many incursion boxers do you have site times for? On average, a real fleet of comparable investment and skill is 10-20% faster than a boxer. The issue is more that the boxer has control of their own coase cost, and absolute control over the investment applied to the entire fleet. Most boxers are easy enough to shut down through target denial if you actually watch them for a site or two and do a little bit of comp shuffling.
You want to ***** about no fleet? Either HTFU and FC cause its really easy these days, go shiny enough to get into other communities or found your own.
Eli Apol wrote:
So what you're saying is: because ISboxers are lowering the profitability of an activity (by flooding LP stores, mineral markets etc) it becomes less incentive for other individuals to do it on a smaller scale? So unless you're going to ISbox you may as well completely remove the possibility of mining as a profession... That sounds a bit unfair when you flip it like that doesn't it?
Not quite. Boxers went into mining because it is a safe way to make a reasonable amount for a limited investment and generally safe. They have lower earnings per hour than X individual players in the same fits paying the same amount of attention, and while it does drive the margins down as they are effectively reducing the number of hours that someone must shoot lasers at rocks, they aren't more than a moderate fraction of the market at most. Nothing says you can't mine and make minerals appear from pixels that are labeled rocks and make your space money that way, just nothing forcing people to buy from you at the price that makes it worth it to you to mine.
Eli Apol wrote:
zzzz let's just leave the whole minority discussing things in a forum thing alone shall we
I always suggest not messing with the sort of minority most boxers present: An engaged, competent and individualistic minority with a strong relative stake should not be dismissed quickly.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Niskin
League of the Lost
124
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 17:44:28 -
[2569] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Complete and utter rubbish. This is the classic argument from someone with absolutely no idea what they are talking about. A multiplexer will operate at a per-character efficiency which is lower than a manual multiboxer. It's a trade of efficiency for ease of control.
I wasn't sure if you were trolling before, but now I know you are. The definitions of serial and parallel would like to have a word with you about their inherent efficiency characteristics I don't doubt that multiplexing saves wear and tear on the wrists, but multiplexing is still a faster way to do things across multiple accounts at once. It's why people spend all that time setting up their layouts and configurations. The initial investment is worth it in the long term.
Lucas Kell wrote:Which make no difference. You'll still be back here whining again by February that it's still too easy to multibox. It's got nothing to do with efficiency, or gameplay or the economy. Your problem is that you don't like that a single person might be making more isk than you are because you refuse to use the tools available to you. It's envy, plain and simple. There are marketing tools that do far far FAR more for people's ability to generate isk at a staggering rate, but because they aren't obvious people don't cry about them.
You clearly don't know me so let me make this simple. I didn't call for a nerf, I haven't whined about anybody's playstyle. CCP started this thread and I agree with their actions so I'm defending them. That's it. And as far as making ISK, everybody makes more ISK than I do. Noobs who've played for a month could be making more ISK than I do. It doesn't bother me. I've played long enough to learn how to have fun within the bounds of my earning potential.
Lucas Kell wrote:If everyone on the entire forum were to post and say "we like this" it would *still* be a minority. In this case there are 659 unique posters in this thread. Most people don't actually care how other players in the game play. Of course, the ones on the forum are going to be the most vocal of the playerbase. If they posted up an announcement saying "ganking is banned", you can guarantee that you would have hundreds of players cheering. Do you honestly think that would be a good change too?
I'm on the fence about where the line should be on high sec ganking. Personally I think the players who engage in it are douchebags, but the ability to do it should still be there. I'm just not sure how easy or costly/profitable it should be. Back to the point though. The responses in this thread indicate support for CCP's actions. Maybe it's not representative, but it's not inversely representative either. It either means what it means or it means nothing. You keep calling a certain group of people a vocal minority even though they seem to be less of a minority and less vocal than the actual minority that was affected by this change.
Lucas Kell wrote:And that still doesn't mean you won't be banned. Players have been banned for accepting public contracts which have later turned out to be from players involved in RMT.
I'm still not worried, or to say it another way, I'll take my chances.
Lucas Kell wrote:And because you are a casual player, nobody should be allowed to minmax? There's no "wrong" way to play. Why can't people like you simply not whine about how unfair you think it is that other players don't play the way you do?
Min/Maxing is fine, I don't have any envy of how others play. There is a wrong way to play the game, the way that breaks the rules. I'm not whining about anything, players can play the way they want within the rules. You're the one whining about people "attacking a playstyle." I'm supporting CCP's decision and never said a word about it before this announcement. Please feel free to go through my posting history and find any whining I did on this or any other issue, ever.
It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog
Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.
-MooMooDachshundCow
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
148
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 17:55:54 -
[2570] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Bethan Le Troix wrote:A lot of ordinary non-CODE players of EVE have been hacked off at the amount of obvious ISBoxer use for ages. Yes, they have been hacked off about the completely legitimate and explicitly allowed multiboxing application ISBoxer. But being hacked off at something doesn't mean the something is inherently wrong. Unfortunately lately it seems it means CCP will come in and nuke it without thought. People were hacked off about awoxing too. Lots of people are hacked off at wardecs, ganking, ninja salvagers and margin scammers. I suppose all of those should go too then, yes? Bethan Le Troix wrote: Not all decision can be just financially based though and it is good to keep the player-base happy by doing something like this. We'll see how happy "the player-base" (by which I mean "the vocal minority") is when they realise it doesn't suddenly mean all of the ice belts are empty of other players. They are happy right now because they think there's going to be a profound difference, which there won't be.
CCP would like more pilots to join player run corporations and to encourage more new pilots to stay long term. AWOXing is probably a spanner in the works for this plan to be successful. Wardecs, suicide ganking, and destruction of ships in general are part of the cycle in New Eden as on Earth. If no humans died on Earth we would be in one hell of a mess. If you don't want to have the risk of losing any of your in-game assets you should play another MMO such as Guild Wars where you can't lose any of your accrued assets. Ninja salvaging/salvaging in general have been hit by the industry changes and the reduction in reprocessing value of loot. Regarding margin scammers and abuse of open trade windows I expect everyone has suffered at least once from those but you learn from your mistakes. I wouldn't bother me if CCP fixed the client so margin scamming and abuse of open trade windows couldn't happen.
I haven't read the latest CSM minutes but I don't expect the CSM would have pushed for some action on ISBoxer use if they didn't believe there was wide support for it and that it would be good for EVE Online. |
|
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 17:58:07 -
[2571] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:~snip~ FWIW I fly shiny enough to and already have previously flown with the majority of incursion communities... which is one of the reasons I'm not posting on my main in a thread where any of the emotionally involved participants might well have 10+ gank alts to take their rage out with.
I'll probably see you (or one of the others of clan Baboli) in fleet again later tonight, maybe Nolak as well lol
And no, I don't ***** about the lack of fleets but nor do I have the time to FC or run a community (or have the desire to create a little sandcastle fleet to play on my own with)...like I say, if fleets are down, there's other forms of entertainment in life, the cut and thrust of public debate being one for example.
James Baboli wrote:An engaged, competent and individualistic minority with a strong relative stake should not be dismissed quickly. Commited, satisfactory loners could be another way of putting things....and I really think you're overstating your relative stakes - sure you might be buying a lot of plex on the market with your in-game earnings, but that doesn't correlate to a real-life income for CCP.
The people who bought those plex for RL cash and then sell them on the market are the ones that are paying for the game, a long time before your (or my) incursion iskies arrive on the market.
You're not a whale, you're a leech (same as me, only X times worse). |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4456
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 18:08:56 -
[2572] - Quote
Niskin wrote:I wasn't sure if you were trolling before, but now I know you are. The definitions of serial and parallel would like to have a word with you about their inherent efficiency characteristics I don't doubt that multiplexing saves wear and tear on the wrists, but multiplexing is still a faster way to do things across multiple accounts at once. It's why people spend all that time setting up their layouts and configurations. The initial investment is worth it in the long term. Per-character efficiency. It's the bit you are seeming to miss. Of course having more characters is going to make more isk overall than a single character, isboxer or not, but the fact remains that a single character played manually is more efficient than a single character of a multiboxed set, which is in turn more efficient than a single character of a broadcast controlled set.
So again, we're back to the point that you issues isn't with them more efficient, your issue is that someone has more characters than you, which will still be the case even without broadcasting.
Niskin wrote:You clearly don't know me so let me make this simple. I didn't call for a nerf, I haven't whined about anybody's playstyle. CCP started this thread and I agree with their actions so I'm defending them. That's it. No, I can see that you've jumped into the thread with seemingly very little knowledge of the subject matter talking about how hard done by people are who are being crush by zee evil multiboxers and their superior efficiency.
Niskin wrote:The responses in this thread indicate support for CCP's actions. Maybe it's not representative, but it's not inversely representative either. It either means what it means or it means nothing. You keep calling a certain group of people a vocal minority even though they seem to be less of a minority and less vocal than the actual minority that was affected by this change. You must be new to the forums. Pretty much every time any change is suggested which makes the game easier for players who have just migrated from WoW, there's mass cheering. It's because there's quite a large collection of players who want to sit in complete safety in a completely fair game. Well that's just not EVE. People will scam and gank, metagame and minmax their way through the entire game. A bunch of people on the forums supporting a change doesn't automatically make that change a good idea.
Niskin wrote:Min/Maxing is fine, I don't have any envy of how others play. There is a wrong way to play the game, the way that breaks the rules. Yes, like the rules that broadcasting input was completely fine. the rules that have been in place for years and that people have based the development of their gameplay style off of. The rules that are being changed to solve an issue that the rule change will not solve.
Niskin wrote:I'm not whining about anything, players can play the way they want within the rules. You're the one whining about people "attacking a playstyle." I'm supporting CCP's decision and never said a word about it before this announcement. Please feel free to go through my posting history and find any whining I did on this or any other issue, ever. Well that's probably because you either have no stake in the matter or, like many, you post your whining under an alt. But of course you have no problem with someone else's playstyle being banned. It doesn't affect you one way or the other.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
15
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 18:12:07 -
[2573] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:James Baboli wrote:~snip~ FWIW I fly shiny enough to and already have previously flown with the majority of incursion communities... which is one of the reasons I'm not posting on my main in a thread where any of the emotionally involved participants might well have 10+ gank alts to take their rage out with. I'll probably see you (or one of the others of clan Baboli) in fleet again later tonight, maybe Nolak as well lol And no, I don't ***** about the lack of fleets but nor do I have the time to FC or run a community (or have the desire to create a little sandcastle fleet to play on my own with)...like I say, if fleets are down, there's other forms of entertainment in life, the cut and thrust of public debate being one for example. James Baboli wrote:An engaged, competent and individualistic minority with a strong relative stake should not be dismissed quickly. Commited, satisfactory loners could be another way of putting things....and I really think you're overstating your relative stakes - sure you might be buying a lot of plex on the market with your in-game earnings, but that doesn't correlate to a real-life income for CCP. The people who bought those plex for RL cash and then sell them on the market are the ones that are paying for the game, a long time before your (or my) incursion iskies arrive on the market. You're not a whale, you're a leech (same as me, only X times worse).
i dont see anything wrong With that People pay With isk for plex.because it benefit both parts, the person who sell the plex get isk, and the person who buy the plex pay isk. I pay With real cash atm for my 3 accounts. and if someone earn isk for buying plex. what so? its a lot better that People buy it and use it than if People just horde it up. lol (and also benefit plex sellers when prices are huge lol, anyway. please dont have name calling :) And ccp get Money from the plex anyway, i hear someone talked about that it was 2.5 characters for each real person in eve, i dont know if thats true or not. but. Yeah. :)
Edit: anyway, everyone need to pay real cash at the start. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
302
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 18:16:43 -
[2574] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:James Baboli wrote:~snip~ FWIW I fly shiny enough to and already have previously flown with the majority of incursion communities... which is one of the reasons I'm not posting on my main in a thread where any of the emotionally involved participants might well have 10+ gank alts to take their rage out with. I'll probably see you (or one of the others of clan Baboli) in fleet again later tonight, maybe Nolak as well lol And no, I don't ***** about the lack of fleets but nor do I have the time to FC or run a community (or have the desire to create a little sandcastle fleet to play on my own with)...like I say, if fleets are down, there's other forms of entertainment in life, the cut and thrust of public debate being one for example. James Baboli wrote:An engaged, competent and individualistic minority with a strong relative stake should not be dismissed quickly. Commited, satisfactory loners could be another way of putting things....and I really think you're overstating your relative stakes - sure you might be buying a lot of plex on the market with your in-game earnings, but that doesn't correlate to a real-life income for CCP. The people who bought those plex for RL cash and then sell them on the market are the ones that are paying for the game, a long time before your (or my) incursion iskies arrive on the market. You're not a whale, you're a leech (same as me, only X times worse).
Attempting to compare WTM or TDF to an ISBoxer is akin to comparing WTM to ISN or ICU.
Many ISBoxers are members of alliances and communities. It's very hard to be the equivalent of the lone gung-ho elite special forces in a game such as this. Even bomber boxers are members of an alliance and interact with others.
I'm not going to touch the PLEX thing because we get mixed signals from CCP about it. But reduced demand with constant supply will reduce the prices of PLEX. |
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 18:17:41 -
[2575] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:i dont see anything wrong With that People pay With isk for plex. that benifit both parts, the person who sell the plex, and the person who buy the plex. I pay With real cash atm for my 3 accounts. and if someone earn isk for buying plex. what so? its a lot better that People buy it and use it than if People just horde it up. lol (and also benifit plex sellers when prices hige) lol, anyway. please dont have name calling :) And ccp get Money from the plex anyway, i hear someone talked about that it was 2.5 charaters for each real person in eve, i dont know if thats true or not. but. Yeah. :)
Ofc I don't see a problem with it, since I plex my accounts as well, hence why I myself am a leech - the difference is that I don't see myself as holding a 'relative stake' in the gameplay decision making process when I'm in effect a free to play user. ISboxers thinking they're important because they use so much plex is a complete fabrication.
If they didn't use those plex the price would drop uptil a point where eventually someone else will consider the grind time worthwhile and train up a second toon or run a second account themselves, all that the increased demand from ISboxers does is create an artificial demand for them which increases prices somewhat (ignoring market speculators and hikers) - ideally CCP would probably prefer plex to drop in price somewhat anyways so that people need to buy more of them to replace their carrier losses = more RL money for for the same amount of isk. |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1306
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 18:37:33 -
[2576] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dersen Lowery wrote:I'm curious where the idea comes from that there's anything sudden about this. The Third-Party Policies document published months ago says, in a nutshell, that "it's against the EULA, but we're letting it slide for now," which should have been a cue for any users of "the multiboxing software" to start contingency planning. CCP was pretty obviously uneasy with ISBoxer at the time. Third party tools have always been against the EULA. Multiple times over, CCP devs have stated that as long as no automation was taking place, it's fine. Let's not forget that EVEMon and several other 3rd party tools are also against the EULA, and those are also still allowed.
If by "allowed," you mean "tolerated because CCP sees that they fill a need that their tools don't yet satisfy," then, yeah, sure.
If you're arguing that this means that people think they can continue cache-scraping with impunity when CCP rolls out the CREST functionality that replaces it, I have news for you. The relevant developers already know that the writing is on the wall.
When you're in a grey area, keep your eyes open, tread carefully and take nothing for granted.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
302
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 18:59:53 -
[2577] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:@Nolak, sorry that probably came off unnecessarily harsh at ISboxers. Individually I have no issues with any of the ones I know and I do understand the challenge they seek but some of the posters in this thread are completely trying to buff over the fact that it's a serious isk/hr multiplier with the only real limiting factor being upfront investment (IRL on equipment and software as well as in-game on training and fits).
I'd accept your apology if you stopped trying to argue the accelerated gameplay clause was on a per human basis when it has been repeatedly reinforced by CCP that it applies on a per toon basis.
And if up-front investments for long-term payoffs are your concern, may I ask what you think of people training dedicated super / titan holders? They can sell for quite a bit for those who have the right contacts. Additionally, people who build and sell caps can make a lot of money compared to the initial investment of a BPO set, a POS, a quiet lowsec system, and the occasional mercenary defense contract. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4457
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 19:07:12 -
[2578] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:CCP would like more pilots to join player run corporations and to encourage more new pilots to stay long term. AWOXing is probably a spanner in the works for this plan to be successful. Wardecs, suicide ganking, and destruction of ships in general are part of the cycle in New Eden as on Earth. If no humans died on Earth we would be in one hell of a mess. If you don't want to have the risk of losing any of your in-game assets you should play another MMO such as Guild Wars where you can't lose any of your accrued assets. You say that, and I fully agree, but they've already started talking about wardecs too. If they want to keep newer players, it''s likely to involve shielding them from all the "bad people" to a certain extent. The fact that they are now changing a rule like this, which will add no gameplay value, based on tears is a bad sign.
Bethan Le Troix wrote:I haven't read the latest CSM minutes but I don't expect the CSM would have pushed for some action on ISBoxer use if they didn't believe there was wide support for it and that it would be good for EVE Online. Well that's arguable. The CSM have pushed for plenty of changes in the past which haven't been wanted. Remember that CSM members generally raise things for their sections of the playerbase, not for the playerbase as a whole. And the fact remains that the problem that has been complained about will still exist after January. Players with multiple characters will still earn more total isk than those who don't, single player bomber fleets will still be viable, and ice belts will still be mined out by those multiboxers.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Niskin
League of the Lost
124
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 19:11:35 -
[2579] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Per-character efficiency. It's the bit you are seeming to miss. Of course having more characters is going to make more isk overall than a single character, isboxer or not, but the fact remains that a single character played manually is more efficient than a single character of a multiboxed set, which is in turn more efficient than a single character of a broadcast controlled set.
So again, we're back to the point that you issues isn't with them more efficient, your issue is that someone has more characters than you, which will still be the case even without broadcasting.
I take back what I said about you seeming like a smart guy. One click to do the same thing in 5 separate clients is always, and will always be, faster than 5 clicks in 5 separate clients. Read it over and over again until you understand it. Per-character efficiency is increased, over standard multiboxing, by multiplexing multiboxing. That is what I am saying, that is all I am saying.
Lucas Kell wrote:No, I can see that you've jumped into the thread with seemingly very little knowledge of the subject matter talking about how hard done by people are who are being crush by zee evil multiboxers and their superior efficiency.
Are you mistaking me for the other people arguing with you? I'm cool with multiboxing, multibox away, I don't care. Just follow the rules, even if they change.
Lucas Kell wrote:You must be new to the forums. Pretty much every time any change is suggested which makes the game easier for players who have just migrated from WoW, there's mass cheering. It's because there's quite a large collection of players who want to sit in complete safety in a completely fair game. Well that's just not EVE. People will scam and gank, metagame and minmax their way through the entire game. A bunch of people on the forums supporting a change doesn't automatically make that change a good idea.
Yes, I've played since 2006 but these forums are new and confusing to me. Just because some people are self-interested doesn't mean everybody is. This change has plenty of merits on its own. The support from singleboxers and multiboxers in this thread is just additive and somewhat indicative.
Lucas Kell wrote:Yes, like the rules that broadcasting input was completely fine. the rules that have been in place for years and that people have based the development of their gameplay style off of. The rules that are being changed to solve an issue that the rule change will not solve.
They have been adjusting those rules over the last few years in this direction, now they pulled the trigger on a bigger change. Only time will tell if this will solve anything, but at the very least it should give any multiboxer pause before submitting parallel or near parallel input.
Lucas Kell wrote:Well that's probably because you either have no stake in the matter or, like many, you post your whining under an alt. But of course you have no problem with someone else's playstyle being banned. It doesn't affect you one way or the other.
I only post on this toon, whether you believe me or not. And for the love of kittens or whatever else, nobody's f*cking playstyle has been banned. Multiboxing is still 100% viable. Isboxer is still 100% viable. Parallel input was banned, through whatever method it's achieved. If you think parallel input is a "playstyle" then no wonder you don't get it. Seriously, go fly 100 accounts, write your own 3rd party software to make it easier, use Isboxer or anything else. Just don't multiplex input to achieve parallel clicks in multiple clients. That's it, it's simple.
It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog
Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.
-MooMooDachshundCow
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4457
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 19:13:57 -
[2580] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:sure you might be buying a lot of plex on the market with your in-game earnings, but that doesn't correlate to a real-life income for CCP.
The people who bought those plex for RL cash and then sell them on the market are the ones that are paying for the game, a long time before your (or my) incursion iskies arrive on the market.
You're not a whale, you're a leech (same as me, only X times worse). Ah, another one that doesn't know how plex works. That plex is deferred income until it's consumed, not to mention that if people weren't using a huge amount of plex, the prices on the market would be too low for people to bother buying it. In short, the income is generated by the players consuming the plex.
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
4457
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 19:33:09 -
[2581] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:If by "allowed," you mean "tolerated because CCP sees that they fill a need that their tools don't yet satisfy," then, yeah, sure. No, I mean allowed. CCPs old policy was that input broadcasting is allowed as long as one action created one action, regardless of how many accounts it happened on. As long as it wasn't automated, it was fine.
Dersen Lowery wrote:If you're arguing that this means that people think they can continue cache-scraping with impunity when CCP rolls out the CREST functionality that replaces it, I have news for you. The relevant developers already know that the writing is on the wall.
When you're in a grey area, keep your eyes open, tread carefully and take nothing for granted. It's already against the EULA, it already should not be allowed, neither should any other site or application with gives any player an advantage by using it. But that's not going to happen, because this isn't about third party tools, it;s about whining carebears thinking "their" ice has been stolen away by isboxer. It will be spectacular when those same people realise that this change doesn't stop that happening, since even manual multiboxers can run a 20 man mining fleet with ease.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
86
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 19:33:37 -
[2582] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Eli Apol wrote:sure you might be buying a lot of plex on the market with your in-game earnings, but that doesn't correlate to a real-life income for CCP.
The people who bought those plex for RL cash and then sell them on the market are the ones that are paying for the game, a long time before your (or my) incursion iskies arrive on the market.
You're not a whale, you're a leech (same as me, only X times worse). Ah, another one that doesn't know how plex works. That plex is deferred income until it's consumed, not to mention that if people weren't using a huge amount of plex, the prices on the market would be too low for people to bother buying it. In short, the income is generated by the players consuming the plex.
Still touting your theory that if the price of PLEX goes low enough, that players will stop buying from CCP/authorized PLEX resellers and start buying from shady ISK sellers? While I'll be watching to see if this comes to pass come January, I don't think the effect will be quite as big as you may believe. I think you may be correct about the big rollers (those buying over 5-10 billion ISK at a time), I don't think it will go low enough to affect those who only buy 1 or 2 PLEX at a time.
Quite frankly, I think poor alliances without adequate ship replacement programs that lose big battles have a greater impact on the secondary RMT market than banning input broadcasting and input multiplexing will have. But at least you do come up with a positive reason for keeping those features, as opposed to most of the defenders of key replication.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Niskin
League of the Lost
124
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 19:36:10 -
[2583] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Ah, another one that doesn't know how plex works. That plex is deferred income until it's consumed, not to mention that if people weren't using a huge amount of plex, the prices on the market would be too low for people to bother buying it. In short, the income is generated by the players consuming the plex.
The income is generated when CCP gives you a PLEX for real life money. That is when you get the PLEX and when they get the money. The PLEX is created as an in-game item and is subject to the in-game market. Nothing that happens to the PLEX after it is acquired for real life money affects the fact that CCP now has your real life money. Do you think they put it in escrow until that PLEX's item ID is consumed or something? I can't find anything that even remotely suggests this is how it works.
It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog
Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.
-MooMooDachshundCow
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
302
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 19:39:47 -
[2584] - Quote
Niskin wrote: Do you think they put it in escrow until that PLEX's item ID is consumed or something? I can't find anything that even remotely suggests this is how it works.
I believe one of the CSM confirmed that that is what they do... |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
329
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 19:46:42 -
[2585] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Niskin wrote: Do you think they put it in escrow until that PLEX's item ID is consumed or something? I can't find anything that even remotely suggests this is how it works. I believe one of the CSM confirmed that that is what they do...
Confirmed here
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4457
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 19:48:25 -
[2586] - Quote
Niskin wrote:I take back what I said about you seeming like a smart guy. One click to do the same thing in 5 separate clients is always, and will always be, faster than 5 clicks in 5 separate clients. Read it over and over again until you understand it. Per-character efficiency is increased, over standard multiboxing, by multiplexing multiboxing. That is what I am saying, that is all I am saying. PER-CHARACTER efficiency. How can you possibly still not understand what that means. It means each individual character is more efficient when you manually control that individual character, even if you are manually controlling multiple characters than if you braodcast. This is fact. ISBoxer has a 30 day trial and there's a month left for broadcasing to be allowed. Feel free to go and take a look for yourself.
Broadcasting clicks doesn't magically give you the ability to see how much ore is in a given character rock, it doesn't prevent you hitting the same rock with multiple characters, etc. It's a dumb repeater.
Niskin wrote:Are you mistaking me for the other people arguing with you? I'm cool with multiboxing, multibox away, I don't care. Just follow the rules, even if they change. Nope, you've proven time and again that you have zero knowledge about how isboxer works.
And I too follow the rules, even if they change. But when that change is a knee-jerk change which will have little impact on it's goal while threatening legitimate players following the rules with punishment for being too quick on the controls, then I'll fight against them. Like I've said multiple times: CCP should be looking at fixing the gamplay so that multiboxing is less desirable, not simply banning a single type of behaviour as if that's going to suddenly make terrible mechanics not terrible.
Niskin wrote:Yes, I've played since 2006 but these forums are new and confusing to me. Just because some people are self-interested doesn't mean everybody is. This change has plenty of merits on its own. The support from singleboxers and multiboxers in this thread is just additive and somewhat indicative. But most on this forum are.
And what merit? What do you think this change will actually accomplish? Multiboxers will still multibox, solo miners will still have no access to high sec ice, single person bombers (which are getting a buff too!) will still be viable as will single person ganks. Other than moving the grey area closer to where normal manual multiboxers live and losing a bunch of subs from people that ragequit over changes, this change is completely pointless.
Niskin wrote:They have been adjusting those rules over the last few years in this direction, now they pulled the trigger on a bigger change. Only time will tell if this will solve anything, but at the very least it should give any multiboxer pause before submitting parallel or near parallel input. No they haven't. For years they've repeatedly stated "our policies on multiboxing have not changed". It was only when multiboxed bombing fleets started going nuts that this change was looked at, and now all they've done is buff bombers.
Niskin wrote:I only post on this toon, whether you believe me or not. And for the love of kittens or whatever else, nobody's f*cking playstyle has been banned. Multiboxing is still 100% viable. Isboxer is still 100% viable. Parallel input was banned, through whatever method it's achieved. If you think parallel input is a "playstyle" then no wonder you don't get it. Seriously, go fly 100 accounts, write your own 3rd party software to make it easier, use Isboxer or anything else. Just don't multiplex input to achieve parallel clicks in multiple clients. That's it, it's simple. Of course it has. People who broadcast multibox now have to play in a different way. There's like 3 people who legitimately have way too many characters and will likely have to shrink their accounts down to around 20.
And mate, I understand the rule. I understand how to mutlibox. That doesn't mean I have to agree with pointless rules being stuck in because crying people can't play EVE properly and want CCP to keep "fixing" things. Up until this change was announced, I haven't even used isboxer for months if not a year.
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
4457
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 19:51:12 -
[2587] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Still touting your theory that if the price of PLEX goes low enough, that players will stop buying from CCP/authorized PLEX resellers and start buying from shady ISK sellers? While I'll be watching to see if this comes to pass come January, I don't think the effect will be quite as big as you may believe. I think you may be correct about the big rollers (those buying over 5-10 billion ISK at a time), I don't think it will go low enough to affect those who only buy 1 or 2 PLEX at a time. Please explain to me where exactly I said anything like that. What I stated is that is plex gets low enough, some people simply won't buy it. They will grind isk rather than paying cash for it. they buy a plex to save them the grind time. If the grind time gets too low, they have no need to buy it. At no point did I ever suggest they would instead decide to risk their accounts by engaging in RMT.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Niskin
League of the Lost
124
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 19:51:43 -
[2588] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Niskin wrote: Do you think they put it in escrow until that PLEX's item ID is consumed or something? I can't find anything that even remotely suggests this is how it works. I believe one of the CSM confirmed that that is what they do... Confirmed here
Fair enough, I concede on that point then. My searches failed to find that detail. I'm actually pretty surprised they do it that way.
It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog
Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.
-MooMooDachshundCow
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4457
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 19:54:20 -
[2589] - Quote
Niskin wrote:James Baboli wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Niskin wrote: Do you think they put it in escrow until that PLEX's item ID is consumed or something? I can't find anything that even remotely suggests this is how it works. I believe one of the CSM confirmed that that is what they do... Confirmed here Fair enough, I concede on that point then. My searches failed to find that detail. I'm actually pretty surprised they do it that way. To be fair I think most people were, since AFAIK it's non-refundable.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 20:12:17 -
[2590] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:I'd accept your apology if you stopped trying to argue the accelerated gameplay clause was on a per human basis when it has been repeatedly reinforced by CCP that it applies on a per toon basis.
And if up-front investments for long-term payoffs are your concern, may I ask what you think of people training dedicated super / titan holders? They can sell for quite a bit for those who have the right contacts. Additionally, people who build and sell caps can make a lot of money compared to the initial investment of a BPO set, a POS, a quiet lowsec system, and the occasional mercenary defense contract. I think titan and super alts were just nerf batted in the last patch...maybe it's a sign that CCP are gradually smiting the various elephants in the room? And yes manu is a great profession where a solo player truly can excel and make a fortune... it's also something where ISboxer would have barely any benefit, possibly even an adverse effect due to increasing supply?
James Baboli wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Niskin wrote: Do you think they put it in escrow until that PLEX's item ID is consumed or something? I can't find anything that even remotely suggests this is how it works. I believe one of the CSM confirmed that that is what they do... Confirmed here
Which is basically sidestepping the point I made. If you hadn't redeemed that PLEX, someone else would have, possibly at a cheaper isk cost, but still exactly the same RL cost. Only the person who buys them to sell on the market is putting money into CCP's pockets. It doesn't matter when they decide to take that money (what a strange way of dealing with things though, the mind boggles) |
|
|
Niskin
League of the Lost
126
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 20:16:07 -
[2591] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:PER-CHARACTER efficiency. How can you possibly still not understand what that means. It means each individual character is more efficient when you manually control that individual character, even if you are manually controlling multiple characters than if you braodcast. This is fact. ISBoxer has a 30 day trial and there's a month left for broadcasing to be allowed. Feel free to go and take a look for yourself.
Broadcasting clicks doesn't magically give you the ability to see how much ore is in a given character rock, it doesn't prevent you hitting the same rock with multiple characters, etc. It's a dumb repeater.
When you need to do the same thing in 5 windows at once, clicking once to make it happen is more efficient than clicking 5 times to make it happen. You can say you disagree over and over again but you aren't proving anything. I'm not saying multiplexing makes every action on every client more efficient, but it makes the same action more efficient on each client.
Done manually, the first client click is at full efficiency. The second client click is slightly delayed, and so is the third, fourth and fifth clicks. 4 out of 5 clients are at a reduced efficiency, that reduces your per-character efficiency compared to a single click hitting all 5 clients at once. How do you not get this. Multiplex is faster when you need to do the same thing on multiple clients at the same time.
Lucas Kell wrote:Nope, you've proven time and again that you have zero knowledge about how isboxer works.
And I too follow the rules, even if they change. But when that change is a knee-jerk change which will have little impact on it's goal while threatening legitimate players following the rules with punishment for being too quick on the controls, then I'll fight against them. Like I've said multiple times: CCP should be looking at fixing the gamplay so that multiboxing is less desirable, not simply banning a single type of behaviour as if that's going to suddenly make terrible mechanics not terrible.
I'm actually fine with multiboxing being desirable, EVE has been that way a long time. There aren't a lot of good ways to police a behavior, but I think this one is appropriate given their goal. We're never gonna agree on whether this is a good change or a knee jerk reaction, so I'm not gonna try to convince you. We're just wasting each other's time arguing this point.
Lucas Kell wrote:But most on this forum are.
And what merit? What do you think this change will actually accomplish? Multiboxers will still multibox, solo miners will still have no access to high sec ice, single person bombers (which are getting a buff too!) will still be viable as will single person ganks. Other than moving the grey area closer to where normal manual multiboxers live and losing a bunch of subs from people that ragequit over changes, this change is completely pointless.
The merit is that it is a data driven way to accomplish a goal. They get to draw the lines in the sand, we have to mind them. If people will ragequit over the loss of multiplexing or the loss of some efficiency then CCP is apparently prepared for that. They must think it's more important than the status quo and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that.
Lucas Kell wrote:No they haven't. For years they've repeatedly stated "our policies on multiboxing have not changed". It was only when multiboxed bombing fleets started going nuts that this change was looked at, and now all they've done is buff bombers.
It was posted earlier in this thread that they changed the wording within the last couple years. And of course since their policies on multiboxing haven't changed it's perfectly ok for them to say they haven't changed. The multiboxing policy still says it's allowed. That's why they did it this way, so there's no confusion as to whether multiboxing is allowed... it is.
Lucas Kell wrote:Of course it has. People who broadcast multibox now have to play in a different way. There's like 3 people who legitimately have way too many characters and will likely have to shrink their accounts down to around 20.
And mate, I understand the rule. I understand how to mutlibox. That doesn't mean I have to agree with pointless rules being stuck in because crying people can't play EVE properly and want CCP to keep "fixing" things. Up until this change was announced, I haven't even used isboxer for months if not a year.
This is likely semantics but I don't consider multiplexing a multibox setup to be a playstyle. I consider multiboxing an activity, like mining or bombing or incursions, to be a playstyle. Enhancing that playstyle with multicasting is simply that, enhancing it.
It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog
Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.
-MooMooDachshundCow
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
330
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 20:33:12 -
[2592] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Niskin wrote:James Baboli wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Niskin wrote: Do you think they put it in escrow until that PLEX's item ID is consumed or something? I can't find anything that even remotely suggests this is how it works. I believe one of the CSM confirmed that that is what they do... Confirmed here Fair enough, I concede on that point then. My searches failed to find that detail. I'm actually pretty surprised they do it that way. To be fair I think most people were, since AFAIK it's non-refundable.
Its largely an issue of needing to be able to handle the influx of new accounts those plex could potentially start up, and prudently building a corporate rainy day fund for if eve really does start dying dying.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Pain Time
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 20:34:21 -
[2593] - Quote
Free popcorn! only! 5isk for large container, 2.5 for small. [the average logic i see on this forum]
/continues munching on said popcorn
Also, to those who haven't just thrown up their arms with this, are you ganking yet? if so i'd like to be humored by kms.
edit: only reason im still around currently to post things is the cycle of de-sub hasnt hit this acct yet. |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
86
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 20:42:45 -
[2594] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Rosewalker wrote:Still touting your theory that if the price of PLEX goes low enough, that players will stop buying from CCP/authorized PLEX resellers and start buying from shady ISK sellers? While I'll be watching to see if this comes to pass come January, I don't think the effect will be quite as big as you may believe. I think you may be correct about the big rollers (those buying over 5-10 billion ISK at a time), I don't think it will go low enough to affect those who only buy 1 or 2 PLEX at a time. Please explain to me where exactly I said anything like that. What I stated is that is plex gets low enough, some people simply won't buy it. They will grind isk rather than paying cash for it. they buy a plex to save them the grind time. If the grind time gets too low, they have no need to buy it. At no point did I ever suggest they would instead decide to risk their accounts by engaging in RMT.
I'm sorry, but that seemed to be your implication. People who want to buy ISK aren't going to just grind it out. They are going to buy it from a cheaper source. That would be the shady ISK sellers. Because if people didn't do that, we wouldn't have PLEX in EVE in the first place.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4458
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 20:47:18 -
[2595] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Which is basically sidestepping the point I made. If you hadn't redeemed that PLEX, someone else would have, possibly at a cheaper isk cost, but still exactly the same RL cost. Only the person who buys them to sell on the market is putting money into CCP's pockets. It doesn't matter when they decide to take that money (what a strange way of dealing with things though, the mind boggles)....but sure, try and be supercilious and pretend that only you understand the wonders of how PLEX works...sigh... Only to a limited degree. When plex prices go down, they are balanced out by more people usign them and less people buying them, which means an overall decrease in profit. Suggesting that a player who pays with plex doesn't contribute like a player who pays with cash is wrong, plain and simple.
Niskin wrote:When you need to do the same thing in 5 windows at once, clicking once to make it happen is more efficient than clicking 5 times to make it happen. You can say you disagree over and over again but you aren't proving anything. I'm not saying multiplexing makes every action on every client more efficient, but it makes the same action more efficient on each client.
Done manually, the first client click is at full efficiency. The second client click is slightly delayed, and so is the third, fourth and fifth clicks. 4 out of 5 clients are at a reduced efficiency, that reduces your per-character efficiency compared to a single click hitting all 5 clients at once. How do you not get this. Multiplex is faster when you need to do the same thing on multiple clients at the same time. Sigh... The characters don't have the exact same circumstances, so saying "well this guy is 100% efficient so they all must be close" is wrong. Say for example you are mining, you can mine 100 units per cycle.
Solo character - Firing at a rock with 50 units, he waits a half cycle, stops and locks a new rock. This means he is able to get as close to 100 units for every full cycle as he can.
Multiboxer - Same thing as the solo character with a slightly reduced efficiency where he is unable to be as accurate with timing. He can however ensure each character is firing at 1 single rock. so some rocks you get 100 per cycle, some 90, 80, etc.
Isboxer - Either all lasers get stopped/started, or they don't. You can't see which rocks each individual character is on without switching to them manually (which defeats the point), so some share rocks, some are overdepleting a rock, and in the worst cases multiple lasers are overdepleting the same rock. So you get whatever is left in each rock, could even be 1 unit. Sometime multiple character will hit one rock, so you might only get 30 units between two characters for example.
The end result is that per character efficiency - as in actual yield : potential yield ratio is highest for single players, lower for multiboxers and the lowest for isboxers.
Niskin wrote:I'm actually fine with multiboxing being desirable, EVE has been that way a long time. There aren't a lot of good ways to police a behavior, but I think this one is appropriate given their goal. We're never gonna agree on whether this is a good change or a knee jerk reaction, so I'm not gonna try to convince you. We're just wasting each other's time arguing this point. By this I mean desirable from a gameplay perspective. As in you should get considerably more value for your character if you are able to pay complete attention, and less as you divide your attention. For example in mining, if asteroids sometimes hit yield pockets which you had to react to to gain a short yield boost, that would be an example of a change which supported more attention. Ice belts moving systems would be one that supported people actively seeking it out rather than turning up exactly 4 hours after the last one died. That's the kind of change I would support to reduce effectiveness of multiboxers.
Niskin wrote:The merit is that it is a data driven way to accomplish a goal. They get to draw the lines in the sand, we have to mind them. If people will ragequit over the loss of multiplexing or the loss of some efficiency then CCP is apparently prepared for that. They must think it's more important than the status quo and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that. Except it doesn't accomplish the goal. Multiboxers will be just as rife after January. The only thing that will have changed is that the line is closer to "normal" multiboxers, and a few ISBoxer user will have to hammer a single button 20 times instead of once when setting up. After setup it's back to VFX as usual.
Niskin wrote:It was posted earlier in this thread that they changed the wording within the last couple years. And of course since their policies on multiboxing haven't changed it's perfectly ok for them to say they haven't changed. The multiboxing policy still says it's allowed. That's why they did it this way, so there's no confusion as to whether multiboxing is allowed... it is.
This is likely semantics but I don't consider multiplexing a multibox setup to be a playstyle. I consider multiboxing an activity, like mining or bombing or incursions, to be a playstyle. Enhancing that playstyle with multicasting is simply that, enhancing it. They change the third party application policy wording, which happens often and made the legality of ISBoxer no more clear. When it was raised on the forums then then repeated that their policy on ISBoxer had not changed.
I'd argue that they've based their gameplay and character setups around the ability to broadcast their actions, and so it's a style of play. It might not be what you'd do or what other players would do, but it doesn't mean it's not a style.
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
4458
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 20:49:54 -
[2596] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:I'm sorry, but that seemed to be your implication. People who want to buy ISK aren't going to just grind it out. They are going to buy it from a cheaper source. That would be the shady ISK sellers. Because if people didn't do that, we wouldn't have PLEX in EVE in the first place. People will grind it out if the value of the isk is too low. Why would they pay $15 for what they can grind out in 3 hours. 8 hours they might, 3 not so much.
With RMT, very few people would just turn to RMT because plex suddenly wasn't as valuable. Most people value their accounts more than that.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1306
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 20:51:10 -
[2597] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dersen Lowery wrote:If by "allowed," you mean "tolerated because CCP sees that they fill a need that their tools don't yet satisfy," then, yeah, sure. No, I mean allowed. CCPs old policy was that input broadcasting is allowed as long as one action created one action, regardless of how many accounts it happened on. As long as it wasn't automated, it was fine.
No, you mean tolerated. CCP's discomfort was obvious. The exception made and the rather tenuous terms under which it was made were explicit and obvious.
You have to get past this silly idea that everything is either 100% OK or 100% bad. CCP is in a position where they're trying to tighten things up after 10 years of laissez-faire, and so yeah there are going to be large grey areas and "OK for now" qualifications while they work up better solutions. The EULA allows them extremely broad discretion, not accidentally.
They're not going to insta-ban everyone who's using cache scraping software on a technicality, because they're not CONCORD. They're able to realize that the cache-scraping is a means to a useful end, and so they are tolerating it until they come up with something better. Similarly with third-party voice comms and overlays, etc.
Lucas Kell wrote:But that's not going to happen, because this isn't about third party tools, it;s about whining carebears thinking "their" ice has been stolen away by isboxer. It will be spectacular when those same people realise that this change doesn't stop that happening, since even manual multiboxers can run a 20 man mining fleet with ease.
We can revisit this claim when CCP formally ban cache scraping after updating CREST with the relevant information, without a peep from these conveniently assumed carebears about anything.
And yes, of course, the root issue with vast multiboxed mining fleets is the relatively low number of rocks combined with the long cycle time of ice harvesters. If CCP was actually gunning to reduce those fleets, it could do so simply by dropping the cycle time to 30s, and the yield appropriately.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2719
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 20:55:28 -
[2598] - Quote
Lucas et al, the "fight" is over, you need to come to terms with it.
CCP have decided on the new rules regarding things like ISboxer, the only thing that might happen now is for some folk to see if they can 'circumvent' the new rules and risk a 30 day, then permanent ban.
Those who suffer a permanent ban can then join the likes of Erotica 1, wailing in the wind about how mean CCP are their (former) players.
This is not a signature.
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
86
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 20:59:22 -
[2599] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Rosewalker wrote:I'm sorry, but that seemed to be your implication. People who want to buy ISK aren't going to just grind it out. They are going to buy it from a cheaper source. That would be the shady ISK sellers. Because if people didn't do that, we wouldn't have PLEX in EVE in the first place. People will grind it out if the value of the isk is too low. Why would they pay $15 for what they can grind out in 3 hours. 8 hours they might, 3 not so much. With RMT, very few people would just turn to RMT because plex suddenly wasn't as valuable. Most people value their accounts more than that.
You'd be surprised. The last time I checked this fall, just from the sites I visited I could see that people were buying over 1 trillion ISK from shady ISK sellers every month, which probably meant over 2 trillion ISK total per month for the entire industry. I'm in the middle of doing another survey now to see how much has changed.
On the bright side, there are a lot less sellers, so it looks like Team Security has upped their game
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1289
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 21:14:01 -
[2600] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Well when you are complaining because someone else is playing the game more effectively than you, and you want a change not to improve the gamplay but to simply attack the other players playstyle because you don;t like it, that's a whine. In this case it's even more so, because the thing they are complaining about - outside tools improving efficiency - exists all over the place. EFT, jeveassests, eve-central, eve-market data for example. Hell, elinor automatically takes market exports and copies prices to your clipboard for you. Why is it that the only people being attacked are the ones looking to reduce RSI while multiboxing in a game where the UI and control system is terribly designed? Because the RSI reducing functions provide an objectively different than other tools which directly interface with game clients for a direct in game advantage at the player level. Information gathering, even from the client, is a false equivalency to input broadcasting in much the same way input broadcasting is a false equivalency to botting.
Lucas Kell wrote:Nobody is stating objectively why it *should* happen. Even with the change, multiboxers will still multibox and be better than a non-multiboxer (even without tools), so the thing they think is unfair will still exist. There will still be parts of the tools which still give them a massive advantage (round robin keybinds and VideoFX beign the biggest). The thing is, the complaint is made by people who don't understand how isboxer works and implemented by people who seemingly don't know how isboxer work, to solve a problem which exists because of bad gameplay design and the promotion of multiboxing in the first place. It's a pointless change implemented to stop the whiners whining, which it will fail to do once those whiners realise it doesn't mean that all mutliboxers quit. Arguably, the group of players who this change was finally triggered by, the bombers running bomb fleets, will be the least affected, since the only thing they have to replicate across clients is the "launch bomb" command. The rest of the run can be done by fleet warping. There actually has been stated several time the reason of equating user inputs to in game actions with the exception of those actions which CCP has purposely and directly enabled single commands to have effects upon multiple entities.
You may feel this isn't important but it has been stated. |
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4458
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 21:14:44 -
[2601] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:No, you mean tolerated. CCP's discomfort was obvious. The exception made and the rather tenuous terms under which it was made were explicit and obvious. No, I mean allowed. When dev are stating explicitly that it's fine as long as only 1 command is executed, regardless of how many clients it affects, that's not just tolerating it.
Dersen Lowery wrote:You have to get past this silly idea that everything is either 100% OK or 100% bad. CCP is in a position where they're trying to tighten things up after 10 years of laissez-faire, and so yeah there are going to be large grey areas and "OK for now" qualifications while they work up better solutions. The EULA allows them extremely broad discretion, not accidentally. I'm not stating there is that, what I'm stating is that there was allowed behaviour, and now it;s not. that's fact. And the EULA means nothing at the end of the day. If they want to ban you for liking the colour blue, they can, regardless of what the EULA says. At the same time, things like cache scraping, and EVE-Radio running a business with premium subcriptions, both those things are not allowed by the EULA, yet both occur.
Dersen Lowery wrote:They're not going to insta-ban everyone who's using cache scraping software on a technicality, because they're not CONCORD. They're able to realize that the cache-scraping is a means to a useful end, and so they are tolerating it until they come up with something better. Similarly with third-party voice comms and overlays, etc. It's not a technicality, it's simply beacuse enough people do it they don't want to enforce it. Realistically they could demand that EVEMon and the like stop using that functionality without having the ban the playerbase, yet that won;t happen either because carebears aren't crying about that. Apparently that's an OK way to gain an advantage by breaking the rules.
Dersen Lowery wrote:And yes, of course, the root issue with vast multiboxed mining fleets is the relatively low number of rocks combined with the long cycle time of ice harvesters. If CCP was actually gunning to reduce those fleets, it could do so simply by dropping the cycle time to 30s, and the yield appropriately. Except that would also hit solo players and they would be no better off. the way the highsec carebear crowd see this, come January, the belts will be full of ice. That's not going to happen. So as usual when CCP make dumb changes without thinking about if they will actually solve the problems that have been raised, the exact people sitting around cheering over this change will be back here crying about how horrible the multiboxers are and how they need to be banned.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
304
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 21:25:16 -
[2602] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Lucas et al, the "fight" is over, you need to come to terms with it.
CCP have decided on the new rules regarding things like ISboxer, the only thing that might happen now is for some folk to see if they can 'circumvent' the new rules and risk a 30 day, then permanent ban.
Those who suffer a permanent ban can then join the likes of Erotica 1, wailing in the wind about how mean CCP are their (former) players.
Jesus you sound like the journalists who keep spouting that "Gaming is Dead" crap. If CCP wanted to make this announcement with no room for discussion they could have made this thread locked on the first post and not allow for discussion.
I personally love how you attempt to dismiss the very idea that CCP listens to the userbase, especially after such things as the bombers thread where CCP backpedaled on the bombers decloaking each other nerf.
Your attempt to censor the userbase is silly. Please never post again unless you're willing to let the other side have a reasonable discussion. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4458
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 21:28:21 -
[2603] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Lucas et al, the "fight" is over, you need to come to terms with it.
CCP have decided on the new rules regarding things like ISboxer, the only thing that might happen now is for some folk to see if they can 'circumvent' the new rules and risk a 30 day, then permanent ban.
Those who suffer a permanent ban can then join the likes of Erotica 1, wailing in the wind about how mean CCP are their (former) players. It's never over buddy, changes get changed back you know. Not that this will really need to be changed back, but it will be interesting to see how many normal multiboxers get accidentally swept up in the bannings. The change is bad because it change virtually nothing and has no gameplay benefit, not because it stops a useful feature.
And no circumvention is needed. They aren't banning ISBoxer, just 1 feature.
And join the likes of Erotica 1? You mean by still playing EVE? Permabans are like a reroll.
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
4458
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 21:30:08 -
[2604] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:You'd be surprised. The last time I checked this fall, just from the sites I visited I could see that people were buying over 1 trillion ISK from shady ISK sellers every month, which probably meant over 2-3 trillion ISK total per month for the entire industry. I'm in the middle of doing another survey now to see how much has changed. On the bright side, there are a lot less sellers, so it looks like Team Security has upped their game Edit: Yes, I know that ISD will probably delete this for rumor mongering. Oh well. Oh don;t get me wrong, I'm sure there are people who RMT all the time. I'm just not convinced that long term EULA abiding players jump over that line so easily.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Niskin
League of the Lost
126
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 21:30:21 -
[2605] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sigh... The characters don't have the exact same circumstances, so saying "well this guy is 100% efficient so they all must be close" is wrong. Say for example you are mining, you can mine 100 units per cycle.
Solo character - Firing at a rock with 50 units, he waits a half cycle, stops and locks a new rock. This means he is able to get as close to 100 units for every full cycle as he can.
Multiboxer - Same thing as the solo character with a slightly reduced efficiency where he is unable to be as accurate with timing. He can however ensure each character is firing at 1 single rock. so some rocks you get 100 per cycle, some 90, 80, etc.
Isboxer - Either all lasers get stopped/started, or they don't. You can't see which rocks each individual character is on without switching to them manually (which defeats the point), so some share rocks, some are overdepleting a rock, and in the worst cases multiple lasers are overdepleting the same rock. So you get whatever is left in each rock, could even be 1 unit. Sometime multiple character will hit one rock, so you might only get 30 units between two characters for example.
The end result is that per character efficiency - as in actual yield : potential yield ratio is highest for single players, lower for multiboxers and the lowest for isboxers.
I think we might actually be getting somewhere now. I'm arguing the efficiency of commanding the characters, you're arguing the efficiency of the activity the characters are performing. You're right that with mining, a multiplexed click might not provide any increase in activity efficiency. If we're talking Incursions or Bombing though the case may be different. CCP seems to be focusing on the command efficiency rather than the activity efficiency. That may have to do with the realistic potential of policing it at those different points. Or maybe with the benefit of the still allowed features of isboxer, multiplexing could still provide per-character efficiency boosts. Like multiplexing the rock scanner activation, using vfx windows to lock the rocks and then multiplexing the lasers to turn on. This might be more efficient per-character than without those two multiplex clicks, I can't say for sure. I would imagine experienced users of those tools have lots of tricks I haven't imagined yet.
Lucas Kell wrote:By this I mean desirable from a gameplay perspective. As in you should get considerably more value for your character if you are able to pay complete attention, and less as you divide your attention. For example in mining, if asteroids sometimes hit yield pockets which you had to react to to gain a short yield boost, that would be an example of a change which supported more attention. Ice belts moving systems would be one that supported people actively seeking it out rather than turning up exactly 4 hours after the last one died. That's the kind of change I would support to reduce effectiveness of multiboxers.
I don't have a problem with those suggestions at all, but they only address one activity that multiplexing affects. The problem is I think those changes would be great, but the suggestions out there to address multiplexing bombers are less attractive. And I'm not sure how one would go about instituting changes of this sort to affect Incursions or PvE in general.
Lucas Kell wrote:Except it doesn't accomplish the goal. Multiboxers will be just as rife after January. The only thing that will have changed is that the line is closer to "normal" multiboxers, and a few ISBoxer user will have to hammer a single button 20 times instead of once when setting up. After setup it's back to VFX as usual.
The goal is to stop multiplexing, I think it's gonna do that just fine. The goal wasn't to hurt multiboxers or even isboxer users specifically. Considering the strong arguments you've made as to why multiplexing isn't that big of a deal, it seems like a change people shouldn't be so upset about. I do get that you are worried about people getting hit with false-positive bans. Only time will tell if that will happen or not.
Lucas Kell wrote:They change the third party application policy wording, which happens often and made the legality of ISBoxer no more clear. When it was raised on the forums then then repeated that their policy on ISBoxer had not changed.
I'd argue that they've based their gameplay and character setups around the ability to broadcast their actions, and so it's a style of play. It might not be what you'd do or what other players would do, but it doesn't mean it's not a style.
This still goes back to the command versus activity perspective. I think playstyles involve activities. You're a miner, or a PvP'er, or a wormholer, or a market trader. You aren't a multiplexer, you're a multiplexing miner or a multiplexing whatever. Multiplexing is the way you enhance an activity. But to be fair I will admit that multiplexing to avoid RSI is a noble goal, even if I don't consider it a playstyle. I think CCP has accepted that this change hurts those using it for this purpose, and expects them to react accordingly, even if that means reducing accounts to minimize RSI.
It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog
Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.
-MooMooDachshundCow
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4458
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 21:33:45 -
[2606] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Because the RSI reducing functions provide an objectively different feature than other tools which interfaces with game clients for a direct in game advantage at the player level. Information gathering, even from the client, is a false equivalency to input broadcasting in much the same way input broadcasting is a false equivalency to botting. Those tools don;t just gather information. Elinor automatically calculates margins and pops prices into your clipboard without you even leaving the game for example.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:There actually has been stated several times the reason of equating user inputs to in game actions with the exception of those actions which CCP has purposely and directly enabled single commands to have effects upon multiple entities.
You may feel this isn't important but it has been stated. I'm not sure what you mean by this sentence, but I'm getting the idea that you think round robin keybinds and VFX execute macro-like commands. They don't. they just mean you don't need to keep swapping windows to execute individual commands to them.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1289
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 21:34:10 -
[2607] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dersen Lowery wrote:They're not going to insta-ban everyone who's using cache scraping software on a technicality, because they're not CONCORD. They're able to realize that the cache-scraping is a means to a useful end, and so they are tolerating it until they come up with something better. Similarly with third-party voice comms and overlays, etc. It's not a technicality, it's simply beacuse enough people do it they don't want to enforce it. Realistically they could demand that EVEMon and the like stop using that functionality without having the ban the playerbase, yet that won;t happen either because carebears aren't crying about that. Apparently that's an OK way to gain an advantage by breaking the rules. The difference between cache scraping and input broadcasting is that one is EVE specific and the other, broadcasting, not so specific. Even if cache scraping bans were enforced it would still have to be on the level of both players and tool makers as nothing prevents building ones own cache scraper should existing tools stop doing it.
On the other hand ISBoxer and other similar software isn't largely EVE specific and even with a BAN on input duplication in EVE has legitimate uses for those functions in other game spaces. As such it makes little sense to remove it based upon a single games policy change. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1289
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 21:41:26 -
[2608] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Those tools don;t just gather information. Elinor automatically calculates margins and pops prices into your clipboard without you even leaving the game for example. CCP hasn't banned the use of calculators or copy paste from outside programs. Also placing the resultant price in clipboard doesn't involve issuing commands to the client. Elinor seems like it does everything it can short of being classified as a market bot but doesn't cross certain vital lines, much in the way it was decided that broadcasting across clients for the purpose of UI arrangement is not across that line.
Lucas Kell wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by this sentence, but I'm getting the idea that you think round robin keybinds and VFX execute macro-like commands. They don't. they just mean you don't need to keep swapping windows to execute individual commands to them. No, you would be incorrect in your assumption. Look to your last sentence for the correct interpretation. The goal of the change is to restore of some level needing to interface with each client executing a command..
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4458
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 21:50:39 -
[2609] - Quote
Niskin wrote:I think we might actually be getting somewhere now. I'm arguing the efficiency of commanding the characters, you're arguing the efficiency of the activity the characters are performing. You're right that with mining, a multiplexed click might not provide any increase in activity efficiency. If we're talking Incursions or Bombing though the case may be different. CCP seems to be focusing on the command efficiency rather than the activity efficiency. That may have to do with the realistic potential of policing it at those different points. Or maybe with the benefit of the still allowed features of isboxer, multiplexing could still provide per-character efficiency boosts. Like multiplexing the rock scanner activation, using vfx windows to lock the rocks and then multiplexing the lasers to turn on. This might be more efficient per-character than without those two multiplex clicks, I can't say for sure. I would imagine experienced users of those tools have lots of tricks I haven't imagined yet. Indeed. the actual effor a player puts in to controlling their characters is irrelevant. I'm a software developer, and so I work with computers all day. That means my ability to use a mouse and keyboard is (generally) superior to say a 50 year old builder or someone with artritis. So how much effort someone puts in to commanding their characters isn't simply a case of whether or not they use multiboxing software. I've played solo, multiboxed for a long time, and I used ISBoxer for about a year, and the per character efficiency is pretty much always the same regardless of activity. ISBoxer means sacrificing efficiency for easier use because you don't have the granular control you have when doing it manually. This change actually forces that granular control to a certain extent, so we should actually see individual multiboxed characters being more efficient.
Niskin wrote:I don't have a problem with those suggestions at all, but they only address one activity that multiplexing affects. The problem is I think those changes would be great, but the suggestions out there to address multiplexing bombers are less attractive. And I'm not sure how one would go about instituting changes of this sort to affect Incursions or PvE in general. Thought would have to be put in beyond my two minute quick examples, but from my point of view, if an activity is able to be multiboxed on a large scale, then that activity is too simple and needs to be reworked. Bombers are going to be a tough one. Even with this change they are least affected, since yo already control most of the run with the FC fleet warping and are restricted in how many bombers per wave so the bombs don't destroy each other. A round robin "fire bomb" key and a round robin "activate cloak" key are all that are needed.
Niskin wrote:The goal is to stop multiplexing, I think it's gonna do that just fine. The goal wasn't to hurt multiboxers or even isboxer users specifically. Considering the strong arguments you've made as to why multiplexing isn't that big of a deal, it seems like a change people shouldn't be so upset about. I do get that you are worried about people getting hit with false-positive bans. Only time will tell if that will happen or not. Well no, the goal is really to stop multibox bomber fleets. That's clear from he CSM minutes. The method they've chosen to go about doing that is removing multiplexing, and it won't work as intended. I've already got a ticket up requesting clarity on the other uses of ISBoxer like round robins and VFX. Perhaps they will decide to scrap those too, but again, I don't think it will have enough of an impact for the end goal they have.
Niskin wrote:This still goes back to the command versus activity perspective. I think playstyles involve activities. You're a miner, or a PvP'er, or a wormholer, or a market trader. You aren't a multiplexer, you're a multiplexing miner or a multiplexing whatever. Multiplexing is the way you enhance an activity. But to be fair I will admit that multiplexing to avoid RSI is a noble goal, even if I don't consider it a playstyle. I think CCP has accepted that this change hurts those using it for this purpose, and expects them to react accordingly, even if that means reducing accounts to minimize RSI. Well to me a playstyle is about how you play, not just what you do. Whatever you do to enjoy the game is your style. If multiplexing 100 accounts is what you enjoy, then that's your style and that's fair enough (and that's what creates spectacular videos of gankers [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlhlwuf4qjs]smartbombing 40 mackinaws[/quote]).
To me, characters are characters. I really don't care who's controlling them. If you want to plex 100 accounts and control them all, great, 100 plex more income for CCP to stick towards improving the game.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1306
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 21:50:46 -
[2610] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dersen Lowery wrote:No, you mean tolerated. CCP's discomfort was obvious. The exception made and the rather tenuous terms under which it was made were explicit and obvious. No, I mean allowed. When dev are stating explicitly that it's fine as long as only 1 command is executed, regardless of how many clients it affects, that's not just tolerating it.
And that statement is couched in the context of, "we're looking to get rid of this behavior." Or have you forgotten the huge uproar that led to the Third Party Platform?
They've wanted to do this for months. If you can't see that, I really don't know what to tell you.
Lucas Kell wrote:At the same time, things like cache scraping, and EVE-Radio running a business with premium subcriptions, both those things are not allowed by the EULA, yet both occur.
Because, again, the EULA is not the ruleset governing an unthinking enforcer. Cache scraping is technically a EULA violation, but its consequences are largely an improved gameplay experience, so CCP is seeking to get rid of it by obviating the need for it. The people who currently scrape caches know it's a dirty hack that they could technically get banned for (even though, by your standard, it's "allowed"), and they'll be glad to be rid of it and using a service that's completely legit. Premium subscriptions and the like are technically EULA violations, but CCP has always allowed sites to make enough money to cover costs, because that encourages people to invest time and effort into cool things.
You're getting hung up on technicalities. That's a trap from which there is no escape. It has never been difficult to figure out the intent behind CCP's enforcement, because they're not shy about offering it, and the intent is what matters--as 'boxers who think they've found some clever workaround that hews to the letter of the policy while violating the spirit will discover soon enough.
I honestly don't know why you're hung up on ice miners, or "carebears." I don't think it's a coincidence that the former CCP Stillman tweeted his enthusiastic support for this change. If you don't recall, he was the head of Team Security at CCP before he got headhunted. And he's excited enough to react publicly even though he doesn't work for CCP anymore.
Team Security. That should tell you something.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
|
|
|
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation
DemSal Unlimited
2068
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 21:52:23 -
[2611] - Quote
Looking forward to seeing how This pans out
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
DARKNESS.
2576
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 21:55:10 -
[2612] - Quote
Good riddance. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4458
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 21:57:32 -
[2613] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:The difference between cache scraping and input broadcasting is that one is EVE specific and the other, broadcasting, not so specific. Even if cache scraping bans were enforced it would still have to be on the level of both players and tool makers as nothing prevents building ones own cache scraper should existing tools stop doing it.
On the other hand ISBoxer and other similar software isn't largely EVE specific and even with a BAN on input duplication in EVE has legitimate uses for those functions in other game spaces. As such it makes little sense to remove it based upon a single games policy change. Uh... no. I don't think it has anything to do with it not being eve specific. If I made an eve specific input broadcaster, it would still be banned. Cache scraping could easily be banned alongside broadcasting. in exactly the same way, you can't stop people making something new and breaking the rule, so you would ban individual players if they did that.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:CCP hasn't banned the use of calculators or copy paste from outside programs. Also placing the resultant price in clipboard doesn't involve issuing commands to the client. Elinor seems like it does everything it can short of being classified as a market bot but doesn't cross certain vital lines, Except you don't copy-paste. You click the "export" button in the EVE market, it picks up the order, automatically calculates margins and automatically puts the price in your clipboard ready to be pasted into a trade window. It's *more* automated than isboxer.
And hey, people keep saying that ISBoxer need to go because it's a third party tool which gives players and advantage. So are all of those other tools, so either that isn't really the reason, or all those tools should be banned too.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:No, you would be incorrect in your assumption. Look to your last sentence for the correct interpretation. The goal of the change is to restore of some level needing to interface with each client executing a command. And that goal is not being accomplished, since they aren't banning the use of round robin keybinds or VideoFX
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
4458
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 22:03:02 -
[2614] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:And that statement is couched in the context of, "we're looking to get rid of this behavior." Or have you forgotten the huge uproar that led to the Third Party Platform?
They've wanted to do this for months. If you can't see that, I really don't know what to tell you. OK, go ahead and get me that quote of them stating they are looking to get rid of that behaviour. Because I call bullshit on that.
Dersen Lowery wrote:Because, again, the EULA is not the ruleset governing an unthinking enforcer. Cache scraping is technically a EULA violation, but its consequences are largely an improved gameplay experience, so CCP is seeking to get rid of it by obviating the need for it. The people who currently scrape caches know it's a dirty hack that they could technically get banned for (even though, by your standard, it's "allowed"), and they'll be glad to be rid of it and using a service that's completely legit. Premium subscriptions and the like are technically EULA violations, but CCP has always allowed sites to make enough money to cover costs, because that encourages people to invest time and effort into cool things. No, cache scraping is an explicit EULA violation.
Third Party Plicies wrote:Our EULA does not permit the scraping of the EVE Online cache, as per EULA Paragraph 9.C
And CCP allow only certain methods of making isk. Affiliates, donations or ads. You are not allowed to charge for premium access to content, which EVE-radio do.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2720
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 22:11:21 -
[2615] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Lucas et al, the "fight" is over, you need to come to terms with it.
CCP have decided on the new rules regarding things like ISboxer, the only thing that might happen now is for some folk to see if they can 'circumvent' the new rules and risk a 30 day, then permanent ban.
Those who suffer a permanent ban can then join the likes of Erotica 1, wailing in the wind about how mean CCP are their (former) players. Jesus you sound like the journalists who keep spouting that "Gaming is Dead" crap. If CCP wanted to make this announcement with no room for discussion they could have made this thread locked on the first post and not allow for discussion. I personally love how you attempt to dismiss the very idea that CCP listens to the userbase, especially after such things as the bombers thread where CCP backpedaled on the bombers decloaking each other nerf. Your attempt to censor the userbase is silly. Please never post again unless you're willing to let the other side have a reasonable discussion.
My, you sound hurt, has CCP kicked you in the ISboxer?
To take your point on though, I have said before that all that remains is for hose opposed to the changes to moan (make their point loudly and often in the forums) in the hope that CCP will ameliorate the changes as they did with under pressure the Jump Nerf proposals.
Have you ever considered that CCP may have made these proposals due to concern from non ISboxer players?
Thought not
This is not a signature.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
305
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 22:29:33 -
[2616] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:To take your point on though, I have said before that all that remains is for those opposed to the changes to moan (make their point loudly and often in the forums) in the hope that CCP will ameliorate the changes as they did with under pressure the Jump Nerf proposals.
Have you ever considered that CCP may have made these proposals due to concern from non ISboxer players?
Your attempt at humor aside, I spent a day or so considering the possibility that CCP did make an attempt to talk to the userbase. However, judging from both this thread and the reddit threads, it's been a very small minority of people saying "good riddance" and shouting down the boxers claiming they don't deserve a voice.
And again, I point you to the unneeded change of making cloaked bombers decloak each other as proof that CCP is capable of changing their minds. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1289
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 22:44:36 -
[2617] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Uh... no. I don't think it has anything to do with it not being eve specific. If I made an eve specific input broadcaster, it would still be banned. Cache scraping could easily be banned alongside broadcasting. in exactly the same way, you can't stop people making something new and breaking the rule, so you would ban individual players if they did that. So then you agree that putting the BAN at the player level with the activity rather than the tool makes sense, good. As to banning scraping, that's for CCP to decide as it is distinct from this.
Lucas Kell wrote:Except you don't copy-paste. You click the "export" button in the EVE market, it picks up the order, automatically calculates margins and automatically puts the price in your clipboard ready to be pasted into a trade window. It's *more* automated than isboxer.
And hey, people keep saying that ISBoxer need to go because it's a third party tool which gives players and advantage. So are all of those other tools, so either that isn't really the reason, or all those tools should be banned too. It automates purely out of game tasks. CCP has set no limit of that. Rather this is concerning multiplication of in game tasks. Sure, we can call out the whole 3rd party tool giving an advantage argument, but in doing so address the fact that it's completely a false premise regardless of how many times it's brought up. The issue with command broadcasting is limited to just that and not shared with and other tool support.
Lucas Kell wrote:And that goal is not being accomplished, since they aren't banning the use of round robin keybinds or VideoFX Actually it does ban round robins as I understand them and their function in a strict reading, the only dispute I'm seeing being brought up is the capacity to enforce that and prevent false positives. I don't think there is much question of the spirit of the rule being violated. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4458
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 22:53:34 -
[2618] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:So then you agree that putting the BAN at the player level with the activity rather than the tool makes sense, good. As to banning scraping, that's for CCP to decide as it is distinct from this. Yes I do, but not for using the existing software straight away. A lot of players wouldn't necessarily know that EVEMon for example has been blacklisted, so it would fall on the operators to shut down that ability.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:It automates purely out of game tasks. CCP has set no limit of that. Rather this is concerning multiplication of in game tasks. Sure, we can call out the whole 3rd party tool giving an advantage argument, but in doing so address the fact that it's completely a false premise regardless of how many times it's brought up. The issue with command broadcasting is limited to just that and not shared with and other tool support. But it automates it from and in-game click and you never leave the client while it does it. It's lietrally a market bot that doesn't do the final step. and that false premise is exactly what people are complaining about with ISBoxer, that a 3rd party tool should not give an advantage. And it;s for that reason that once January rolls round and people realise multiboxers haven't all gone and that ISBoxer is still giving an advantage without broadcasting, they'll be back here demanding the rest be banned too.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Actually it does ban round robins as I understand them and their function in a strict reading, the only dispute I'm seeing being brought up is the capacity to enforce that and prevent false positives. I don't think there is much question of the spirit of the rule being violated. Well according to the graphic that CCP Random put up, it doesn't at all ban round robins. A round robin only issues 1 command to 1 client from 1 keypress. It simply allow you to repeatedly press that one key instead of having to alt tab about. That's just another thing that CCP should clear up. If they want to ban it, fair enough, but they should be explicitly stating that, since as the rules have currently been stated, it's allowed.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1289
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 23:12:13 -
[2619] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:So then you agree that putting the BAN at the player level with the activity rather than the tool makes sense, good. As to banning scraping, that's for CCP to decide as it is distinct from this. Yes I do, but not for using the existing software straight away. A lot of players wouldn't necessarily know that EVEMon for example has been blacklisted, so it would fall on the operators to shut down that ability. Lucas Kell wrote:But it automates it from and in-game click and you never leave the client while it does it. It's lietrally a market bot that doesn't do the final step. and that false premise is exactly what people are complaining about with ISBoxer, that a 3rd party tool should not give an advantage. And it;s for that reason that once January rolls round and people realise multiboxers haven't all gone and that ISBoxer is still giving an advantage without broadcasting, they'll be back here demanding the rest be banned too. It's that last step that distinguishes even a spreadsheet from a bot. None of the things it does individually are banned, and combining a number of out of game activities that aren't banned also isn't banned. As far as the complaints, that's fine, there are lots of things people whine about that are changed, and a lot that aren't. The mistake likely being made here (and not just here) is the conclusion that the complaints led directly to changes without some form of gameplay goal in mind or evaluation on the part of CCP. We can't really know the entirety of the reasoning that went into this decision, but you seem really eager to label it as the effect of whining alone, making any validity of your counterwhines very suspect. [quote=Lucas Kell]Well according to the graphic that CCP Random put up, it doesn't at all ban round robins. A round robin only issues 1 command to 1 client from 1 keypress. It simply allow you to repeatedly press that one key instead of having to alt tab about. That's just another thing that CCP should clear up. If they want to ban it, fair enough, but they should be explicitly stating that, since as the rules have currently been stated, it's allowed. Depends I suppose, round robin functionality that I've seen suggested entire sequences of events, though perhaps I made the mistake of assuming it would be in conjunction with a macro.
As a purely keybind related function no, it doesn't violate the rules, which should be a non issue.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4458
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 23:35:03 -
[2620] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:As far as the complaints, that's fine, there are lots of things people whine about that are changed, and a lot that aren't. The mistake likely being made here (and not just here) is the conclusion that the complaints led directly to changes without some form of gameplay goal in mind or evaluation on the part of CCP. We can't really know the entirety of the reasoning that went into this decision, but you seem really eager to label it as the effect of whining alone, making any validity of your counterwhines very suspect. I'm not saying it's the reason, but it's certainly a part of it. As for there being a gameplay goal, that's yet to be seen, since gameplay won't change from this. None of the activities currently being multiboxed will stop being multiboxed through ISBoxer, and the complaints will remain. So unless the goal was to move the grey area to a place where banning manual multiboxers was a risk, then their plan isn't very well thought out. So a pointless change.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Alt Two
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
133
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 23:44:14 -
[2621] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
[...]
GÇóThe login process
NOTE: Please keep in mind that using the same password for multiple accounts as well as storing your password in a third party tool or script which helps you to automate the login process can increase the risk of account theft and hacking drastically. It is strongly recommended that you do not engage in this type of activity.
Just to make sure I understand this correctly:
Using 3rd-party software to automate the login process is not recommended, but it is allowed?
And if the above is allowed, does it apply only to logging in via keyboard automation or are we allowed to login by automatically fetching an SSO token and passing it to the client, ie. emulating what the official launcher does? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1289
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 23:56:01 -
[2622] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:As far as the complaints, that's fine, there are lots of things people whine about that are changed, and a lot that aren't. The mistake likely being made here (and not just here) is the conclusion that the complaints led directly to changes without some form of gameplay goal in mind or evaluation on the part of CCP. We can't really know the entirety of the reasoning that went into this decision, but you seem really eager to label it as the effect of whining alone, making any validity of your counterwhines very suspect. I'm not saying it's the reason, but it's certainly a part of it. As for there being a gameplay goal, that's yet to be seen, since gameplay won't change from this. None of the activities currently being multiboxed will stop being multiboxed through ISBoxer, and the complaints will remain. So unless the goal was to move the grey area to a place where banning manual multiboxers was a risk, then their plan isn't very well thought out. So a pointless change. Gameplay will change, even if that only means that the means of input will change for some. The effect per player will be proportionate to the number of clients a person uses and what they are doing with them. A 10 client miner for instance, even in a low input tasks is looking at some 20-30 keybinds (or 10 if binding multiple shortcuts to a single key, of using skiff/procs but that seems a grey area I'd personally avoid) to achieve the same level of functionality of 1-3 key presses today under broadcasting. That leaves aside manually targeting on each client. Bombers are less affected due to fleet warp and only a single bind per client and no need to target, though I suspect misses and bombing in the wrong direction to become more common for those who approach minimum effort. Anything with higher activity will be significantly harder to maintain effectiveness compared to now.
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
86
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 23:57:02 -
[2623] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: A lot of players wouldn't necessarily know that EVEMon for example has been blacklisted, so it would fall on the operators to shut down that ability.
Cache scraping is probably a bad example. I believe the plan is that once all the CREST endpoints are created that CCP will remove the cache completely, so any application that still references the cache will break.
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
26675
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 10:13:09 -
[2624] - Quote
between siege/triage, auto repeating modules, hot locking, drones, approach, and fleet warp, this will be alright.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Double 0 Squirrel
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 11:26:14 -
[2625] - Quote
also please crackdown on account sharing, especially of supers and titans. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
26677
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 12:11:41 -
[2626] - Quote
how much you wanna bet jump fatigue will break space friendships
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Niskin
League of the Lost
127
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 16:02:55 -
[2627] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Indeed. the actual effor a player puts in to controlling their characters is irrelevant. I'm a software developer, and so I work with computers all day. That means my ability to use a mouse and keyboard is (generally) superior to say a 50 year old builder or someone with artritis. So how much effort someone puts in to commanding their characters isn't simply a case of whether or not they use multiboxing software. I've played solo, multiboxed for a long time, and I used ISBoxer for about a year, and the per character efficiency is pretty much always the same regardless of activity. ISBoxer means sacrificing efficiency for easier use because you don't have the granular control you have when doing it manually. This change actually forces that granular control to a certain extent, so we should actually see individual multiboxed characters being more efficient.
I still think that individuals could find ways to combine the aspects of these 3rd party tools with multiplexing input to achieve a per-character efficiency that is greater than a standard multiboxer. But I get what you are saying about the affect when it's straight up multiplexed multiboxing versus standard multiboxing.
Lucas Kell wrote:Thought would have to be put in beyond my two minute quick examples, but from my point of view, if an activity is able to be multiboxed on a large scale, then that activity is too simple and needs to be reworked. Bombers are going to be a tough one. Even with this change they are least affected, since yo already control most of the run with the FC fleet warping and are restricted in how many bombers per wave so the bombs don't destroy each other. A round robin "fire bomb" key and a round robin "activate cloak" key are all that are needed.
I enjoy those kinds of thought experiments and coming up with ideas on how to handle things in a balanced way. But the more things that have to change to address something the more unintended side-effects can come from them. So where possible the changes should be minimal. I do agree that the round robin appears to remain legal and would work for the bombers. I think it would be fine for miners and other things too. It seems like a simple thing but having the user actually click the key the appropriate number of times feels like the right cutoff point. At that point the 3rd party app is directing input, not multiplying it.
Lucas Kell wrote:Well no, the goal is really to stop multibox bomber fleets. That's clear from he CSM minutes. The method they've chosen to go about doing that is removing multiplexing, and it won't work as intended. I've already got a ticket up requesting clarity on the other uses of ISBoxer like round robins and VFX. Perhaps they will decide to scrap those too, but again, I don't think it will have enough of an impact for the end goal they have.
I think that's the thing that pushed this issue over the edge and gave it the attention needed to get adjusted. But I also think once they made the decision to make a change they intended for it to affect all activities using this mechanic. This really seems to be more about what makes players feel like it's been fixed rather than what actually fixes it. There will always be some guy with the perfect workaround, but if that is less prevalent then then playerbase won't experience those effects as often.
Lucas Kell wrote:Well to me a playstyle is about how you play, not just what you do. Whatever you do to enjoy the game is your style. If multiplexing 100 accounts is what you enjoy, then that's your style and that's fair enough (and that's what creates spectacular videos of gankers smartbombing 40 mackinaws). To me, characters are characters. I really don't care who's controlling them. If you want to plex 100 accounts and control them all, great, 100 plex more income for CCP to stick towards improving the game.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Playstyle definitions start and end at the login screen. I won't deny that people pursuing their playstyles in spectacular ways will lead to spectacular events which make for spectacular videos. But I just don't see how playstyle definitions can be relevant when they include things that come from outside the game. I can be a trader, or--if I use all the resources available to me--I can be a great trader. But again, the preceding adjective isn't part of the playstyle, just a modifier to the base definition.
You could say that it's a playstyle because that's how you play, but I'm talking about EVE playstyles, not gamer playstyles in general. You can't balance a game around a niche gaming playstyle, but you do have to be aware that it exists to balance properly.
It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog
Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.
-MooMooDachshundCow
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4465
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:08:13 -
[2628] - Quote
Niskin wrote:I still think that individuals could find ways to combine the aspects of these 3rd party tools with multiplexing input to achieve a per-character efficiency that is greater than a standard multiboxer. But I get what you are saying about the affect when it's straight up multiplexed multiboxing versus standard multiboxing. Without reading input from the client it would be really tough. The issue isn't with sending the commands, its with seeing how that command works in context with the individual circumstances of that client. To this date I've not seen a setup which can exceed manual multiboxer efficiency on a character level.
Niskin wrote:I enjoy those kinds of thought experiments and coming up with ideas on how to handle things in a balanced way. But the more things that have to change to address something the more unintended side-effects can come from them. So where possible the changes should be minimal. I do agree that the round robin appears to remain legal and would work for the bombers. I think it would be fine for miners and other things too. It seems like a simple thing but having the user actually click the key the appropriate number of times feels like the right cutoff point. At that point the 3rd party app is directing input, not multiplying it. True, but then to me this change is too simple. So simple in fact that it doesn't address the problem. If people are able to with a minor change continue on as normal, then what was the point in changing anything to begin with? We'll just be back here with them looking for another change to make to solve the same issue.
Niskin wrote:I think that's the thing that pushed this issue over the edge and gave it the attention needed to get adjusted. But I also think once they made the decision to make a change they intended for it to affect all activities using this mechanic. This really seems to be more about what makes players feel like it's been fixed rather than what actually fixes it. There will always be some guy with the perfect workaround, but if that is less prevalent then then playerbase won't experience those effects as often. Oh, absolutely. Bombers are the straw that broke the camels back, but then the change should at the very least address that issue, which it does not. Bombers will be more powerful following the changes thanks to their upcoming buff.
Niskin wrote:I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Agreed.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Miomeifeng Alduin
Lithonauts Inc.
35
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 20:39:28 -
[2629] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:True, but then to me this change is too simple. So simple in fact that it doesn't address the problem. If people are able to with a minor change continue on as normal, then what was the point in changing anything to begin with? We'll just be back here with them looking for another change to make to solve the same issue.
Here i think you're a bit wrong. By that logic: why bother to change anything or to enforce anything in the rules of a game? People'll just find workarounds. By that logic you just say: sure, come on in and do everything which is against our rules, be it broadcasting, macro's, or even full bots. i mean: a change doesn't adress the problem, people'll just continue on with minor changes to what they do.
Small changes are the way to go about enforcing the rules. People know the spirit of the rule, but try to rulelawyer their way out of it. This says more about those people than about CCP imo. (Not saying that you are one of those people, i mean this in general) |
Miranda Ongrard
4M-CORP
Black Legion.
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 21:06:01 -
[2630] - Quote
I use a Logitech G15 Keybord where you have 3x6 macro keys. Do useing them counts as a "hack"?
I have i key that type my charater name and tab down and select "only excat Match" in the contract window. Is that ilegal? |
|
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1289
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 21:18:42 -
[2631] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:True, but then to me this change is too simple. So simple in fact that it doesn't address the problem. If people are able to with a minor change continue on as normal, then what was the point in changing anything to begin with? We'll just be back here with them looking for another change to make to solve the same issue. I showed above how the reality of inputs alone doesn't match with the idea that this won't cause and changes for the biggest offenders or those with high levels of input per client. Care to make a counter claim regarding how multiboxing can be done according to the rules without any effect on gameplay?
You haven't been the only one to make the claim but I haven't seen from you or others any actual quantification of how that plays out? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4477
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 21:34:56 -
[2632] - Quote
Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:Here i think you're a bit wrong. By that logic: why bother to change anything or to enforce anything in the rules of a game? People'll just find workarounds. By that logic you just say: sure, come on in and do everything which is against our rules, be it broadcasting, macro's, or even full bots. i mean: a change doesn't adress the problem, people'll just continue on with minor changes to what they do.
Small changes are the way to go about enforcing the rules. People know the spirit of the rule, but try to rulelawyer their way out of it. This says more about those people than about CCP imo. (Not saying that you are one of those people, i mean this in general) No, not at all. Small changes are fine if they actually have an effect. The problem with ISBoxing isn't broadcasting, it't the same problem as with all of multiboxing. The mechanics like mining, bombing and incursions are far too simple and don;t require a player's full attention. Mining is a great example, you don;t really need to look at your screen more than once every 10 minutes. If CCP instead of this change invested time in making the mechanics more interactive and more rewarding for players who devote their full attention to them, then multiboxing would be less likely to occur, but in a natural gampelay-driven way.
And people aren't generally rule lawyering. Round robin keybinds and VideoFX aren't lawyering, they are simply not banned behaviours. This is likely to be because it would be impossible for CCP to detect them over standard multiboxers (something brought up by the CSM). After this change goes though, nothing will be different and the people all cheering here will be back, twice a ferocious demanding more action be taken as the "plague of multbioxers" hasn't gone away.
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
4477
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 21:39:33 -
[2633] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:True, but then to me this change is too simple. So simple in fact that it doesn't address the problem. If people are able to with a minor change continue on as normal, then what was the point in changing anything to begin with? We'll just be back here with them looking for another change to make to solve the same issue. I showed above how the reality of inputs alone doesn't match with the idea that this won't cause and changes for the biggest offenders or those with high levels of input per client. Care to make a counter claim regarding how multiboxing can be done according to the rules without any effect on gameplay? You haven't been the only one to make the claim but I haven't seen from you or others any actual quantification of how that plays out? It's been explained multiple times. While yes, for the 100 man multiboxers (of which there are not many) it will be difficult to adapt, most ISboxer users will find this change to be a minor increase of effort at best. VideoFX allows you to practically turn as many clients as you want into what looks like one, very busy client. That alone will make most of the problems go away. On top of this, round robin keybinds mean that you'll just have to hammers a single key 20 times instead of once, something most people can do in a couple of seconds. They type of activities that use input broadcasting require so little effort anyway, that multiplying the number of keypresses you need to do really doesn't mean all that much.
Going forward there will still be nearly as many ISBoxer miners, bombers, incursion runners, etc. The problem they are trying to address will still be there.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Miomeifeng Alduin
Lithonauts Inc.
35
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 21:43:25 -
[2634] - Quote
There has been a lot of rule lawyering in this topic already. see previous pages.
While it doesn't solve the entire issue, the change does make it a bit less practical. instead of just setting up a 1 click 10 accounts do something, it will now be 1 click, 1 account does something, with round robin 10 clicks, 10 accounts do something. It is a step in the direction that ccp wants. They obviously want that 1 click is 1 action on 1 account (replace click with keypress where applicable).
Guess we'll see though. I dont understand why everyone is defending the broadcasting if it "wont have an effect on the gameplay anyway". ;) |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4477
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 21:53:07 -
[2635] - Quote
Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:There has been a lot of rule lawyering in this topic already. see previous pages.
While it doesn't solve the entire issue, the change does make it a bit less practical. instead of just setting up a 1 click 10 accounts do something, it will now be 1 click, 1 account does something, with round robin 10 clicks, 10 accounts do something. It is a step in the direction that ccp wants. They obviously want that 1 click is 1 action on 1 account (replace click with keypress where applicable).
Guess we'll see though. I dont understand why everyone is defending the broadcasting if it "wont have an effect on the gameplay anyway". ;) Because it's the first step in an inevitable run down the wrong path to fix an issue which is actually gameplay mechanic related. Why roll out changes which will attack a single group of players when the problem is badly designed game mechanics? Mechanics which most people seem to be well aware are terrible too. Like mining for example. There really aren't many people that think mining is interactive enough. It's AFK play. How can you expect multiboxing, even manual multiboxing, not to occur on a large scale when it barely takes 2% of your attention to run a miner. I've run more than 20 miners without isboxer and *still* been able to play the playstation while I'm doing it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1289
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 22:16:40 -
[2636] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:True, but then to me this change is too simple. So simple in fact that it doesn't address the problem. If people are able to with a minor change continue on as normal, then what was the point in changing anything to begin with? We'll just be back here with them looking for another change to make to solve the same issue. I showed above how the reality of inputs alone doesn't match with the idea that this won't cause and changes for the biggest offenders or those with high levels of input per client. Care to make a counter claim regarding how multiboxing can be done according to the rules without any effect on gameplay? You haven't been the only one to make the claim but I haven't seen from you or others any actual quantification of how that plays out? It's been explained multiple times. While yes, for the 100 man multiboxers (of which there are not many) it will be difficult to adapt, most ISboxer users will find this change to be a minor increase of effort at best. VideoFX allows you to practically turn as many clients as you want into what looks like one, very busy client. That alone will make most of the problems go away. On top of this, round robin keybinds mean that you'll just have to hammers a single key 20 times instead of once, something most people can do in a couple of seconds. They type of activities that use input broadcasting require so little effort anyway, that multiplying the number of keypresses you need to do really doesn't mean all that much. Going forward there will still be nearly as many ISBoxer miners, bombers, incursion runners, etc. The problem they are trying to address will still be there. Sure, dualboxing a mission won't see much change but 10-12 boxing an incursion VG fleet will have some strong implications. We're not just talking 100 client fleets, or even 50 or 20, which I expect to see notable effect on. Since this is by design targeting the biggest offenders anyways, remember, multiboxing itself isn't banned or intended to be discouraged, you have conceded that it will have that effect where purposed for it.
Also individual displays of overviews and the like for targetting open more potential for error. All in all it comes down to if you are running 5 clients CCP wants you to hit 5 buttons, if you can make the 5 buttons happen quickly, great. but it's still half as fast as for 10 clients, a quarter of the time for 20 clients and a 20th of the time for 100 clients. that is a difference and an appreciable one. And that only takes into account single button press operations. Any mouse click operations are similarly compounded, though not as cleanly.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
305
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 22:19:47 -
[2637] - Quote
Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:There has been a lot of rule lawyering in this topic already. see previous pages.
While it doesn't solve the entire issue, the change does make it a bit less practical. instead of just setting up a 1 click 10 accounts do something, it will now be 1 click, 1 account does something, with round robin 10 clicks, 10 accounts do something. It is a step in the direction that ccp wants. They obviously want that 1 click is 1 action on 1 account (replace click with keypress where applicable).
Guess we'll see though. I dont understand why everyone is defending the broadcasting if it "wont have an effect on the gameplay anyway". ;)
If CCP had an issue with the multibox bomber fleets, they should have looked at any of the threads on F&I regarding balancing bombers.
If CCP had an issue with the multibox mining fleets, they should have looked at any of the threads on F&I regarding rewarding solo miners.
If CCP had an issue with the multibox incursion fleets, they should have looked at any of the threads on F&I that talked about that.
Instead, they've decided to focus on something that requires a lot of skill to use, a lot of time to setup, reduces effectiveness over an identical fleet, and has a lot of room for player error and subsequent failure due to errors. CCP is punishing players who want to take their gameplay to the limit because of the vocal minority. Whenever a minority attempts to change the way the rest of the game is played, bad things happen. |
Miomeifeng Alduin
Lithonauts Inc.
35
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 22:21:01 -
[2638] - Quote
Or, CCP means to have different playstyle mechanics. Some exciting (big battles, piracy, suicideganking, normal ganking), some boring (mining, missions, exploration in HS), and want to cater to all players, but just want 1 physical action done = 1 action ingame happens. Neither of us has any knowledge of CCP's thought/designprocesses regarding this, so it just doesn't matter to discuss this amoung ourselves.
The only thing which i've seen in the original post: 1 action = 1 action. no broadcasting, no multicasting, nothing of that. you want something to happen, you do it, on every client. That's gonna be the rule, this is just the advance notice being given.
The wrong path? for you maybe, clearly not for CCP. I mean: why complain about it if it doesn't change a thing. for over 114 pages no less ;)
Edit: to the post above me: and if CCP doesn't have issues with multiboxer fleets in any way, but just wants what's described in their own post: 1 click/keypress -> 1 action, then they outlaw broadcasting. Easy as that ;) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1290
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 22:28:47 -
[2639] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:There has been a lot of rule lawyering in this topic already. see previous pages.
While it doesn't solve the entire issue, the change does make it a bit less practical. instead of just setting up a 1 click 10 accounts do something, it will now be 1 click, 1 account does something, with round robin 10 clicks, 10 accounts do something. It is a step in the direction that ccp wants. They obviously want that 1 click is 1 action on 1 account (replace click with keypress where applicable).
Guess we'll see though. I dont understand why everyone is defending the broadcasting if it "wont have an effect on the gameplay anyway". ;) If CCP had an issue with the multibox bomber fleets, they should have looked at any of the threads on F&I regarding balancing bombers. If CCP had an issue with the multibox mining fleets, they should have looked at any of the threads on F&I regarding rewarding solo miners. If CCP had an issue with the multibox incursion fleets, they should have looked at any of the threads on F&I that talked about that. Instead, they've decided to focus on something that requires a lot of skill to use, a lot of time to setup, reduces effectiveness over an identical fleet, and has a lot of room for player error and subsequent failure due to errors. CCP is punishing players who want to take their gameplay to the limit because of the vocal minority. Whenever a minority attempts to change the way the rest of the game is played, bad things happen. CCP said they had no issue with multiboxing fleets. Multiboxing fleets are not being banned or prohibited in any way. They had an issue with single commands causing entire fleets to act in activities the game itself is designed to require on each individual client.
The fact that people could bypass this with effort, regardless of where that barrier lies, is the issue at heart. CCP is acting against those who have effectively broken their gameplay limits. Also, considering your position of elitism and entitlement to the rewards of broadcasted multiboxing based upon special effort, arguing that a minority is strong arming the game into this path doesn't make sense.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4478
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 22:37:30 -
[2640] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Sure, dualboxing a mission won't see much change but 10-12 boxing an incursion VG fleet will have some strong implications. We're not just talking 100 client fleets, or even 50 or 20, which I expect to see notable effect on. Since this is by design targeting the biggest offenders anyways, remember, multiboxing itself isn't banned or intended to be discouraged, you have conceded that it will have that effect where purposed for it. I doubt incursion mutliboxers will see much of a change. It will be minimal if at all. And the problem they are trying to address isn't simply the biggest multiboxers. Remember, the issue that finally triggered this change is bombers, which are limited in size by bomb mechanics. In the long run the issue is going to have to be about mulitboxers. If they want to address the issues of balance when controlling multiple clients, multiboxing at all is still going to cause the same problems.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Also individual displays of overviews and the like for targetting open more potential for error. All in all it comes down to if you are running 5 clients CCP wants you to hit 5 buttons, if you can make the 5 buttons happen quickly, great. but it's still half as fast as for 10 clients, a quarter of the time for 20 clients and a 20th of the time for 100 clients. that is a difference and an appreciable one. And that only takes into account single button press operations. Any mouse click operations are similarly compounded, though not as cleanly. Not really. Individual display will offer more precision per client if anything. Broadcast windows and VideoFX will also help.
And the difference in time is miniscule. You can keep saying "aha! but there is a difference!" but it will still have *no effect* on the actual game. It doesn't matter if someone takes 2 more seconds to activate their modules. If the players at the other side of the game are seeing the same problems continuing to occur, then the problem isn't resolved. The problem is you are looking at this in terms of the people that are whining about how unfair it is that someone has to click less buttons to perform a task. That's not the actual problem CCP are addressing. The problem is how multiboxers are able to perform tasks like bombing runs on their own - which will still occur.
The change is pointless. Ineffective. Worthless.
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
4478
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 22:41:03 -
[2641] - Quote
Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:Edit: to the post above me: and if CCP doesn't have issues with multiboxer fleets in any way, but just wants what's described in their own post: 1 click/keypress -> 1 action, then they outlaw broadcasting. Easy as that ;) That's bull. This isn't happening purely because some people are sad that other players have to perform less clicks than them. The whole change has occurred now because bomber fleets were able to be controlled by one person. Many people (including CCP it seems) seem to think that this only occurs because of broadcasting. when they find out this is not the case it will be back to the drawing board. Why is it that when a change is needed, CCP always have to make change which clearly won't fix the issue while being told it won't fix the issue, then go back and look for another fix.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1290
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 22:52:29 -
[2642] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Sure, dualboxing a mission won't see much change but 10-12 boxing an incursion VG fleet will have some strong implications. We're not just talking 100 client fleets, or even 50 or 20, which I expect to see notable effect on. Since this is by design targeting the biggest offenders anyways, remember, multiboxing itself isn't banned or intended to be discouraged, you have conceded that it will have that effect where purposed for it. I doubt incursion mutliboxers will see much of a change. It will be minimal if at all. And the problem they are trying to address isn't simply the biggest multiboxers. Remember, the issue that finally triggered this change is bombers, which are limited in size by bomb mechanics. In the long run the issue is going to have to be about mulitboxers. If they want to address the issues of balance when controlling multiple clients, multiboxing at all is still going to cause the same problems. Tyberius Franklin wrote:Also individual displays of overviews and the like for targetting open more potential for error. All in all it comes down to if you are running 5 clients CCP wants you to hit 5 buttons, if you can make the 5 buttons happen quickly, great. but it's still half as fast as for 10 clients, a quarter of the time for 20 clients and a 20th of the time for 100 clients. that is a difference and an appreciable one. And that only takes into account single button press operations. Any mouse click operations are similarly compounded, though not as cleanly. Not really. Individual display will offer more precision per client if anything. Broadcast windows and VideoFX will also help. And the difference in time is miniscule. You can keep saying "aha! but there is a difference!" but it will still have *no effect* on the actual game. It doesn't matter if someone takes 2 more seconds to activate their modules. If the players at the other side of the game are seeing the same problems continuing to occur, then the problem isn't resolved. The problem is you are looking at this in terms of the people that are whining about how unfair it is that someone has to click less buttons to perform a task. That's not the actual problem CCP are addressing. The problem is how multiboxers are able to perform tasks like bombing runs on their own - which will still occur. The change is pointless. Ineffective. Worthless. So we're now back to the "this is all about people whining" argument? Honestly that's the only thing propping up this defense, the idea that this is only being done to stop whining. Otherwise a 3rd party observing a notable difference in your mining fleet is irrelevant.
Again, this was not about stopping multiboxing, if they wanted to stop multiboxing, they would stop multiboxing, not just one potentially extreme subset of it. If an objection is based upon the fact that people will still multibox and can do so effectively it misses the point unless we have concluded that it's about whining and all multiboxing. In that case, sure, it's ineffective.
I guess the difference between us at this point is the idea that you believe this is a combination of lies and gross incompetence, allowing you to shift the goals and reasoning for the change to something unstated. I on the other hand don't see any reason for them to lie about the goals of the change and don't think the effect as minimal as you claim, but we will see in time. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4479
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 23:03:49 -
[2643] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:So we're now back to the "this is all about people whining" argument? Honestly that's the only thing propping up this defense, the idea that this is only being done to stop whining. Otherwise a 3rd party observing a notable difference in your mining fleet is irrelevant. Now, "we're" not back to that, you are. You keep going on about how this is designed to affect the effort players have to put into their controls. Effort is not a gameplay factor. I put in far less effort than someone with low computer skills just through being used to computers. So if you keep suggesting that the whole fix is deigned to make the amount of effort somehow "more fair", then you are talking about whining.
What I'm talking about is the issue CCP is likely aiming to fix, one man bombers fleets, one man mining fleets, one man incursion fleets, which this change will not stop. I don't know why it's so hard to understand, but from my point of view, the GOAL of the fix is not being accomplished.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Again, this was not about stopping multiboxing, if they wanted to stop multiboxing, they would stop multiboxing, not just one potentially extreme subset of it. If an objection is based upon the fact that people will still multibox and can do so effectively it misses the point unless we have concluded that it's about whining and all multiboxing. In that case, sure, it's ineffective. No, it's not about stopping multiboxing, it's about controlling the effectiveness of multiboxing with tools which this change will not fix.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:I guess the difference between us at this point is the idea that you believe this is a combination of lies and gross incompetence, allowing you to shift the goals and reasoning for the change to something unstated. I on the other hand don't see any reason for them to lie about the goals of the change and don't think the effect as minimal as you claim, but we will see in time. No, I'm simply looking at what led to this change as well as just the change itself. You can keep kidding yourself and acting like the actual goal of the change was to change the change the way ISBoxer users control their clients, but it wasn't. That's the ACTION they are taking. The GOAL is to reduce effectiveness of one man fleets, which simply isn't being done to a large enough degree with this change to make a noticeable impact.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
277
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 23:08:46 -
[2644] - Quote
Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:There has been a lot of rule lawyering in this topic already. see previous pages.
While it doesn't solve the entire issue, the change does make it a bit less practical. instead of just setting up a 1 click 10 accounts do something, it will now be 1 click, 1 account does something, with round robin 10 clicks, 10 accounts do something. It is a step in the direction that ccp wants. They obviously want that 1 click is 1 action on 1 account (replace click with keypress where applicable).
Guess we'll see though. I dont understand why everyone is defending the broadcasting if it "wont have an effect on the gameplay anyway". ;) First off, not all broadcasting to multiple accounts is a bad thing. It has many uses where the only benefit to a multi boxer is, he or she does not have to repeat a simple command 15 or 20 or more times.
Broadcasting a target to multiple characters at once is a problem (and one large mining gangs don't use) as it makes it possible for the one man pvp fleets to operate with far greater efficiency. That is bad for all of TQ (except possibly for the guy who enjoys using his 15 bombers to insta pop a stiletto).
CCP I am sure can tell the difference between a miner broadcasting and someone running a 1 man pvp gang.
To be fair, CCP don't want to be seen to favour mining, pve over pvp so a blanket ban is imposed. Is this the right way to go, is it fair?
For CCP it is;
One affect this change could (will) have on game everyone's play; Everything player built increases and continues to increase in price.
With the removal / reduction of large multi boxing mining gangs, who is going to do the mining?
Are you willing to sit in an asteroid field for 8 or 10 hours a day watching your mining lasers shoot rocks?
Do you know a few hundred other players who will join you on a daily basis?
Mining is boring, tedious, low paying (when mining common ores), fairly high risk and the ONLY activity that affects every players wallet on TQ.
Make it less desirable than it already is, it has the potential to have wide reaching affects.
20 mil for a Rifter, 500 mil for a Raven? Will you tell me I am exaggerating the affects this change could have?
Are you sure?
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
|
Deltan Lilthanzarus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 23:26:25 -
[2645] - Quote
Thanks CCP, this is an awesome change for a few reasons:
Plex prices will drop. This has to be attractive for players (especially new players) with limited cash and those who do have some extra cash will still buy plex to sell. One of the selling points of eve not so long ago was that you could easily rake up the 400 - 450M isk to purchase a plex each month even with relatively low sp. Personally, I loved the prices at 800M isk/plex but I knew that wasn't going to last . I doubt that CCP will take a huge hit financially though in the short term minor losses are to be expected.
My nerves are going to get a little bit of a break when considering doing some hauling or flying a nice faction BS as I will for the most part only have to contend with an actual gang of gankers (whom I actually have a small chance of getting away from if they make mistakes) rather than a single person pressing F1 to "win".
Fewer gankers in game will make it less likely that a newbie will lose their precious newly bought BC/BS and even though they are told not to fly what they can't afford to lose, they still do... This change caters to the newbies again and that is healthy for the game as a whole.
Fewer mining botters will make ore and mineral prices more reasonable and make true miners a bit more profitable thereby improving gameplay options. (+ for newbies again as well as older players)
Some "bittervets" will return for sure and this also has to be healthy for the game.
Rock on! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1290
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 23:37:06 -
[2646] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Now, "we're" not back to that, you are. You keep going on about how this is designed to affect the effort players have to put into their controls. Effort is not a gameplay factor. I put in far less effort than someone with low computer skills just through being used to computers. So if you keep suggesting that the whole fix is deigned to make the amount of effort somehow "more fair", then you are talking about whining.
What I'm talking about is the issue CCP is likely aiming to fix, one man bombers fleets, one man mining fleets, one man incursion fleets, which this change will not stop. I don't know why it's so hard to understand, but from my point of view, the GOAL of the fix is not being accomplished. Some strong cognitive dissonance there. To have used the topic of whining 2 posts in a row as a motivation for the change yet to somehow not be on the topic, and in response to a post where I didn't mention it but I address it and now I'm the one bringing it back there?
Effort is a gameplay factor. It has been since day one. If you want a conclusive but of evidence see botting. Want another? See the more recent ban of the use of perma sentry repping domis being left AFK to continually reap bounties. A more continual series of acts baked into gameplay would be concepts like scouting, local awareness and/or dscan to identify and asses threats in space. Effort has always been rewarded on some level.
Quote:No, it's not about stopping multiboxing, it's about controlling the effectiveness of multiboxing with tools which this change will not fix. Exactly why the concept that this is about multiboxing raw effectiveness doesn't make sense. We have the same realization, but are coming at it from opposite endpoints. You believe the solution is wrong based upon your belief of what the issue is, and I believe your concept of the issue is wrong for the same reason, the solution does little to address it as a whole.
Quote:No, I'm simply looking at what led to this change as well as just the change itself. You can keep kidding yourself and acting like the actual goal of the change was to change the change the way ISBoxer users control their clients, but it wasn't. That's the ACTION they are taking. The GOAL is to reduce effectiveness of one man fleets, which simply isn't being done to a large enough degree with this change to make a noticeable impact. So what I said was completely right, you looked at a series of complaints and used that as a basis for your position. And from that position concluded what the goal of the change was and judged it only on those merits. So, as stated we will see in time. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
277
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 00:20:06 -
[2647] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:So we're now back to the "this is all about people whining" argument? Honestly that's the only thing propping up this defense, the idea that this is only being done to stop whining. Otherwise a 3rd party observing a notable difference in your mining fleet is irrelevant. Now, "we're" not back to that, you are. You keep going on about how this is designed to affect the effort players have to put into their controls. Effort is not a gameplay factor. I put in far less effort than someone with low computer skills just through being used to computers. So if you keep suggesting that the whole fix is deigned to make the amount of effort somehow "more fair", then you are talking about whining. What I'm talking about is the issue CCP is likely aiming to fix, one man bombers fleets, one man mining fleets, one man incursion fleets, which this change will not stop. I don't know why it's so hard to understand, but from my point of view, the GOAL of the fix is not being accomplished. Tyberius Franklin wrote:Again, this was not about stopping multiboxing, if they wanted to stop multiboxing, they would stop multiboxing, not just one potentially extreme subset of it. If an objection is based upon the fact that people will still multibox and can do so effectively it misses the point unless we have concluded that it's about whining and all multiboxing. In that case, sure, it's ineffective. No, it's not about stopping multiboxing, it's about controlling the effectiveness of multiboxing with tools which this change will not fix. Tyberius Franklin wrote:I guess the difference between us at this point is the idea that you believe this is a combination of lies and gross incompetence, allowing you to shift the goals and reasoning for the change to something unstated. I on the other hand don't see any reason for them to lie about the goals of the change and don't think the effect as minimal as you claim, but we will see in time. No, I'm simply looking at what led to this change as well as just the change itself. You can keep kidding yourself and acting like the actual goal of the change was to change the change the way ISBoxer users control their clients, but it wasn't. That's the ACTION they are taking. The GOAL is to reduce effectiveness of one man fleets, which simply isn't being done to a large enough degree with this change to make a noticeable impact.
Seriously Lucas.. Have you ever tried to multi box an incursion? Have you ever done and incursion? Do you honestly think this change will not stop 1 man incursion fleets?
In an incursion, if you had to lock up and fire on each target manually, you would have lost half your fleet before you got the 1st target locked. Just managing logi and DPS is a pain, even when using software.
As for 1 man bomber fleets, the ability to insta lock and fire on your prey with 1 click removed will put an end to it. No-one is going to decloak 10 or more bombers then have to lock the target with each one manually. Bombing runs would simply fail as the delay between each bomber launching its bomb removes effectiveness and more than that, gives those you are trying to bomb time to react (dead bombers everywhere).
Jump on sisi with 10 trial accounts and a friend, use rookie ships ( no training needed) and go try to lock up your friend and pop him before he has popped half your fleet.
Multi box miners will be the most affected and I'm not so sure that is a good thing for players as a whole. For CCP it could be a boon.
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
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
343
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 00:36:14 -
[2648] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Seriously Lucas.. Have you ever tried to multi box an incursion? Have you ever done and incursion? Do you honestly think this change will not stop 1 man incursion fleets?
In an incursion, if you had to lock up and fire on each target manually, you would have lost half your fleet before you got the 1st target locked. Just managing logi and DPS is a pain, even when using software.
Its possible to do VG, but the hit to efficiency is insane in most boxed fleets, as you now either tank them much harder to account for the loss of reaction time on reps (running almost WTM HQ tank for VGs and thus losing) , set up a round robin key for your remote reps and get REALLY good at mashing it on the correct targets REALLY fast (and risk looking too much like a broadcaster) , or go to marauders or other rep bonused ships and fit sufficient rep power to actually local tank VGs (which is doable, even if you don't use bastion).
It is however, several dozen times harder to run your DPS and RR (if full NM/ marauder mode) or DPS and logi if running a semi-traditional comp, and is harder in a manner which scales multiplicitively for clients used.
Now Blue, Bikkus and the other AS/HQ boxers? Pretty much hosed with no way around it.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
DARKNESS.
2581
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 01:34:54 -
[2649] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:... reduce effectiveness of one man fleets, which simply isn't being done to a large enough degree with this change to make a noticeable impact.
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Personally, I think piloting 7 bombers, a dictor, and a prober all at the same time will be notably more difficult come January 1. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
343
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 01:38:14 -
[2650] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:... reduce effectiveness of one man fleets, which simply isn't being done to a large enough degree with this change to make a noticeable impact. That's just, like, your opinion, man. Personally, I think piloting 7 bombers, a dictor, and a prober all at the same time will be notably more difficult come January 1.
It becomes massively more annoying to set up. You still can do it and with methods posted which have historical use and have not been stated as banned. If done with "right" there may even be a slight improvement in performance for a higher barrier to entry and risk of pilot error.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
|
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
DARKNESS.
2581
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 01:43:40 -
[2651] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:... reduce effectiveness of one man fleets, which simply isn't being done to a large enough degree with this change to make a noticeable impact. That's just, like, your opinion, man. Personally, I think piloting 7 bombers, a dictor, and a prober all at the same time will be notably more difficult come January 1. It becomes massively more annoying to set up...a higher barrier to entry and risk of pilot error.
Sounds good, just what the doctor ordered. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
343
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 01:47:07 -
[2652] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:James Baboli wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:... reduce effectiveness of one man fleets, which simply isn't being done to a large enough degree with this change to make a noticeable impact. That's just, like, your opinion, man. Personally, I think piloting 7 bombers, a dictor, and a prober all at the same time will be notably more difficult come January 1. It becomes massively more annoying to set up...a higher barrier to entry and risk of pilot error. Sounds good, just what the doctor ordered.
There are other ways of reducing the major issues with boxing which have substantially less spill over, and are good for balance overall.
Still not in favor of this sort of ban, and even more so the use of the word "multiplexing" in regards to input, as this would imply that playing EVE with a keyboard for each hand that is connected to the same single toon is banned.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
DARKNESS.
2582
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 01:50:51 -
[2653] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:
There are other ways of reducing the major issues with boxing which have substantially less spill over, and are good for balance overall.
Still not in favor of this sort of ban, and even more so the use of the word "multiplexing" in regards to input, as this would imply that playing EVE with a keyboard for each hand that is connected to the same single toon is banned.
Honestly, I see all of the so called "spillover" as a net positive. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
343
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 01:54:33 -
[2654] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:James Baboli wrote:
There are other ways of reducing the major issues with boxing which have substantially less spill over, and are good for balance overall.
Still not in favor of this sort of ban, and even more so the use of the word "multiplexing" in regards to input, as this would imply that playing EVE with a keyboard for each hand that is connected to the same single toon is banned.
Honestly, I see all of the so called "spillover" as a net positive.
I see the spillover as unfortunate, as this has ripped the guts out of my main source of income, and having people coming in behind without the tools I used to get where I am means that much of the profit rate I have observed is impossible, or requires the sort of market playing genius that would make you rich in the RL stock market. This is the part I find unfortunate.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
DARKNESS.
2582
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 01:56:20 -
[2655] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:James Baboli wrote:
There are other ways of reducing the major issues with boxing which have substantially less spill over, and are good for balance overall.
Still not in favor of this sort of ban, and even more so the use of the word "multiplexing" in regards to input, as this would imply that playing EVE with a keyboard for each hand that is connected to the same single toon is banned.
Honestly, I see all of the so called "spillover" as a net positive. I see the spillover as unfortunate, as this has ripped the guts out of my main source of income, and having people coming in behind without the tools I used to get where I am means that much of the profit rate I have observed is impossible, or requires the sort of market playing genius that would make you rich in the RL stock market. This is the part I find unfortunate.
So....isboxed mining or isboxed incursions? |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
343
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 02:05:47 -
[2656] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:
So....isboxed mining or isboxed incursions?
Incursions, at a scale which isn't feasible without at least some level of broadcasting.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
DARKNESS.
2583
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 02:11:17 -
[2657] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:
So....isboxed mining or isboxed incursions?
Incursions, at a scale which isn't feasible without at least some level of broadcasting.
See...incursions were never intended as an iskfarm for isboxers though. And in place of 1 multiboxing player receiving content, 12 singleboxing players might receive said content. Objectively, that's a win for the eve community as a whole. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
343
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 02:23:49 -
[2658] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:James Baboli wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:
So....isboxed mining or isboxed incursions?
Incursions, at a scale which isn't feasible without at least some level of broadcasting. See...incursions were never intended as an iskfarm for isboxers though. And in place of 1 multiboxing player receiving content, 12 singleboxing players might receive said content. Objectively, that's a win for the eve community as a whole.
Which is part of why I never ran my boxes in highsec, but kept to the less congested lowsec incursions. The added isk/hr when not engaged in PVP was nice too.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
DARKNESS.
2583
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 02:28:54 -
[2659] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:
See...incursions were never intended as an iskfarm for isboxers though. And in place of 1 multiboxing player receiving content, 12 singleboxing players might receive said content. Objectively, that's a win for the eve community as a whole.
Which is part of why I never ran my boxes in highsec, but kept to the less congested lowsec incursions. The added isk/hr when not engaged in PVP was nice too.
That actually sounds pretty reasonable, so perhaps there are one or two negative side effects. On the whole though, this is still a good change, I think. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
344
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 02:50:01 -
[2660] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:
That actually sounds pretty reasonable, so perhaps there are one or two negative side effects. On the whole though, this is still a good change, I think.
I try not to spoil someone else's fun to make mine if not necessary (like for really one-sided PVP).
I would still like the issues that lead people to feeling like boxing is almost required for some activities fixed. Like excessively scaling PvE and the relatively high amount of minerals and thus character hours required to build sub-capitals.
I would also love an official position statement on several of the proposed ways of maintaining similar performance, specifically:
1: mixing commands to the client with commands to the computer to switch clients i.e. round robin.
2: pass through commands, where you are using one action in a window to affect a single other window.
3: using keybinds and stored mouse positions to rapidly switch "focused" client.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
|
|
Gracie Lemmont
Failure in Progress
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 06:12:20 -
[2661] - Quote
Time to make a black screen setup with module buttons really close together. Won't even notice a difference. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4480
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 06:43:15 -
[2662] - Quote
Deltan Lilthanzarus wrote:Plex prices will drop. This has to be attractive for players (especially new players) with limited cash and those who do have some extra cash will still buy plex to sell. One of the selling points of eve not so long ago was that you could easily rake up the 400 - 450M isk to purchase a plex each month even with relatively low sp. Personally, I loved the prices at 800M isk/plex but I knew that wasn't going to last . I doubt that CCP will take a huge hit financially though in the short term minor losses are to be expected. They will barely drop. Maybe they will hit 800 for a short while, but I doubt it. Before long they will continue their steady climb back up to 1b.
Deltan Lilthanzarus wrote:My nerves are going to get a little bit of a break when considering doing some hauling or flying a nice faction BS as I will for the most part only have to contend with an actual gang of gankers (whom I actually have a small chance of getting away from if they make mistakes) rather than a single person pressing F1 to "win". Most gankers are groups of players, not a broacast multiboxer., and they would need to be pretty terrible to mess it up. Besides, whith round robin there will still be multibox gankers.
Deltan Lilthanzarus wrote:Fewer gankers in game will make it less likely that a newbie will lose their precious newly bought BC/BS and even though they are told not to fly what they can't afford to lose, they still do... This change caters to the newbies again and that is healthy for the game as a whole. Like I said above, there will still be multibox gankers. If you think this will cause a noticeable drop in gankers, you're kiddign yourself.
Deltan Lilthanzarus wrote:Fewer mining botters will make ore and mineral prices more reasonable and make true miners a bit more profitable thereby improving gameplay options. (+ for newbies again as well as older players) This will not affect "botters" at all, since nothing's ISBoxer did involved bots. It may drop out a few of the largest mining fleets, but if you are used to seeing fleets for 10-20 miners warping in and stripping all of the ice, you can still expect to see exactly that, since controlling 20 miners even completely manually is dead easy.
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
4480
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 06:51:53 -
[2663] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Effort is a gameplay factor. It has been since day one. If you want a conclusive but of evidence see botting. Want another? See the more recent ban of the use of perma sentry repping domis being left AFK to continually reap bounties. A more continual series of acts baked into gameplay would be concepts like scouting, local awareness and/or dscan to identify and asses threats in space. Effort has always been rewarded on some level. No, effort is *not* a gamplay factor. It doesn't matter if it takes you 2 seconds to do something or 2 minutes. If you are not very good with computers or have a physical disablity, you might struggle to do something I can do without even thinking, but that isn't a gameplay mechanic. If your complaint about ISBoxer user is "they can do it with less effort expended" then you are whining, plain and simple. You were suggesting that that is why this change is there, to increase the effort of performing a task. I'm saying it's not. The reason it's there is to make hyper-efficient setups not be hyper-efficient, which it will not do. It's not hard to understand so I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Exactly why the concept that this is about multiboxing raw effectiveness doesn't make sense. We have the same realization, but are coming at it from opposite endpoints. You believe the solution is wrong based upon your belief of what the issue is, and I believe your concept of the issue is wrong for the same reason, the solution does little to address it as a whole. And you seem to believe the action is being taken to sole a problem which does not exist. We know what the issue is, it's been talked about for moths, it's in the CSM minutes, it's on blog everywhere. Just because you've run around with your eyes closed doesn't mean the rest of us have.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:]So what I said was completely right, you looked at a series of complaints and used that as a basis for your position. And from that position concluded what the goal of the change was and judged it only on those merits. So, as stated we will see in time. I've looked at reality and used that for a basis for my position. To be honest mate I'm pretty much done repeating myself to someone with seemingly not idea what's going on. In January when everyone is back screaming at CCP about how the miners are still mining, and the bombers are still bombing, you'll realise that this change isn't being done for no reason beyond "for the sake of it" like you seem to be suggesting..
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
4480
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 07:01:19 -
[2664] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Seriously Lucas.. Have you ever tried to multi box an incursion? Have you ever done and incursion? Do you honestly think this change will not stop 1 man incursion fleets?
In an incursion, if you had to lock up and fire on each target manually, you would have lost half your fleet before you got the 1st target locked. Just managing logi and DPS is a pain, even when using software. Yes and Yes. This will barely impact them. It will put at most a 2 second delay between interacting with the first and last client. Round robin hotkeys and VideoFX will fill in the game where broadcasting is being left out. You certainly won't have to go alt tabbing through screens. Remember you can lie up all of your overviews side by side using VideoFX so it looks like one giant overview then just clickely click across them all. If you're running incursions and won't be able to survive a miniscule delay between clients, then either your setup is wrong or you are terrible at EVE.
Sgt Ocker wrote:As for 1 man bomber fleets, the ability to insta lock and fire on your prey with 1 click removed will put an end to it. No-one is going to decloak 10 or more bombers then have to lock the target with each one manually. Bombing runs would simply fail as the delay between each bomber launching its bomb removes effectiveness and more than that, gives those you are trying to bomb time to react (dead bombers everywhere). Well that's funny because bombers don't lock their targets. Again, VideoFX will be your friend in pointing your bombers towards their targets, round robin allows you to fire all at near-broadcast speed, and fleet warp allows you to move the entire fleet.
Sgt Ocker wrote:Multi box miners will be the most affected and I'm not so sure that is a good thing for players as a whole. For CCP it could be a boon. Only the largest of multibox miners will be affected, of which there's only a handful. Those groups of 10-20 miners which are common will be unaffected because mining requires so little input anyway. I've run 20 man multibox mining fleets with no broadcasting or other software trickery and played the playstation while I was doing it. You literally need to do like 3 clicks per client every 10 minutes.
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
4480
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 07:04:32 -
[2665] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:... reduce effectiveness of one man fleets, which simply isn't being done to a large enough degree with this change to make a noticeable impact. That's just, like, your opinion, man. Personally, I think piloting 7 bombers, a dictor, and a prober all at the same time will be notably more difficult come January 1. The prober and interdictor are irrelevant, since even with broadcasting they will be controlled separately. The only affect will be to bombers. Warping in and out will still be fleet warp, which means the only change is firing your bombs at the target which can be done round robin. If you read what the multiboxers that actually do this are saying, they don't feel they'll be impacted at all.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
16
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 07:36:25 -
[2666] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:So we're now back to the "this is all about people whining" argument? Honestly that's the only thing propping up this defense, the idea that this is only being done to stop whining. Otherwise a 3rd party observing a notable difference in your mining fleet is irrelevant. Now, "we're" not back to that, you are. You keep going on about how this is designed to affect the effort players have to put into their controls. Effort is not a gameplay factor. I put in far less effort than someone with low computer skills just through being used to computers. So if you keep suggesting that the whole fix is deigned to make the amount of effort somehow "more fair", then you are talking about whining. What I'm talking about is the issue CCP is likely aiming to fix, one man bombers fleets, one man mining fleets, one man incursion fleets, which this change will not stop. I don't know why it's so hard to understand, but from my point of view, the GOAL of the fix is not being accomplished. Tyberius Franklin wrote:Again, this was not about stopping multiboxing, if they wanted to stop multiboxing, they would stop multiboxing, not just one potentially extreme subset of it. If an objection is based upon the fact that people will still multibox and can do so effectively it misses the point unless we have concluded that it's about whining and all multiboxing. In that case, sure, it's ineffective. No, it's not about stopping multiboxing, it's about controlling the effectiveness of multiboxing with tools which this change will not fix. Tyberius Franklin wrote:I guess the difference between us at this point is the idea that you believe this is a combination of lies and gross incompetence, allowing you to shift the goals and reasoning for the change to something unstated. I on the other hand don't see any reason for them to lie about the goals of the change and don't think the effect as minimal as you claim, but we will see in time. No, I'm simply looking at what led to this change as well as just the change itself. You can keep kidding yourself and acting like the actual goal of the change was to change the change the way ISBoxer users control their clients, but it wasn't. That's the ACTION they are taking. The GOAL is to reduce effectiveness of one man fleets, which simply isn't being done to a large enough degree with this change to make a noticeable impact. Seriously Lucas.. Have you ever tried to multi box an incursion? Have you ever done and incursion? Do you honestly think this change will not stop 1 man incursion fleets? In an incursion, if you had to lock up and fire on each target manually, you would have lost half your fleet before you got the 1st target locked. Just managing logi and DPS is a pain, even when using software. As for 1 man bomber fleets, the ability to insta lock and fire on your prey with 1 click removed will put an end to it. No-one is going to decloak 10 or more bombers then have to lock the target with each one manually. Bombing runs would simply fail as the delay between each bomber launching its bomb removes effectiveness and more than that, gives those you are trying to bomb time to react (dead bombers everywhere). Jump on sisi with 10 trial accounts and a friend, use rookie ships ( no training needed) and go try to lock up your friend and pop him before he has popped half your fleet. Multi box miners will be the most affected and I'm not so sure that is a good thing for players as a whole. For CCP it could be a boon.
As far as i know you cant use trial accounts'etc. at the same time on the computer. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
26693
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 08:37:27 -
[2667] - Quote
mm I think this doesn't change anything for a lot of people. pretty sure it's limited to the egregious mining fleets.
exhibit a
exhibit b
exhibit c
not sure what the discussion about incursions is about, but they're not hard to box. nightmares with tachy/multifreq and range scripts is just lock->F1 out to 100km. now... kiting is beyond the limits of boxing, but if you're into that kind of gang I don't think you're into boxing anyway.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
190
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 10:12:16 -
[2668] - Quote
The fact is that some of you will push the boundaries after the 1st January.
Then probably get hit by a temp ban, deservedly so.
Then you'll be back on here kicking and screaming and blaming everyone and everything to do with EVE/CCP.
Rather than looking in the mirror.
I'll have a bucket ready |
Dornlin Labiani
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 10:47:20 -
[2669] - Quote
Gosh this is such good news I almost posted with my main... almost.
Good job CCP!!!! The whole bot-infestation has become an issue. And it almost drove me an my 5 accounts out of game. Two of those characters I've owned since the beginning of New Eden.
No more 10 exhumer warp ins, mining a belt out before we even get started. Mining in high sec might even become a "thing" again. Who knows.... some of the old timers from my past associations might resub.
With the jump nerf, and now this, we might even see room for smaller entities in null-sec. Golly!
I like it. This might even fix tech II ship production, let alone tech 1 production. And the market for minerals? It might even become sane!
The much maligned (and yet skilled and competent) industrialists of EVE salute you!
My only question is this: If this is as successful as it can be, what will the Goons/Code find to do? My suggestion: Bake sale!
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
344
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 10:51:23 -
[2670] - Quote
Dornlin Labiani wrote:Gosh this is such good news I almost posted with my main... almost. Good job CCP!!!! The whole bot-infestation has become an issue. And it almost drove me an my 5 accounts out of game. Two of those characters I've owned since the beginning of New Eden. No more 10 exhumer warp ins, mining a belt out before we even get started. Mining in high sec might even become a "thing" again. Who knows.... some of the old timers from my past associations might resub. With the jump nerf, and now this, we might even see room for smaller entities in null-sec. Golly! I like it. This might even fix tech II ship production, let alone tech 1 production. And the market for minerals? It might even become sane! The much maligned (and yet skilled and competent) industrialists of EVE salute you! My only question is this: If this is as successful as it can be, what will the Goons/Code find to do? My suggestion: Bake sale!
ISboxing isn't botting, and this may not have any impact on your local boxers, depending on their dedication to boxing.
Real bots are, and have always been, bannable. So if it looks that much like a bot, report it.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
|
|
Dornlin Labiani
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 11:22:30 -
[2671] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Dornlin Labiani wrote:Gosh this is such good news I almost posted with my main... almost. Good job CCP!!!! The whole bot-infestation has become an issue. And it almost drove me an my 5 accounts out of game. Two of those characters I've owned since the beginning of New Eden. No more 10 exhumer warp ins, mining a belt out before we even get started. Mining in high sec might even become a "thing" again. Who knows.... some of the old timers from my past associations might resub. With the jump nerf, and now this, we might even see room for smaller entities in null-sec. Golly! I like it. This might even fix tech II ship production, let alone tech 1 production. And the market for minerals? It might even become sane! The much maligned (and yet skilled and competent) industrialists of EVE salute you! My only question is this: If this is as successful as it can be, what will the Goons/Code find to do? My suggestion: Bake sale! ISboxing isn't botting, and this may not have any impact on your local boxers, depending on their dedication to boxing. Real bots are, and have always been, bannable. So if it looks that much like a bot, report it.
Most "bots" cannot coordinate 20 clients. ISOBoxer, in that regard, is far worse than your random bot user shuttling their ore to station.
But I consider ISOboxer part of the greater bot-infestation. It's more profitable than running a bot. It's slaving an entire corp of characters, with all the game interaction of one single click.
That's a bot in my book.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4482
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 12:19:07 -
[2672] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:The fact is that some of you will push the boundaries after the 1st January. Then probably get hit by a temp ban, deservedly so. Then you'll be back on here kicking and screaming and blaming everyone and everything to do with EVE/CCP. Rather than looking in the mirror. I'll have a bucket ready No Drago
What will happen is people will continue to play with mechanics that are allowed, people like you will sit there reporting everyone, then it will be people like you back on the forum screaming "THEY ARE STILL DOING IT CCP! STAAAAHP THEM!". I doubt more than a handful of ISBoxer players will get temp banned for using the perfectly valid round robin and VideoFX methods.
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
4482
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 12:24:54 -
[2673] - Quote
Dornlin Labiani wrote:No more 10 exhumer warp ins, mining a belt out before we even get started. Mining in high sec might even become a "thing" again. Who knows.... some of the old timers from my past associations might resub. Actually, following this change I've resubbed my ISBoxer account and will be using perfectly EULA abiding methods to mine out entire belts with a fleet of miners. You can kid yourself into thinking everything will change, but it really won't.
Dornlin Labiani wrote:The much maligned (and yet skilled and competent) industrialists of EVE salute you! As a veteran industrialist, I'll point out that if you were honestly damaged by ISBoxer players co-existing, then you are neither skilled nor competent.
Dornlin Labiani wrote:My only question is this: If this is as successful as it can be, what will the Goons/Code find to do? My suggestion: Bake sale! Why do you think goons or code will be affected? Goons make most of their isk through renting and moon goo, code are gankers, most of whom do not multibox gank.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Dornlin Labiani
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 13:25:35 -
[2674] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dornlin Labiani wrote:No more 10 exhumer warp ins, mining a belt out before we even get started. Mining in high sec might even become a "thing" again. Who knows.... some of the old timers from my past associations might resub. Actually, following this change I've resubbed my ISBoxer account and will be using perfectly EULA abiding methods to mine out entire belts with a fleet of miners. You can kid yourself into thinking everything will change, but it really won't. Dornlin Labiani wrote:The much maligned (and yet skilled and competent) industrialists of EVE salute you! As a veteran industrialist, I'll point out that if you were honestly damaged by ISBoxer players co-existing, then you are neither skilled nor competent. Dornlin Labiani wrote:My only question is this: If this is as successful as it can be, what will the Goons/Code find to do? My suggestion: Bake sale! Why do you think goons or code will be affected? Goons make most of their isk through renting and moon goo, code are gankers, most of whom do not multibox gank. Dornlin Labiani wrote:Most "bots" cannot coordinate 20 clients. ISOBoxer, in that regard, is far worse than your random bot user shuttling their ore to station.
But I consider ISOboxer part of the greater bot-infestation. It's more profitable than running a bot. It's slaving an entire corp of characters, with all the game interaction of one single click.
That's a bot in my book. Well whether or not you consider ISBoxer to be botting is irrelevant. It's not, so get over it. ISBoxer itself and most of it's functions will still continue to be used after January, as only a single function - not even the most important function - is being banned. I honestly can't wait for people like you to realise how little impact this will have on multibox highsec mining.
I'll take a pass on a response. You have a nice day now. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4482
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 14:16:23 -
[2675] - Quote
Dornlin Labiani wrote:I'll take a pass on a response. You have a nice day now. I accept your unconditional surrender.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Jera Phalax
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 15:07:23 -
[2676] - Quote
Just another request to get clarification on voiceattack. I recently came across it and would like to try it out but Im unsure if it violates anything. I would only use it for single key clicks (e.g. orbit, warp, activate module one), but would like to get confirmation that this is ok.
I filed a petition to ask, and was told to ask in this thread about it. There are also 2 or 3 other threads where its mentioned but I havent found any official responses yet. |
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 15:22:05 -
[2677] - Quote
Jera Phalax wrote:Just another request to get clarification on voiceattack. I recently came across it and would like to try it out but Im unsure if it violates anything. I would only use it for single key clicks (e.g. orbit, warp, activate module one), but would like to get confirmation that this is ok.
I filed a petition to ask, and was told to ask in this thread about it. There are also 2 or 3 other threads where its mentioned but I havent found any official responses yet.
That's absolutely fine so long as it's only sending commands to one client at a time |
Jera Phalax
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 15:31:08 -
[2678] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:
That's absolutely fine so long as it's only sending commands to one client at a time
I thought so. It would defo be only one client and only one keypress at a time. I guess I'll download it and see if its useful at all. |
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
DARKNESS.
2589
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 17:56:23 -
[2679] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:... reduce effectiveness of one man fleets, which simply isn't being done to a large enough degree with this change to make a noticeable impact. That's just, like, your opinion, man. Personally, I think piloting 7 bombers, a dictor, and a prober all at the same time will be notably more difficult come January 1. The prober and interdictor are irrelevant, since even with broadcasting they will be controlled separately. The only affect will be to bombers. Warping in and out will still be fleet warp, which means the only change is firing your bombs at the target which can be done round robin. If you read what the multiboxers that actually do this are saying, they don't feel they'll be impacted at all.
So....all of isboxer banned by sometime 2015? That's probably whats going to happen if ccp realizes that the multiboxing community is getting around the "spirit of the law," as it were.
Other than that, alt-tabbing multiple bombers in a coordinated bombing run without external software doesn't work particularly well, I've tried. If isboxer get's reduced to that level of effectiveness, I have no problem with it.
So yeah, good changes overall. If more are needed, I'm sure ccp will continue along the proper path. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4488
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 18:02:32 -
[2680] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:So....all of isboxer banned by sometime 2015? That's probably whats going to happen if ccp realizes that the multiboxing community is getting around the "spirit of the law," as it were. Pretty much. The problem is they won't really be able to ban things like round robin or global keybinds, as there's no reliable way to detect whether a player is actually switching to a screen an pushing the button or if the button is doing the switch and push itself. That's why the change will always be pretty much ineffective. The reason they are only banning broadcasting is because that's pretty much the only control method used by multiboxers they can actually detect.
The change they need to make is to make the gameplay more interactive, so multiboxing even with broadcasts is either more difficult of less rewarding per character than playing with full attention on a single client. That would actually fix the problem.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Lady Areola Fappington
2356
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 18:03:36 -
[2681] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:The fact is that some of you will push the boundaries after the 1st January. Then probably get hit by a temp ban, deservedly so. Then you'll be back on here kicking and screaming and blaming everyone and everything to do with EVE/CCP. Rather than looking in the mirror. I'll have a bucket ready
The interesting bit to me is, CCP is effectively banning a behaviour with this rule. The "old" input duplication rule was basically in place because CCP couldn't tell the diff between "chopsticks and tape on 20 keyboards" and a software program. IIRC my EVE history, one of the early implementers of ISBoxer was banned at first, then unbanned when he demonstrated the "mouse and chopsticks" method.
Now CCP is saying, ALL of those techniques are banned. Software, KVM switches, taping your hardware together, you name it., it all falls under the same heading.
Now, if CCP were truly evil, they'd implement a sort of "pause" feature for client windows that aren't the active window on the desktop. Don't know if they could do that technically, but setting the client up so that in order to receive commands, it must be the active "clicked-on" window would make input duplication a tad more difficult to pull off.
It isn't really hard, but I think there are customers that you can lose in a good way and there's customers that you can lose in a bad way. If people come in and fundamentally don't like EVE Online, then I think that might be a good way of losing customers. . -á--CCP Soundwave
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
305
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 18:10:05 -
[2682] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:Now, if CCP were truly evil, they'd implement a sort of "pause" feature for client windows that aren't the active window on the desktop. Don't know if they could do that technically, but setting the client up so that in order to receive commands, it must be the active "clicked-on" window would make input duplication a tad more difficult to pull off.
Except that it's very easy to trick a window (not even using ISBoxer) into thinking it's the active window. Not like it's hard to do. |
Lady Areola Fappington
2356
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 18:25:03 -
[2683] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Lady Areola Fappington wrote:Now, if CCP were truly evil, they'd implement a sort of "pause" feature for client windows that aren't the active window on the desktop. Don't know if they could do that technically, but setting the client up so that in order to receive commands, it must be the active "clicked-on" window would make input duplication a tad more difficult to pull off. Except that it's very easy to trick a window (not even using ISBoxer) into thinking it's the active window. Not like it's hard to do.
Technology man, what can't it do!
Still, it'll be interesting to say the least, just to see where CCP goes with this. They could take a really hard-line stance and say "If it looks like input duplication on our side, it's input duplication, we don't care what you're doing to pull it off".
It may come about that the only "safe" way to pull it off is to implement a realistic delay between each input, that generally matches the time it'd take for someone to alt-tab and issue each command to each separate window. Doing that takes away a big chunk of what makes input duplication powerful though (which may be exactly what CCP is gunning for).
It isn't really hard, but I think there are customers that you can lose in a good way and there's customers that you can lose in a bad way. If people come in and fundamentally don't like EVE Online, then I think that might be a good way of losing customers. . -á--CCP Soundwave
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
305
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 18:42:18 -
[2684] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Lady Areola Fappington wrote:Now, if CCP were truly evil, they'd implement a sort of "pause" feature for client windows that aren't the active window on the desktop. Don't know if they could do that technically, but setting the client up so that in order to receive commands, it must be the active "clicked-on" window would make input duplication a tad more difficult to pull off. Except that it's very easy to trick a window (not even using ISBoxer) into thinking it's the active window. Not like it's hard to do. Technology man, what can't it do! Still, it'll be interesting to say the least, just to see where CCP goes with this. They could take a really hard-line stance and say "If it looks like input duplication on our side, it's input duplication, we don't care what you're doing to pull it off". It may come about that the only "safe" way to pull it off is to implement a realistic delay between each input, that generally matches the time it'd take for someone to alt-tab and issue each command to each separate window. Doing that takes away a big chunk of what makes input duplication powerful though (which may be exactly what CCP is gunning for).
Except that's one of the problems. With VFX I can stack 50 modules side-by-side and hammer my mouse button as I go down the row. Round Robin can go as fast as you can hammer a key on a keyboard which, given what some people can pull off with enough practice, can be pretty damn fast. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4488
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 18:59:32 -
[2685] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Except that's one of the problems. With VFX I can stack 50 modules side-by-side and hammer my mouse button as I go down the row. Round Robin can go as fast as you can hammer a key on a keyboard which, given what some people can pull off with enough practice, can be pretty damn fast. This.
They pretty much will be looking at simultaneous inputs being received, and potentially small delays, but how big those delays can be is limited by how fast EVE players manually multiboxing can click (which can be pretty damn quick). If they set the threshold too high, they'll start banning manual multiboxers by mistake. They are coming at it from the wrong angle. If they simply fixed the gameplay so it was more interactive and more rewarding to pay more individual attention to, it would restrict how much you can realistically do without looking at each client.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 19:06:44 -
[2686] - Quote
At least making you click 50 times in 50 places is a 5000% improvement over you just having to click once - adds more potential for misclicks and it's a step in the right direction...
...also it'll mean that they've at least eliminated the arthritic ISboxer subset in the first pass. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
306
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 19:10:51 -
[2687] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:If they simply fixed the gameplay so it was more interactive and more rewarding to pay more individual attention to, it would restrict how much you can realistically do without looking at each client.
This. When Pantheon Slowcats and Boot Domis were FOTM, CCP didn't remove sentries or nerf carriers into the ground. They sensibly balanced the mechanic (drone assist) so you couldn't get 250+ Archons assisting 1250 Gardes to a single Loki.
If CCP balanced the major "spotlights" that ISBoxers use (namely, bombers, miners, and incursions) with sensible mechanics (4-digit arm code, mining minigame, reduce ISK and buff LP rewards) then you'd see the changes in the game that you'd want to with the added bonus of rewarding active players (mining minigame), encouraging player interaction (incursion focus on LP), and more focus on groups like Bombers Bar or Renegade Squadron (bomb code). |
Lochlan Timberlake
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 19:41:19 -
[2688] - Quote
Will this be as effective as CCP's attempts to remove botting/macroing? |
Ice Dealer
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 19:58:25 -
[2689] - Quote
Dear ccp,
Can you please tell us what the scope of this change is? Why are you wanting to make this change? How will this help the game? What are your expected results?
If bombers were an example of undesirable results, have you considered simply banning it considering pvp? Is pve (and mining ) different from the desired results?
You may be able to use a surgical strike, by banning in PvP situations, vs a broad stroke depending on your desired outcome.
Thanks,
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1291
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 21:17:53 -
[2690] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:If they simply fixed the gameplay so it was more interactive and more rewarding to pay more individual attention to, it would restrict how much you can realistically do without looking at each client. This. When Pantheon Slowcats and Boot Domis were FOTM, CCP didn't remove sentries or nerf carriers into the ground. They sensibly balanced the mechanic (drone assist) so you couldn't get 250+ Archons assisting 1250 Gardes to a single Loki. If CCP balanced the major "spotlights" that ISBoxers use (namely, bombers, miners, and incursions) with sensible mechanics (4-digit arm code, mining minigame, reduce ISK and buff LP rewards) then you'd see the changes in the game that you'd want to with the added bonus of rewarding active players (mining minigame), encouraging player interaction (incursion focus on LP), and more focus on groups like Bombers Bar or Renegade Squadron (bomb code). Still not seeing why solo bombers should have to deal with what are effectively captcha's, nor do I see how rebalancing a reward scheme in a way that does nothing to address the increased rewards per player allowed by broadcasting in any way makes it less advantageous.
Funny enough though, command broadcasting is a perfect mechanism to break the drone assist limit. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
306
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 21:28:40 -
[2691] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Still not seeing why solo bombers should have to deal with what are effectively captcha's, nor do I see how rebalancing a reward scheme in a way that does nothing to address the increased rewards per player allowed by broadcasting in any way makes it less advantageous.
Funny enough though, command broadcasting is a perfect mechanism to break the drone assist limit.
Still not seeing why ISBoxers should have to deal with what is effectively a ban on the software when there's nothing wrong with it other than hurt feelings.
Reducing ISK payouts and increasing LP would further deepen the ISK sink involved in the CONCORD LP store, and would quell those who claim incursions is nothing but an ISK faucet whilst ignoring all evidence presented by CCP that there's a massive ISK sink there as well. It would also necessitate, for those who don't market PVP themselves, more interaction between players and the LP buyers.
Another way to "break the drone assist limit" as you say would be to remove it completely. Doesn't mean it'd be a good change. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1291
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 21:44:38 -
[2692] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Still not seeing why ISBoxers should have to deal with what is effectively a ban on the software when there's nothing wrong with it other than hurt feelings. The thing that's wrong with it is the way it changes gameplay for multiple clients. This is a fact, if it weren't no one would be arguing against it. The arguments that it's easily able to be bypassed don't work in favor of reversing this change, but rather widening banned activities and tools; the more I see posted from you, the more I think this should be done.
Nolak Ataru wrote:Reducing ISK payouts and increasing LP would further deepen the ISK sink involved in the CONCORD LP store, and would quell those who claim incursions is nothing but an ISK faucet whilst ignoring all evidence presented by CCP that there's a massive ISK sink there as well. It would also necessitate, for those who don't market PVP themselves, more interaction between players and the LP buyers. Yeah, great, but that has nothing to do with the change here and does nothing to address any benefits of broadcasting for incursions. That isk sink manifests proportionally for everyone to their LP gains meaning on a single character scale non market incomes go down but creates the posibility that with 10 incomes the isk portion will still be sufficient to not bother as it still meets a total income goal. A good change in itself, but again does nothing to affect the same thing this change is aimed at.
Nolak Ataru wrote:Another way to "break the drone assist limit" as you say would be to remove it completely. Doesn't mean it'd be a good change. Not sure what you are getting at here. Any limit that doesn't exist can't be broken and any limit that does exist probably shouldn't be broken. Since we're in agreement that breaking some limits is a bad change we should be in agreement that this is a good change since it helps maintain those limits. At least that's what I get from that statement. |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
183
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 21:49:45 -
[2693] - Quote
This whole situation is insane.
1.) CCP says you can't use the multicast feature in ISBoxer.
2.) Well with video FX (which CCP has said windows management features are fine) I get the same functionality, just have to click once per client.
So in summary CCP is saying that if you have 1 client you click the button 1 time. If you have 10 clients you click the button 10 times.
Is that really what CCP is saying? Because that is kinda silly.
What exactly is CCP trying to enforce? What is their goal? Why the secrecy around their goals? I'm very confused.
If they goal is they want everyone to have one client (as CCP Falcon has stated in other forums), then this isn't going to work? Unless the plan is to simply ban anyone who is mining with more than a few characters and just ignore the content of the original post? In which case why even have the thread?
CCP really needs to clarify what they are going for because one half or the other is going to be disappointed and that isn't good customer service in my book.
Or maybe keeping everyone confused is their plan, but that isn't very good customer service either.
For the life of me I don't understand why CCP is happy to sit back and have their community go at each other like this, instead of clearly stating what their goals are. Then again, maybe that is the plan. Maybe we are entertainment for bored CCP employees who like to read our forums and watch us fight like little kids.
I'm tired...so very tired. Time for some sleep.
|
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
187
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 21:49:50 -
[2694] - Quote
Jera Phalax wrote:Just another request to get clarification on voiceattack. I recently came across it and would like to try it out but Im unsure if it violates anything. I would only use it for single key clicks (e.g. orbit, warp, activate module one), but would like to get confirmation that this is ok.
I filed a petition to ask, and was told to ask in this thread about it. There are also 2 or 3 other threads where its mentioned but I havent found any official responses yet.
I want an answer to this from CCP as well. I just bought a Razer Naga 2014 mouse. It has 12 side buttons. Am I allowed to program those buttons to mimic keyboard keys? 1 button set to D. 2 button set to f1. Etc. Thats essentially what voice attack does, except voice attack is controlled with my voice. I say warp, my ship warps. I say orbit, my ship orbits.
Instead of using my keyboard, I am using the addition buttons on my mouse or vocal commands to use the ingame shortcuts. Both Razor and VA use 3rd party programs to achieve their ability.
CCP, please clarify this. |
Miomeifeng Alduin
Lithonauts Inc.
36
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 22:23:18 -
[2695] - Quote
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Jera Phalax wrote:Just another request to get clarification on voiceattack. I recently came across it and would like to try it out but Im unsure if it violates anything. I would only use it for single key clicks (e.g. orbit, warp, activate module one), but would like to get confirmation that this is ok.
I filed a petition to ask, and was told to ask in this thread about it. There are also 2 or 3 other threads where its mentioned but I havent found any official responses yet. I want an answer to this from CCP as well. I just bought a Razer Naga 2014 mouse. It has 12 side buttons. Am I allowed to program those buttons to mimic keyboard keys? 1 button set to D. 2 button set to f1. Etc. Thats essentially what voice attack does, except voice attack is controlled with my voice. I say warp, my ship warps. I say orbit, my ship orbits. Instead of using my keyboard, I am using the addition buttons on my mouse or vocal commands to use the ingame shortcuts. Both Razor and VA use 3rd party programs to achieve their ability. CCP, please clarify this.
you need clarification for that? See one of the first pages, 1 input = 1 action. If this is true: you have nothing to worry about. 1 input = more than 1 action: not allowed. |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
183
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 22:50:40 -
[2696] - Quote
Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:you need clarification for that? See one of the first pages, 1 input = 1 action. If this is true: you have nothing to worry about. 1 input = more than 1 action: not allowed.
How long should one pause between words?
If I say "shieldsfire" , real fast, would that cause a ban?
Or should it be "shields" ... wait 5 seconds ... "fire"?
Just curious. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1292
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 23:08:43 -
[2697] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:you need clarification for that? See one of the first pages, 1 input = 1 action. If this is true: you have nothing to worry about. 1 input = more than 1 action: not allowed. How long should one pause between words? If I say "shieldsfire" , real fast, would that cause a ban? Or should it be "shields" ... wait 5 seconds ... "fire"? Just curious. Strange question as it's not a broadcasted action. It's 2 separate actions. So are you asking if your timing would make you considered a bot? And to that, have you been banned for it in the past?
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1317
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 23:20:40 -
[2698] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:you need clarification for that? See one of the first pages, 1 input = 1 action. If this is true: you have nothing to worry about. 1 input = more than 1 action: not allowed. How long should one pause between words? If I say "shieldsfire" , real fast, would that cause a ban? Or should it be "shields" ... wait 5 seconds ... "fire"? Just curious.
Given that keyboards like the Logitech G15 are not affected by this (tip: the keyboard is common within CCP itself), I don't see how there would be any problem with, say, a voice command of "hardeners on" that serially pressed the keys mapped to your hardener modules in the currently active client only.
What they're concerned about is sending commands to more than one client at once. If you say "hardeners on" and ships in two or more clients turn their hardeners on, then CCP has a problem with you.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
120
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 23:27:43 -
[2699] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:This whole situation is insane.
1.) CCP says you can't use the multicast feature in ISBoxer.
2.) Well with video FX (which CCP has said windows management features are fine) I get the same functionality, just have to click once per client.
So in summary CCP is saying that if you have 1 client you click the button 1 time. If you have 10 clients you click the button 10 times.
Is that really what CCP is saying? Because that is kinda silly.
What exactly is CCP trying to enforce? What is their goal? Why the secrecy around their goals? I'm very confused.
If they goal is they want everyone to have one client (as CCP Falcon has stated in other forums), then this isn't going to work? Unless the plan is to simply ban anyone who is mining with more than a few characters and just ignore the content of the original post? In which case why even have the thread?
CCP really needs to clarify what they are going for because one half or the other is going to be disappointed and that isn't good customer service in my book.
Or maybe keeping everyone confused is their plan, but that isn't very good customer service either.
For the life of me I don't understand why CCP is happy to sit back and have their community go at each other like this, instead of clearly stating what their goals are. Then again, maybe that is the plan. Maybe we are entertainment for bored CCP employees who like to read our forums and watch us fight like little kids.
I'm tired...so very tired. Time for some sleep.
The goal is clear to ban multicast
And what they are doing is banning multicast.
are there other ways around it yes but ccp hasn't banned those yet.
They haven't banned isbox they banned multicast. They where clear they don't care how it was being done all ways are banned. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
345
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 23:30:32 -
[2700] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
Several of us are still awaiting feedback on just that. In all likelihood they will be fine though, because from their end they won't be able to tell the difference between a round robin, set of gloabl keybinds or a normal multiboxer clicking quickly. Yet another reason why trying to fix terrible gameplay mechanics by arbitrarily banning a single method of play is a bad idea.
That said, you wouldn't like the better idea either. The better idea would be to fix the gameplay so things like incursions, mining and bombing took more attention and more individual interaction to play. If mining for example required your attention and didn't allow you to play nearly completely AFK, then multiboxers would find it harder to interact with all of their clients individually, making it less likely to occur. The same would be for incursions and chances are you wouldn't be able to do them solo.
I have no problem with that. I started boxing because I could, and because having pointlessly large amounts of isk for a single toon makes me happy, and because I like being able to decide to throw a pirate battleship at the other members of my family who play on a whim. Isboxing isn't my playstyle, but my preferred method of iskwhoring harder.
To me, ISboxer was a tool to implement force multiplication, just like shiny fits and hulls.I deliberately set up to avoid as much interaction on my part as possible, while being prepared for anyone who cam hunting me.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
|
|
Lady Areola Fappington
2357
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 00:16:53 -
[2701] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:
How long should one pause between words?
If I say "shieldsfire" , real fast, would that cause a ban?
Or should it be "shields" ... wait 5 seconds ... "fire"?
Just curious.
Getting into technicalities, what you're asking about is input automation, not input duplication. Automation is multiple commands from one button press. Duplication is one button press across multiple clients.
According to a strict interpretation of EULA, programming more than one action to a mouse button is considered automation and not allowed.
Is CCP going to come down on you for having one button turn on all your hardeners? Likely not. Is CCP going to come down on you for having one button target a roid, start mining lasers, wait for X seconds, warp to station, unload, and repeat? You betcha they will.
It isn't really hard, but I think there are customers that you can lose in a good way and there's customers that you can lose in a bad way. If people come in and fundamentally don't like EVE Online, then I think that might be a good way of losing customers. . -á--CCP Soundwave
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
306
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 00:18:12 -
[2702] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:The thing that's wrong with it is the way it changes gameplay for multiple clients. This is a fact, if it weren't no one would be arguing against it. The arguments that it's easily able to be bypassed don't work in favor of reversing this change, but rather widening banned activities and tools; the more I see posted from you, the more I think this should be done.
Well maybe CCP *does* have to ban any and all forms of modifying the client, organizing windows, external programs, and fiddling with the cache so people would realize that the "They came for the XXXX but I didn't say anything because I wasn't a XXXX" argument is completely bonkers.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Yeah, great, but that has nothing to do with the change here and does nothing to address any benefits of broadcasting for incursions. That isk sink manifests proportionally for everyone to their LP gains meaning on a single character scale non market incomes go down but creates the posibility that with 10 incomes the isk portion will still be sufficient to not bother as it still meets a total income goal. A good change in itself, but again does nothing to affect the same thing this change is aimed at.
Except that those were the three parts of ISBoxing that was "in the spotlight", so-to-speak, and had the most complainants about (from a minority of the game indeed). If CCP balanced those three activities, I would wager you 10b ISK that the number of "I'm butthurt because he's doing something different" complaints and posts in GD would drop by 99% if not 100%. From my dorm mate who is a first year med student, slapping a band-aid over a gash in the leg is temporary at best and will only cause problems down the road, when it'd be much simpler to perform the necessary surgery to save his leg and his life.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Not sure what you are getting at here. Any limit that doesn't exist can't be broken and any limit that does exist probably shouldn't be broken. Since we're in agreement that breaking some limits is a bad change we should be in agreement that this is a good change since it helps maintain those limits. At least that's what I get from that statement.
I'm attempting to say that treating the symptoms while ignoring the cure is not exactly the best thing to do. CCP would do much better by their userbase if they acknowledged that the areas discussed were not optimized and attempted to fix them instead of banning those who did the math and found that 2>1. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
306
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 00:19:56 -
[2703] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:Is CCP going to come down on you for having one button target a roid, start mining lasers, wait for X seconds, warp to station, unload, and repeat? You betcha they will.
What you just described was a bot, and is not possible to achieve with ISBoxer.
Bots have always been against the EULA.
ISBoxer is not a bot software.
1/10 made me reply. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4489
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 00:29:18 -
[2704] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:The thing that's wrong with it is the way it changes gameplay for multiple clients. This is a fact, if it weren't no one would be arguing against it. The arguments that it's easily able to be bypassed don't work in favor of reversing this change, but rather widening banned activities and tools; the more I see posted from you, the more I think this should be done. Because people have never argued a point that was wrong before . The people arguing for this change seem to have no knowledge of ISBoxer, which is why most of them think that this will make a profound difference. And no, the think that's wrong with it is "ZOMG THAT GUY MAKES MORE ISK THAN ME!" which is the same as any multiboxer, isboxer or not. I used to have the exact same complaint put against me when I ran completely manual multiboxing (it's unfair, you gain too much for a single player, etc, etc, etc)..
And sure, they could keep banning stuff until they fix the issue, but I guarantee they will end up banning all multiboxing before they fix the issue with bans.
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
4489
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 00:32:09 -
[2705] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:The goal is clear to ban multicast
And what they are doing is banning multicast.
are there other ways around it yes but ccp hasn't banned those yet.
They haven't banned isbox they banned multicast. They where clear they don't care how it was being done all ways are banned. The goal really isn't clear, since the change accomplishes nothing. Other than ceating a month where carebears will cheer about the death of ISboxer, before January rolls round, they still see hundreds of multiboxers and they lose their freaking minds of course. Maybe that's it. Maybe CCP is trolling carebears.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1292
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 00:46:15 -
[2706] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Well maybe CCP *does* have to ban any and all forms of modifying the client, organizing windows, external programs, and fiddling with the cache so people would realize that the "They came for the XXXX but I didn't say anything because I wasn't a XXXX" argument is completely bonkers. That seems like you are saying that one cannot legitimately hold the opinion the command broadcasting is bad for the game. If it is, and I believe that to be the case than anything that effectively leaves it indistinguishable from broadcasting, where broadcasting is distinquishable advantageous unasisted multiboxing, should be banned.
We could go down this slippery slope, but I'm not as rationally I'd have a PvP opt in by now had any of the slippery slopes played out on this forum.
Nolak Ataru wrote:Except that those were the three parts of ISBoxing that was "in the spotlight", so-to-speak, and had the most complainants about (from a minority of the game indeed). If CCP balanced those three activities, I would wager you 10b ISK that the number of "I'm butthurt because he's doing something different" complaints and posts in GD would drop by 99% if not 100%. From my dorm mate who is a first year med student, slapping a band-aid over a gash in the leg is temporary at best and will only cause problems down the road, when it'd be much simpler to perform the necessary surgery to save his leg and his life. Incursions are in the spotlight, but your solution doesn't resolve the issue in regards to brocasted multiboxing so it missed the mark. It's a solution for a different problem which leaves the issue this change is designed to resolve untouched.
Mining sure, but if captcha's for bomber are just a nuisance. You're 1 of 3 on the concepts you cite without a detrimental impact on game play for non offenders. The fact that others gameplay with a single client is expendable and single client runner income nerfable so you can still retain an advantage seems pretty close to the "They came for the XXXX but I didn't say anything because I wasn't a XXXX" argument you decried above.
Quote:I'm attempting to say that treating the symptoms while ignoring the cure is not exactly the best thing to do. CCP would do much better by their userbase if they acknowledged that the areas discussed were not optimized and attempted to fix them instead of banning those who did the math and found that 2>1. They can't treat the cause. As you said 2>1, but that is intentional for actually making social connections and cooperation worthwhile. The other cause is the relative ease of command inputs, so the 2 causes together are that this is a social game which doesn't have a horribly frustrating control scheme. You either have to break the consistency of the controls or nullify group advantages to treat the cause, both of which punish people not being targeted by this change. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4489
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 00:52:31 -
[2707] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Incursions are in the spotlight, but your solution doesn't resolve the issue in regards to brocasted multiboxing so it missed the mark. It's a solution for a different problem which leaves the issue this change is designed to resolve untouched.
Mining sure, but if captcha's for bomber are just a nuisance. You're 1 of 3 on the concepts you cite without a detrimental impact on game play for non offenders. The fact that others gameplay with a single client is expendable and single client runner income nerfable so you can still retain an advantage seems pretty close to the "They came for the XXXX but I didn't say anything because I wasn't a XXXX" argument you decried above. So let me get this straight. Because his off the top of his head ideas don't instantly solve 2 out of the 3 gameplay issues, you'd rather write off the idea that gameplay should be balanced at all and go in favour of a change which will DEFINITELY not solve any of those issues?
Tyberius Franklin wrote:They can't treat the cause. As you said 2>1, but that is intentional for actually making social connections and cooperation worthwhile. The other cause is the relative ease of command inputs, so the 2 causes together are that this is a social game which doesn't have a horribly frustrating control scheme. You either have to break the consistency of the controls or nullify group advantages to treat the cause, both of which punish people not being targeted by this change. Of course they can treat the cause. It's a gameplay balance issue. Gameplay in several areas requires too little interaction and thus is too easy to play multiple times simultaneously - with or without braodcasting. They've balanced out many gameplay mechanics in the past and this should be no different. Considering they are working on a major UI overhaul too, it seems like the right time to do it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1292
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 00:55:14 -
[2708] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Lady Rift wrote:The goal is clear to ban multicast
And what they are doing is banning multicast.
are there other ways around it yes but ccp hasn't banned those yet.
They haven't banned isbox they banned multicast. They where clear they don't care how it was being done all ways are banned. The goal really isn't clear, since the change accomplishes nothing. Other than ceating a month where carebears will cheer about the death of ISboxer, before January rolls round, they still see hundreds of multiboxers and they lose their freaking minds of course. Maybe that's it. Maybe CCP is trolling carebears. It objectively accomplishes banning multicasting regardless of the opinions an individual player has on it's effectiveness in some other unstated goal, the effect on other players responses or CCP's efficacy in enforcement. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4489
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 01:02:00 -
[2709] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:It objectively accomplishes banning multicasting regardless of the opinions an individual player has on it's effectiveness in some other unstated goal, the effect on other players responses or CCP's efficacy in enforcement. Mate, we can keep going around in circle where you repeatedly stating that the goal of the change is the action itself for no reason other than "because", which makes no sense, so we'll get nowhere. What I'll continue to do is use what led to this change and what was spoken about by the CSM as pretty solid evidence of what the change is trying to accomplish. About this particular part of this change I'm not going to waste the time arguing with you about any further. Go educate yourself.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1292
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 01:06:52 -
[2710] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Incursions are in the spotlight, but your solution doesn't resolve the issue in regards to brocasted multiboxing so it missed the mark. It's a solution for a different problem which leaves the issue this change is designed to resolve untouched.
Mining sure, but if captcha's for bomber are just a nuisance. You're 1 of 3 on the concepts you cite without a detrimental impact on game play for non offenders. The fact that others gameplay with a single client is expendable and single client runner income nerfable so you can still retain an advantage seems pretty close to the "They came for the XXXX but I didn't say anything because I wasn't a XXXX" argument you decried above. So let me get this straight. Because his off the top of his head ideas don't instantly solve 2 out of the 3 gameplay issues, you'd rather write off the idea that gameplay should be balanced at all and go in favour of a change which will DEFINITELY not solve any of those issues? Tyberius Franklin wrote:They can't treat the cause. As you said 2>1, but that is intentional for actually making social connections and cooperation worthwhile. The other cause is the relative ease of command inputs, so the 2 causes together are that this is a social game which doesn't have a horribly frustrating control scheme. You either have to break the consistency of the controls or nullify group advantages to treat the cause, both of which punish people not being targeted by this change. Of course they can treat the cause. It's a gameplay balance issue. Gameplay in several areas requires too little interaction and thus is too easy to play multiple times simultaneously - with or without braodcasting. They've balanced out many gameplay mechanics in the past and this should be no different. Considering they are working on a major UI overhaul too, it seems like the right time to do it. The level of interaction becomes irrelevant if a single person can handle it because command broadcasting directly multiplies that responsiveness across the other clients. That's why only inconsistency in inputs, rather than quantity of inputs, can act against this issue. And fundamentally they have never done that. Rather, they've left the user with the capacity in the client alone to dictate how their inputs are configured. That capacity would need to be broken and input not statically mapped to actions.
Of the examples given a mining minigame does this, and so do captcha's. So herein we have the issue. Do we introduce "minigames" to all inputs? Use captcha's to turn on guns in incursions? I suppose we could replace all missions and incursions with minigame like systems, like hacking, but is that a positive change? |
|
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1292
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 01:09:07 -
[2711] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:It objectively accomplishes banning multicasting regardless of the opinions an individual player has on it's effectiveness in some other unstated goal, the effect on other players responses or CCP's efficacy in enforcement. Mate, we can keep going around in circle where you repeatedly stating that the goal of the change is the action itself for no reason other than "because", which makes no sense, so we'll get nowhere. What I'll continue to do is use what led to this change and what was spoken about by the CSM as pretty solid evidence of what the change is trying to accomplish. About this particular part of this change I'm not going to waste the time arguing with you about any further. Go educate yourself. "Because" isn't the reason I gave, but feel free to keep pretending it is. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4489
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 01:19:49 -
[2712] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:The level of interaction becomes irrelevant if a single person can handle it because command broadcasting directly multiplies that responsiveness across the other clients. That's why only inconsistency in inputs, rather than quantity of inputs, can act against this issue. And fundamentally they have never done that. Rather, they've left the user with the capacity in the client alone to dictate how their inputs are configured. That capacity would need to be broken and input not statically mapped to actions. Not if the interaction is specific to the client and the specific time it's being done, not exactly the same for every client performing it. For example, try using ISBoxer broadcasting to simultaneously probe down multiple wormholes. It won't happen.
Broadcasting is not intelligent behaviour. It does exactly the same on all clients. The only reason it works is because certain game mechanics are far too simple and require no thought. Beyond that though, it's obvious that even with broadcasting gone, there's still going to be exactly the same problems with people finding multiboxing unfair.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Of the examples given a mining minigame does this, and so do captcha's. So herein we have the issue. Do we introduce "minigames" to all inputs? Use captcha's to turn on guns in incursions? I suppose we could replace all missions and incursions with minigame like systems, like hacking, but is that a positive change? No, the mechanics need to be looked at in detail, not quickly glanced over with "how can we jam a fix in here". They are long overdue for an overhaul on several game play mechanics, certainly not least of which is mining which has been needing an overhaul for several years. Into each of these mechanics they need to make people have to think about what they are doing and act on their circumstances at the time, not just do exactly the same steps every single time and get exactly the same output.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:"Because" isn't the reason I gave, but feel free to keep pretending it is. No, you gave no reason, acting as if the change was put in for the specific reason of making the change. Like why should I turn left? Because I'm turning left. It's the action, not the reason. But seriously, I'm done arguing with you about it. Whatever you want to run off and think the reason is, go right ahead. I'll remain here with reality.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
306
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 01:27:22 -
[2713] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:That seems like you are saying that one cannot legitimately hold the opinion the command broadcasting is bad for the game. If it is, and I believe that to be the case than anything that effectively leaves it indistinguishable from broadcasting, where broadcasting is distinquishable advantageous unasisted multiboxing, should be banned.
We could go down this slippery slope, but I'm not as rationally I'd have a PvP opt in by now had any of the slippery slopes played out on this forum.
No, I'm saying I haven't seen an opinion that isn't "I don't wanna do it so he can't", "my feelings got hurt so he shouldn't do that", or "I don't know how it works so it should be banned", the last being similar to "I know nothing about bots or ISBoxer, so let's call ISBoxer a bot and maybe it will be true".
I'm sorry my off-the-cuff balance passes are not up to CCP standards, but then again I don't have a dev team to sit down and polish it up. I will now go hang myself in shame.
Instead of being a "No man" and shooting down anyone's suggestions of balance and changes to the game, why don't you try to come up with a reasonable balance to the three areas? Or are you too busy sticking your head in the sand and singing Ave Maria? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1292
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 01:38:19 -
[2714] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Not if the interaction is specific to the client and the specific time it's being done, not exactly the same for every client performing it. For example, try using ISBoxer broadcasting to simultaneously probe down multiple wormholes. It won't happen.
Broadcasting is not intelligent behaviour. It does exactly the same on all clients. The only reason it works is because certain game mechanics are far too simple and require no thought. Beyond that though, it's obvious that even with broadcasting gone, there's still going to be exactly the same problems with people finding multiboxing unfair.
...
No, the mechanics need to be looked at in detail, not quickly glanced over with "how can we jam a fix in here". They are long overdue for an overhaul on several game play mechanics, certainly not least of which is mining which has been needing an overhaul for several years. Into each of these mechanics they need to make people have to think about what they are doing and act on their circumstances at the time, not just do exactly the same steps every single time and get exactly the same output. That's what I was doing. Exploring the concept of what it takes to ensure client a has to be doing something different than client B. In the case of combat PvE that is never the case because reducing incoming damage and mitigating hostile repair always makes you want to have all your clients do the same thing. So are you saying the core fundamentals of all of Eve's in space combat is flawed?
Also to what point should this scale? How do we prevent small groups from broadcasting tasks in groups? Or is 2 players with 20 broadcasted clients not an issue while one guy with 10 is? As it is now each client acting individually is horrendously undesirable and that issue goes far deeper than content design into core mechanics and simple math. Resolve that and we're fundamentally playing a different game.
Quote:No, you gave no reason, acting as if the change was put in for the specific reason of making the change. Like why should I turn left? Because I'm turning left. It's the action, not the reason. But seriously, I'm done arguing with you about it. Whatever you want to run off and think the reason is, go right ahead. I'll remain here with reality. I've been constantly giving the reason present that the issue is what the capability brings. You claim this isn't the case but that seems like a mechanism to say that everyone but you is wrong about how this impacts the efficacy of multiboxing. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1292
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 01:48:30 -
[2715] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:That seems like you are saying that one cannot legitimately hold the opinion the command broadcasting is bad for the game. If it is, and I believe that to be the case than anything that effectively leaves it indistinguishable from broadcasting, where broadcasting is distinquishable advantageous unasisted multiboxing, should be banned.
We could go down this slippery slope, but I'm not as rationally I'd have a PvP opt in by now had any of the slippery slopes played out on this forum. No, I'm saying I haven't seen an opinion that isn't "I don't wanna do it so he can't", "my feelings got hurt so he shouldn't do that", or "I don't know how it works so it should be banned", the last being similar to "I know nothing about bots or ISBoxer, so let's call ISBoxer a bot and maybe it will be true". I'm sorry my off-the-cuff balance passes are not up to CCP standards, but then again I don't have a dev team to sit down and polish it up. I will now go hang myself in shame. Instead of being a "No man" and shooting down anyone's suggestions of balance and changes to the game, why don't you try to come up with a reasonable balance to the three areas? Or are you too busy sticking your head in the sand and singing Ave Maria? So basically because I pointed out that a suggestion had no effect whatsoever after a few moments of thought on the topic at hand I should give you a pass on investing those same few moments of thought.
You willful blindness to the reasoning is something I won't address from here forward though. Lucas Kell, for all that we have disagreed on sees a reason even if he should believe this has no effect on that, or so it would seem to me. You can't even come to that point.
But oddly I have been talking about the so called end to the issue, but have been clear that this is far more direct and addresses different manifestations of the issue better. If you think I'm wrong give me something other than self righteous soapboxing. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
306
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 02:05:24 -
[2716] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:So basically because I pointed out that a suggestion had no effect whatsoever after a few moments of thought on the topic at hand I should give you a pass on investing those same few moments of thought.
You willful blindness to the reasoning is something I won't address from here forward though. Lucas Kell, for all that we have disagreed on sees a reason even if he should believe this has no effect on that, or so it would seem to me. You can't even come to that point.
But oddly I have been talking about the so called end to the issue, but have been clear that this is far more direct and addresses different manifestations of the issue better. If you think I'm wrong give me something other than self righteous soapboxing.
Not at all. If you have an issue with my solution, instead of sidestepping the solution, I would have accepted any sort of constructive criticism. You claim that "captcha" for bombers are merely a nuisance. I have no doubt it'd be "merely" a nuisance for a single bomber, but for someone like Replicator, he wouldn't be able to launch his 60+ bombs and have them do damage, which is what we were discussing here. As for the mining minigame, it would reward active players sitting behind their keyboard and require concentration on their screen, not people who warp to a belt, hit F1, and walk away. It would also prevent ISBoxers from gaining the same advantage that would be given to the single miner.
As I've mentioned, I have not seen a proper argument set out by CCP or anyone else that supports the ban other than "muh feelings". If you would like to bring to my attention a valid reason, by all means, go ahead. But please stop circling around whenever I ask for a real reason by saying "you'll just ignore it". If your reason, and Kell's, is that it allows massive alpha strikes, why is it that ISBoxers are the only ones capable of such alpha strikes? Many if not all of the gank mails with non-boxers using Tornados achieved their kill with a coordinated alpha strike before the target could activate an appreciable tank after decloaking off a gate or undocking. Shall we ban gankers simply because someone "may" pull off a 140k alpha strike with 9 of his buddies in Tornados?
I'd love to know your definition of "soapboxing" because as far as I can tell, you apply it to anyone who presents an argument against the ban that isn't two sentences long. Just because a change is direct, or made with the best intentions, doesn't mean it's good, or that it will work as intended, or that it was targeting the right problem. If I think CCP is making a change for the wrong reasons or that will have the wrong outcome, I will say something, and I will attempt to posit other ideas or changes that may be, not necessarily *better*, but finer tuned than the sledgehammer approach. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
120
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 02:28:40 -
[2717] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:So basically because I pointed out that a suggestion had no effect whatsoever after a few moments of thought on the topic at hand I should give you a pass on investing those same few moments of thought.
You willful blindness to the reasoning is something I won't address from here forward though. Lucas Kell, for all that we have disagreed on sees a reason even if he should believe this has no effect on that, or so it would seem to me. You can't even come to that point.
But oddly I have been talking about the so called end to the issue, but have been clear that this is far more direct and addresses different manifestations of the issue better. If you think I'm wrong give me something other than self righteous soapboxing. Not at all. If you have an issue with my solution, instead of sidestepping the solution, I would have accepted any sort of constructive criticism. You claim that "captcha" for bombers are merely a nuisance. I have no doubt it'd be "merely" a nuisance for a single bomber, but for someone like Replicator, he wouldn't be able to launch his 60+ bombs and have them do damage, which is what we were discussing here. As for the mining minigame, it would reward active players sitting behind their keyboard and require concentration on their screen, not people who warp to a belt, hit F1, and walk away. It would also prevent ISBoxers from gaining the same advantage that would be given to the single miner. As I've mentioned, I have not seen a proper argument set out by CCP or anyone else that supports the ban other than "muh feelings". If you would like to bring to my attention a valid reason, by all means, go ahead. But please stop circling around whenever I ask for a real reason by saying "you'll just ignore it". If your reason, and Kell's, is that it allows massive alpha strikes, why is it that ISBoxers are the only ones capable of such alpha strikes? Many if not all of the gank mails with non-boxers using Tornados achieved their kill with a coordinated alpha strike before the target could activate an appreciable tank after decloaking off a gate or undocking. Shall we ban gankers simply because someone "may" pull off a 140k alpha strike with 9 of his buddies in Tornados? I'd love to know your definition of "soapboxing" because as far as I can tell, you apply it to anyone who presents an argument against the ban that isn't two sentences long. Just because a change is direct, or made with the best intentions, doesn't mean it's good, or that it will work as intended, or that it was targeting the right problem. If I think CCP is making a change for the wrong reasons or that will have the wrong outcome, I will say something, and I will attempt to posit other ideas or changes that may be, not necessarily *better*, but finer tuned than the sledgehammer approach.
so you want to make mining a more boring and pain in the ass job it than it already is by forcing miners to pay attention to the screen all the time to get there ****** rewards. Have you seen the complaining about the hacking minigame and how people dislike it and that at least has a chance of good isk behind it.
The reason they are banning it is in the op
"There are various ways to do it, and since thereGÇÖs been a lot of discussion surrounding what is and isnGÇÖt allowed, weGÇÖd like to clarify a few terms and exactly how the EULA and our Policies must be interpreted and how some things are shifting.
Over the last few weeks we have gone through an internal review process to clarify what exactly the EULA and ToS require in terms of input automation, input multiplexing and input broadcasting. This is the result of that review process and an outline of how we will interpret things going forward."
They want to clarify there TOS and EULA and after review have decided that input multiplexing is against the rules and they will be cracking down on its use.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1292
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 02:29:46 -
[2718] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Not at all. If you have an issue with my solution, instead of sidestepping the solution, I would have accepted any sort of constructive criticism. You claim that "captcha" for bombers are merely a nuisance. I have no doubt it'd be "merely" a nuisance for a single bomber, but for someone like Replicator, he wouldn't be able to launch his 60+ bombs and have them do damage, which is what we were discussing here. As for the mining minigame, it would reward active players sitting behind their keyboard and require concentration on their screen, not people who warp to a belt, hit F1, and walk away. It would also prevent ISBoxers from gaining the same advantage that would be given to the single miner.
As I've mentioned, I have not seen a proper argument set out by CCP or anyone else that supports the ban other than "muh feelings". If you would like to bring to my attention a valid reason, by all means, go ahead. But please stop circling around whenever I ask for a real reason by saying "you'll just ignore it". If your reason, and Kell's, is that it allows massive alpha strikes, why is it that ISBoxers are the only ones capable of such alpha strikes? Many if not all of the gank mails with non-boxers using Tornados achieved their kill with a coordinated alpha strike before the target could activate an appreciable tank after decloaking off a gate or undocking. Shall we ban gankers simply because someone "may" pull off a 140k alpha strike with 9 of his buddies in Tornados?
I'd love to know your definition of "soapboxing" because as far as I can tell, you apply it to anyone who presents an argument against the ban that isn't two sentences long. Just because a change is direct, or made with the best intentions, doesn't mean it's good, or that it will work as intended, or that it was targeting the right problem. If I think CCP is making a change for the wrong reasons or that will have the wrong outcome, I will say something, and I will attempt to posit other ideas or changes that may be, not necessarily *better*, but finer tuned than the sledgehammer approach. So here we have to agree to disagree as to whether pointing out the intentional creation of nuisances is constructive or sidestepping. We'll also have to agree to disagree with the concept that an action taken by a subset of players should be addressed by involving the whole player base in a non beneficial change.
As to the reason, it's again the multiplied capabilities of a single player. There is of course contention as far as where the extent of that divide lies, but that still moves well beyond the point of having no reason and into questioning efficacy. Even that statement that you don't believe capabilities at the player level shouldn't be a consideration that still leaves an actual acknowledgement for reasoning, but a disagreement with that reasoning.
And it's that level of acknowledgement that invalidates the idea retaliatory that if a group of people can do something it needs to be removed alongside allowing a single person to do it with the same number of clients as if they were one because we've moved past the hyperbolic conclusion that this is happening because people lose ships to alpha strikes.
And sandboxing is an appropriate term for continuing to promote the idea that this is an advantage one is entitled to have go unchanged because others are clearly failing in some capacity and can only "whine." But lets revisit the mechanics question because as stated in a prior post I'm still at an impasse. We still have basic combat mechanics pushing us in the direction of coordinated actions. That being the case how do we ensure multiple client roles in low number/single player activities involving purely combat? Missions for instance or most incursion sites currently being boxed. Even in the case we do assure multiple roles how do we prevent clients in a pure combat role from being boxed by a single individual, or do we not care about broadcasting if a second person is in the fleet? |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
306
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 03:42:01 -
[2719] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:So here we have to agree to disagree as to whether pointing out the intentional creation of nuisances is constructive or sidestepping. We'll also have to agree to disagree with the concept that an action taken by a subset of players should be addressed by involving the whole player base in a non beneficial change.
As to the reason, it's again the multiplied capabilities of a single player. There is of course contention as far as where the extent of that divide lies, but that still moves well beyond the point of having no reason and into questioning efficacy. Even that statement that you don't believe capabilities at the player level shouldn't be a consideration that still leaves an actual acknowledgement for reasoning, but a disagreement with that reasoning.
And it's that level of acknowledgement that invalidates the idea retaliatory that if a group of people can do something it needs to be removed alongside allowing a single person to do it with the same number of clients as if they were one because we've moved past the hyperbolic conclusion that this is happening because people lose ships to alpha strikes.
And sandboxing is an appropriate term for continuing to promote the idea that this is an advantage one is entitled to have go unchanged because others are clearly failing in some capacity and can only "whine." But lets revisit the mechanics question because as stated in a prior post I'm still at an impasse. We still have basic combat mechanics pushing us in the direction of coordinated actions. That being the case how do we ensure multiple client roles in low number/single player activities involving purely combat? Missions for instance or most incursion sites currently being boxed. Even in the case we do assure multiple roles how do we prevent clients in a pure combat role from being boxed by a single individual, or do we not care about broadcasting if a second person is in the fleet?
I guess we will have to disagree. I'm willing to sit at the table and listen to your arguments so long as they aren't "muh feelings", and you aren't willing to sit and talk unless you get to talk about "muh feelings". CCP has proven they are happy changing "one" thing that targeted a subset of their playerbase that would involve the rest of the players. It's not anything different.
There are skills in EVE that can 'multiply the capability", as you say of what a player can do that can seem "unfair" to someone less trained. Market order skills, contracting skills, industry skills, Fleet bonus skills.... the list goes on. Not even counting simple dualboxing with no extra software. If we take two players fighting each other with two accounts each, the one with better dualboxing skills or micromanagement skills will come out on top. I believe strongly in skill at the player level. To imply otherwise is outright lying. To imply that player skill is not involved in incursion fleets, in bomber fleets, or in mining fleets, is ludicrous, and anyone who's spent a decent amount of time in the aforementioned professions will laugh you out of system local.
It's not just the alpha strike example I brought up, but I will give you credit for attempting to cherry-pick. People have been for ages saying "I don't want to sub 10 accounts for my mining fleet, so why should he?" and I was attempting to provide a situation where one does not need to sub 10 accounts to "match" the boxer. There is no situation in EVE where a fleet of equally skilled and experienced pilots as an ISBoxer cannot attain the same or greater efficiency as an ISBoxer with the possible exception of creating a new set of characters that look exactly the same and are designated numerically.
I'll presume you meant "soapboxing" when you were typing. I'll reverse your argument:
"this is an advantage one is entitled to have changed because others are flying their own fleet of clients and spend no time attempting to better themselves, disrupt the gameplay of the ISBoxer, move out of the area, or otherwise perform some action that does not involve running to mommy." There is very little CCP can do to limit the number of clients a person can use when one considers that university dorms and other similar forms of housing generally have the same outgoing IP for multiple computers. CCP created an upper limit to the number of clients one can box in incursions by limiting site payout. They also changed how ice spawns. No doubt they have other tricks up their sleeves that we haven't seen yet, and I will reserve judgement till I see it posted by CCP themselves. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1292
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 04:18:00 -
[2720] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:I guess we will have to disagree. I'm willing to sit at the table and listen to your arguments so long as they aren't "muh feelings", and you aren't willing to sit and talk unless you get to talk about "muh feelings". CCP has proven they are happy changing "one" thing that targeted a subset of their playerbase that would involve the rest of the players. It's not anything different. Yeah, I purposely and directly divorced from the concept of "feelings" in reasoning in the very post you responded to. Yet I still get this in response. That's why I stated we were done talking about reasons.
Nolak Ataru wrote:There are skills in EVE that can 'multiply the capability", as you say of what a player can do that can seem "unfair" to someone less trained. Market order skills, contracting skills, industry skills, Fleet bonus skills.... the list goes on. Not even counting simple dualboxing with no extra software. If we take two players fighting each other with two accounts each, the one with better dualboxing skills or micromanagement skills will come out on top. I believe strongly in skill at the player level. To imply otherwise is outright lying. To imply that player skill is not involved in incursion fleets, in bomber fleets, or in mining fleets, is ludicrous, and anyone who's spent a decent amount of time in the aforementioned professions will laugh you out of system local.
It's not just the alpha strike example I brought up, but I will give you credit for attempting to cherry-pick. People have been for ages saying "I don't want to sub 10 accounts for my mining fleet, so why should he?" and I was attempting to provide a situation where one does not need to sub 10 accounts to "match" the boxer. There is no situation in EVE where a fleet of equally skilled and experienced pilots as an ISBoxer cannot attain the same or greater efficiency as an ISBoxer with the possible exception of creating a new set of characters that look exactly the same and are designated numerically.
I'll presume you meant "soapboxing" when you were typing. I'll reverse your argument:
"this is an advantage one is entitled to have changed because others are flying their own fleet of clients and spend no time attempting to better themselves, disrupt the gameplay of the ISBoxer, move out of the area, or otherwise perform some action that does not involve running to mommy." There is very little CCP can do to limit the number of clients a person can use when one considers that university dorms and other similar forms of housing generally have the same outgoing IP for multiple computers. CCP created an upper limit to the number of clients one can box in incursions by limiting site payout. They also changed how ice spawns. No doubt they have other tricks up their sleeves that we haven't seen yet, and I will reserve judgement till I see it posted by CCP themselves. We have no disagreement on the concept if player skill, but I would ask how that is related to the change as I missed the tie in. Similarly I missed how CCP created and controlled advantages shouldn't or can't be evaluated separately from the various advantages provided by differing functions in 3rd party software.
Also I'm lost as to how responding to a scenario you created means I'm cherry picking. Do I have to expand every scenario you give me to every in game activity for it to be in some way valid? Moving beyond that we've come to a comparison between a group of players and a broadcaster, which makes sense only if we take the position that CCP need not be concerned with what single players can do, but rather only what groups of clients of a given size can do. Given this decision and the CSM minutes I don't think that's the conclusion being reached. I don't see a reason why that point of view is in error.
And yes, I meant soapboxing, failure on my part and sorry for the confusion.
I'm missing something in the last paragraph beyond that though. If it is what I think it is, more crying on your part because people have the capacity to disagree with you and voice that disagreement, please note that you are not entitled to have your fits invalidate the feedback of other players by pretending you actions within the game are limited to the grid you happen to reside in.
I get the latter portion about limitations in some regards, though conversely limited resources favor being able to massively ramp up harvesting capacity, falling squarely in the multiboxer's favor, meanwhile while site limitations cap the number of raw clients that can pushed into a task they still allow for interruptions to be minimized by limiting downtime and pick up to the whims and organization of a single person, as well as eliminating any need for gathering or coordination on the part of other fleet members just to be able to start doing anything. |
|
|
Lupe Meza
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
40
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 04:40:10 -
[2721] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:I guess we will have to disagree. I'm willing to sit at the table and listen to your arguments so long as they aren't "muh feelings", and you aren't willing to sit and talk unless you get to talk about "muh feelings". CCP has proven they are happy changing "one" thing that targeted a subset of their playerbase that would involve the rest of the players. It's not anything different. Yeah, I purposely and directly divorced from the concept of "feelings" in reasoning in the very post you responded to. Yet I still get this in response. That's why I stated we were done talking about reasons. Nolak Ataru wrote:There are skills in EVE that can 'multiply the capability", as you say of what a player can do that can seem "unfair" to someone less trained. Market order skills, contracting skills, industry skills, Fleet bonus skills.... the list goes on. Not even counting simple dualboxing with no extra software. If we take two players fighting each other with two accounts each, the one with better dualboxing skills or micromanagement skills will come out on top. I believe strongly in skill at the player level. To imply otherwise is outright lying. To imply that player skill is not involved in incursion fleets, in bomber fleets, or in mining fleets, is ludicrous, and anyone who's spent a decent amount of time in the aforementioned professions will laugh you out of system local.
It's not just the alpha strike example I brought up, but I will give you credit for attempting to cherry-pick. People have been for ages saying "I don't want to sub 10 accounts for my mining fleet, so why should he?" and I was attempting to provide a situation where one does not need to sub 10 accounts to "match" the boxer. There is no situation in EVE where a fleet of equally skilled and experienced pilots as an ISBoxer cannot attain the same or greater efficiency as an ISBoxer with the possible exception of creating a new set of characters that look exactly the same and are designated numerically.
I'll presume you meant "soapboxing" when you were typing. I'll reverse your argument:
"this is an advantage one is entitled to have changed because others are flying their own fleet of clients and spend no time attempting to better themselves, disrupt the gameplay of the ISBoxer, move out of the area, or otherwise perform some action that does not involve running to mommy." There is very little CCP can do to limit the number of clients a person can use when one considers that university dorms and other similar forms of housing generally have the same outgoing IP for multiple computers. CCP created an upper limit to the number of clients one can box in incursions by limiting site payout. They also changed how ice spawns. No doubt they have other tricks up their sleeves that we haven't seen yet, and I will reserve judgement till I see it posted by CCP themselves. We have no disagreement on the concept if player skill, but I would ask how that is related to the change as I missed the tie in. Similarly I missed how CCP created and controlled advantages shouldn't or can't be evaluated separately from the various advantages provided by differing functions in 3rd party software. Also I'm lost as to how responding to a scenario you created means I'm cherry picking. Do I have to expand every scenario you give me to every in game activity for it to be in some way valid? Moving beyond that we've come to a comparison between a group of players and a broadcaster, which makes sense only if we take the position that CCP need not be concerned with what single players can do, but rather only what groups of clients of a given size can do. Given this decision and the CSM minutes I don't think that's the conclusion being reached. I don't see a reason why that point of view is in error. And yes, I meant soapboxing, failure on my part and sorry for the confusion. I'm missing something in the last paragraph beyond that though. If it is what I think it is, more crying on your part because people have the capacity to disagree with you and voice that disagreement, please note that you are not entitled to have your fits invalidate the feedback of other players by pretending you actions within the game are limited to the grid you happen to reside in. I get the latter portion about limitations in some regards, though conversely limited resources favor being able to massively ramp up harvesting capacity, falling squarely in the multiboxer's favor, meanwhile while site limitations cap the number of raw clients that can pushed into a task they still allow for interruptions to be minimized by limiting downtime and pick up to the whims and organization of a single person, as well as eliminating any need for gathering or coordination on the part of other fleet members just to be able to start doing anything.
Uh...did this guy just win the Internet?
What happens now?
|
Mike Adoulin
Adolescent Radioactive Pirate Hamsters
1026
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 06:09:03 -
[2722] - Quote
About goddamn time.
+1 CCP.
Everything in EVE is a trap.
And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)
You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.
Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.
|
Alexa Machavela
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 06:28:18 -
[2723] - Quote
Rawthorm wrote:... I don't think they began to come close to outweighing the benefits such as making Ice easy to harvest leaving the rest of us time to actually play the more fun aspects of EvE rather than spend half our lives slowly grinding icecubes.
Almost every player in EvE has benefited from cheaper fuel and cheaper ships because of those using ISBoxer, so is an overriding ban worth it just to get rid of a few trolling bombers on your space?
Non-ISBoxing high sec miners complain about ISBoxers taking nearly all the ice in high sec. After all, it's hard to make a profit mining ice that isn't there because some greedy ISBoxer mined it all.
Your conclusion: Non-ISBoxing high miners love it when ISBoxers mine all the ice out from under them as it saves them time.
Seems legit.
Wait, we can't stop here, this is Bat Country
-Nulli
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4489
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 10:15:09 -
[2724] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:That's what I was doing. Exploring the concept of what it takes to ensure client a has to be doing something different than client B. In the case of combat PvE that is never the case because reducing incoming damage and mitigating hostile repair always makes you want to have all your clients do the same thing. So are you saying the core fundamentals of all of Eve's in space combat is flawed? No, I'm saying that EVE PVE is flawed. The fact that you can look up a mission or a site and see exactly every wave that will come out including triggers and how they will act is evidence of this. Think about normal PvP. You couldn't multibox a fleet in a normal PvP fight. Like the AT, you could't multibox an AT fight and hope to win. If PvE required more roles than just DPS and reps, then it would already be more difficult to multibox and more interesting to play.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Also to what point should this scale? How do we prevent small groups from broadcasting tasks in groups? Or is 2 players with 20 broadcasted clients not an issue while one guy with 10 is? As it is now each client acting individually is horrendously undesirable and that issue goes far deeper than content design into core mechanics and simple math. Resolve that and we're fundamentally playing a different game. That would be entirely up to CCP to decide. Like with drone assist, they have statistics they can use in the background to work out where to end up to cut out "bad" behaviour and keep in legitimate use cases. However you look at it though, using one feature of ISBoxer asa scapegoat for gameplay balance issues is the wrong way to go.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1292
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 20:38:42 -
[2725] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:No, I'm saying that EVE PVE is flawed. The fact that you can look up a mission or a site and see exactly every wave that will come out including triggers and how they will act is evidence of this. Think about normal PvP. You couldn't multibox a fleet in a normal PvP fight. Like the AT, you could't multibox an AT fight and hope to win. If PvE required more roles than just DPS and reps, then it would already be more difficult to multibox and more interesting to play.
...
That would be entirely up to CCP to decide. Like with drone assist, they have statistics they can use in the background to work out where to end up to cut out "bad" behaviour and keep in legitimate use cases. However you look at it though, using one feature of ISBoxer asa scapegoat for gameplay balance issues is the wrong way to go. The static nature of the content is a separate issue. Even if you had different triggers, waves, spawn points etc for each instance of a mission it doesn't create a reason for clients to be doing different things. If there is a jammer on the field, the fact that you didn't know it was coming doesn't mean you don't eliminate it with a focused volley. If something has high repair capacity or is giving RR you still want to focus fire on it to burn it down regardless of whether you could read about it showing up or not.
Now, yes, if you build the necessity of more roles into PvE, sure, and that may even be for the best. However, looking at an effort and effectiveness standpoint, if you have a problem with what is going on now, regardless of what opinions may have been in the past, it doesn't make sense to wait until you overhaul every PvE encounter to takes steps to mitigate it.
Or maybe it does to some people considering how long this has been allowed, but it doesn't change the fact that this is the biggest, simplest step that can be taken right now, even if gameplay alterations aren't being made alongside it.
|
SJ Astralana
Syncore
80
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 12:02:43 -
[2726] - Quote
Longtom McGregor wrote:
CCP reserve the right to change the terms.
Pray they don't alter them further.
Hyperdrive your production business: Eve Production Manager
|
Zoya Talvanen
BllitzenMacht
Hedgehog Concepts
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 20:53:33 -
[2727] - Quote
Well, I have given away most of my characters and was preparing to distribute assets and unsub this one when I saw this. The use cases people have mentioned do not touch the slimier ones.
Suppose you have a POS and a genuine alliance with one char per player, or maybe two in simple dualboxing. Along comes some multiboxer using input multiplexing and broadcasting for a mining fleet and finds that he gets to strip only half a system because one of your corporations is eating the other rocks and reprocessing at a POS. With the income from his 20 accounts he has enough ISK left over after PLEXing them all to hire mercs to wardec the whole alliance.
A fleet of 17 toons, a fleet of 20 toons, a fleet of 50 toons, I have seen them all. An ice anomaly folds in less than an hour against a 50-toon fleet. There were some broadcast incursion fleets that were helping ordinary incursion fleets manipulate the game to maximize production of benefits, so some incursion fleets had a rule about banning players from their fleets who turned in any multiboxers for botting.
Well, I still have this account and I will renew a few more times to see what happens. It is sad that CCP took this long to deal with it, but their policy is correct from my viewpoint, well, almost correct. How many macro uses can be masked by routing through the ISBoxer server?
One nice result of this inaction (dating back to 2010) is that our alliance did develop a theoretical fleet doctrine to mine in low where bot hordes are less common. Unfortunately, we have been unable to implement it for lack of trained pilots.
Ah well, thanks, CCP.
Zoya
|
Zoya Talvanen
BllitzenMacht
Hedgehog Concepts
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 21:23:48 -
[2728] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:So....all of isboxer banned by sometime 2015? That's probably whats going to happen if ccp realizes that the multiboxing community is getting around the "spirit of the law," as it were. Pretty much. The problem is they won't really be able to ban things like round robin or global keybinds, as there's no reliable way to detect whether a player is actually switching to a screen an pushing the button or if the button is doing the switch and push itself. That's why the change will always be pretty much ineffective. The reason they are only banning broadcasting is because that's pretty much the only control method used by multiboxers they can actually detect. The change they need to make is to make the gameplay more interactive, so multiboxing even with broadcasts is either more difficult of less rewarding per character than playing with full attention on a single client. That would actually fix the problem.
Yes, our fleet doctrine for lowsec mining is definitely highly interactive. You cannot AFK for more than 20 seconds while actively playing. One approach to making mining more interactive is to reduce mining barge capacity (but not productivity) so that attention is required frequently. And for incursions, the off-grid bonuses could be sharply reduced, but that isn't adequate in either case.
One certain thing is that no matter what CCP does, some folk will find a way to circumvent it. If we really want a more orderly community, it is likely the players who will have to do it with their own actions, and those sorts of actions cannot be done easily in hisec. Wardecs against the circumventers will produce wardecs from mercs and the circumventers will almost always have more ISK.
Then they came for the solo players, and I did not speak out because I wasn't a solo player. There are actually solo player niches, and "making things more interactive" could eliminate some of them. Any remedy is going to require more thought and planning than we can achieve in this media. What CCP is doing is probably a step in the right direction, and I support it, but it is just part of a continuous improvement process. When the whole problem is too difficult to solve, you try to make changes to solve the largest part of it you can, then freeze that and look for what else rears its ugly head.
Zoya
|
Jadzia-Dax
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 02:36:41 -
[2729] - Quote
Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer?
FYI, ISBoxer can still be used! Using the broadcast mode is not required to multibox in most cases. Look at mining, the broadcast modes were more for quality of life use but not required. Rather then broadcast mode dropping all the ore from all ships at one time, don't use that function and click on the screen and do it individually.
So to all the cryers out there who hate multiboxing miners, we can still box and mine and not violate the EULA. Sorry for the bad news, lol!!
FYI, ISBoxer only does the below when you want it to. So to remain legal you just don't do those actions and those actions are few when it comes to mining.
"Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game." |
Meutrich
Honor and Ethics
Keiretsu Kapital
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 09:15:25 -
[2730] - Quote
Quite a very good change!
Gives quality of gameplay back to a lot of players, willing to play a nice game. For sure, if any kind of input automation can really be discovered and will be followed up with all consequences.
Hooray for seeing 30+ NPC-corp mining fleets vanishing!
Hooray for seeing bomber fleets vanishing!
Hooray for this change! Can we get it earlier? Maybe - now?
And KUDOS to all those multiboxers, that nover bothered using any automation tool! |
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4492
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 09:53:07 -
[2731] - Quote
Meutrich wrote:Gives quality of gameplay back to a lot of players, willing to play a nice game. For sure, if any kind of input automation can really be discovered and will be followed up with all consequences. What quality of gameplay changes are you expecting to see? Very little will change following this.
Meutrich wrote:Hooray for seeing 30+ NPC-corp mining fleets vanishing! These will still exist. They existed before ISBoxer was popular, they will still exist with 1 single feature of ISBoxer removed.
Meutrich wrote:Hooray for seeing bomber fleets vanishing! These will not change at all, as the changes don't affect bombers much at all. Bomber waves are limited by game mechanics, which means large scale bomber fleets get controlled in small groups. Round robin keybinds pretty much eliminate any noticeable impact from this change.
Meutrich wrote:And KUDOS to all those multiboxers, that nover bothered using any automation tool! It's not automation, so basically you just said "KUDOS to multiboxers that either do or don't use ISBoxer".
Good job buddy. This is why people should need to be educated in a subject before they are allowed to post. I can't wait for the buckets of tears when you still see multibox fleets all over and realise just how little this changes.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Meutrich
Honor and Ethics
Keiretsu Kapital
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 10:48:15 -
[2732] - Quote
[quote=Lucas KellGood job buddy. This is why people should need to be educated in a subject before they are allowed to post. I can't wait for the buckets of tears when you still see multibox fleets all over and realise just how little this changes.[/quote]
Respect. You entirely got the point and are spot on.
I never ever referred to ISBoxer. I referred to the original CCP Post for punishing input automation with any means. While wondering, how they do it, it will punish, as they said, any kind of input automation, not ISBoxer only.
This of course will help vanish the large automated fleets of any kind, as it is a pita, managing large style accounts manually, if at least possible. People are different, but if you ever tried, boxing 4 or more accounts for simple mining and station hauling, you should know that. Unless you are pissed, because you always did that automated...
Next, once for example the giant fleets for ice mining are gone, the ice mining cartell is gone, which opens up the competition for ice mining and ice products again. And therefore the market.
I'm very curious, if we really see the ice products price sky rocket or if we see them first rise a bit, and as more and more real miners jump into it, they will fall pretty fast...
I guess, most people can follow on this. Maybe not everybody, but it is not my problem.
As well as most other people catch all the ironie. Not all, but most.
Fly safe and enjoy yourself :) |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4496
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 12:29:04 -
[2733] - Quote
Meutrich wrote:I never ever referred to ISBoxer. I referred to the original CCP Post for punishing input automation with any means. While wondering, how they do it, it will punish, as they said, any kind of input automation, not ISBoxer only. It's not automation they are banning. Automation is already banned and has been as long as I can remember. Input broadcasting is not automation.
Meutrich wrote:This of course will help vanish the large automated fleets of any kind, as it is a pita, managing large style accounts manually, if at least possible. People are different, but if you ever tried, boxing 4 or more accounts for simple mining and station hauling, you should know that. Unless you are pissed, because you always did that automated... Why will it help that disappear? Round robin keybinds will allow you to not have to switch between clients, as will VideoFX - 2 allowed and available features of ISBoxer. Even with broadcasting available, the vast majority of the time you are using VideoFX to control your clients as it allows granular control. If you think removing broadcasting will have much of an effect on most multiboxers, then you fundamentally misunderstand how ISBoxer is used. And again, it's not automation.
Meutrich wrote:Next, once for example the giant fleets for ice mining are gone, the ice mining cartell is gone, which opens up the competition for ice mining and ice products again. And therefore the market. Which won't happen. Mining gets done by massive multibox fleets because it requires so little input to do. The biggest advantage ISBoxer gives to allow mass multiboxing fleets is that it restricts your CPU usage and the FPS of each client, allowing you to run considerably more clients on a single PC. Until CCP prevent that, you will still see plenty of giant mining fleets, and they will still be the ones stripping the ice.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
217
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 13:56:58 -
[2734] - Quote
I can't tell if people are being serious or not.
I could trivially control 20 freighters with alt tab all traveling different routes. You have a minute between warps.
Mining is even easier and more trivial. 20 accounts with nothing but alt tab would be easy. While you can multibox there will be fleets of miners under the control of one person.
Now in PvP that would get pretty tricky.
As for these vast fleets of PvP isboxers, please show me them (i think in the last thread one one person could be shown to have done anything in the last 3 months! ). Fact is they don't exist. There is a very small number of people doing the 20+ account thing. Most of us are doing the 3-5 account thing.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Dizzy Greencow
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
8
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 15:13:13 -
[2735] - Quote
Speaking as someone who was using multiple accounts to mine with and using isboxer's key broadcast features to do so, I was disappointed with CCP's decision but could understand some of the reasoning behind it.
I was also concerned about the fact that I'd paid for advanced subscriptions for accounts that I would no longer be able to effectively manage without the use of isboxer's broadcasting features.
I put in a petition regarding this and was referred to customer support, who have been kind enough to offer me an equitable solution to my concerns. They agreed to transfer the remaining game time credits that I'd prepaid on accounts I'd no longer be able to use, to the couple of accounts that I will be keeping.
I would just like to give a public acknowledgement and thanks to GMs Cydonnia and Stardust for arranging these transfers, which totalled over 3 years of game time, to the accounts I will be keeping. This gesture is very much appreciated.
If anyone else finds themselves in a similar position, with game time credits paid in advance on accounts they believe will no longer be effective, I would recommend contacting CCP customer support who have been been understanding and very helpful to me. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4501
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 15:45:17 -
[2736] - Quote
Dizzy Greencow wrote:I was also concerned about the fact that I'd paid for advanced subscriptions for accounts that I would no longer be able to effectively manage without the use of isboxer's broadcasting features. What can you possibly have been doing that you can't do just as easily with VideoFX and round robin?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Dizzy Greencow
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
11
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 18:29:42 -
[2737] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dizzy Greencow wrote:I was also concerned about the fact that I'd paid for advanced subscriptions for accounts that I would no longer be able to effectively manage without the use of isboxer's broadcasting features. What can you possibly have been doing that you can't do just as easily with VideoFX and round robin?
As I said, mining. I had rorq booster (mostly set in a safe spot and leave to boost), a dedicated hauler toon for can mining and a miner using selective broadcasting to repeat to the other miners. Basically, 3 clients to monitor (1 of which was largely set and forget) so actually 2 clients that required a reasonable amount of input/monitoring... which is what I've ended up with after streamlining my accounts.
I can use vfx and there are a few uses for it that I may employ, but when it comes for using it for the mini mining fleet I was running, I simply don't have the dexterity to manage the accounts that I had subbed in the way I could with selective broadcasting. Not all of us are blessed enough to be free of medical conditions.
It's kind of a moot point anyway now as I've already made my decision and streamlined my accounts down to what I can manage without broadcasting. My post was just an acknowledgement/thank you to the customer support staff who aided me and heads up to let anyone in a similar position to myself know that CCP are willing to be flexible and helpful.
Perhaps rather than trying to insinuate anything, you could just accept the post for what it was?
Thanks. ;) |
destur
AY YILDIZ
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 19:04:00 -
[2738] - Quote
yep bannnnnnn all both miner //
thank you CCP
destur-gangway
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
6901
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 20:58:25 -
[2739] - Quote
destur wrote:yep bannnnnnn all both miner / / thank you CCP
CCP has been good enough to give us many official language forums. Russian, German, French and Japanese for example.
But what would really clean this place up is if they made an official 'Broken English' forum to move stuff like this to.
Mr Epeen
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
Requiem Eternal
16
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 21:13:24 -
[2740] - Quote
i almost want to make an 50 accounts to og mining ice With (by stacking the windows) (i dont like mining) But all the tears <3 (i just had to say it) Well, idk what to do. But Things like this want me to do it almost. |
|
|
ShadowNeo29
O.S.E.F
11
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 11:59:04 -
[2741] - Quote
Yeah finally.
ISBoxer would never have been allowed according to the EULA.
But ! We know some people will get a free ban because the dectection is not perfect.
And sadly GMs don't care about what they do, fair or not.
After investigations, we can say they also ban players who play normally and they don't care about the 2 strike policy: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/begun-the-bot-war-has/ and allow themselves to ban for life.
But like in real life, justice allow some collateral damages. Nothing personal. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4508
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 12:34:19 -
[2742] - Quote
ShadowNeo29 wrote:Yeah finally. ISBoxer would never have been allowed according to the EULA. But ! We know some people will get a free ban because the dectection is not perfect. And sadly GMs don't care about what they do, fair or not. After investigations, we can say they also ban players who play normally and they don't care about the 2 strike policy: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/begun-the-bot-war-has/ and allow themselves to ban for life. But like in real life, justice allow some collateral damages. Nothing personal. Just FYI, ISBoxer is not banned. One single feature (not even the most important feature) is banned. Seems like you missed that.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
ShadowNeo29
O.S.E.F
11
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 13:11:23 -
[2743] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:ShadowNeo29 wrote:Yeah finally. ISBoxer would never have been allowed according to the EULA. But ! We know some people will get a free ban because the dectection is not perfect. And sadly GMs don't care about what they do, fair or not. After investigations, we can say they also ban players who play normally and they don't care about the 2 strike policy: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/begun-the-bot-war-has/ and allow themselves to ban for life. But like in real life, justice allow some collateral damages. Nothing personal. Just FYI, ISBoxer is not banned. One single feature (not even the most important feature) is banned. Seems like you missed that.
"You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play"
ISBoxer is a third-party software used for facilitate stuff's acquisition. It's not a normal gameplay than "just an human" multiboxer without any program (switching windows or using several computers, all manually). |
Hitamino
Better with Bovril
The Bovril Collective
15
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 14:04:21 -
[2744] - Quote
I like ISBOXER |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4508
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 14:52:35 -
[2745] - Quote
ShadowNeo29 wrote:"You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play"
ISBoxer is a third-party software used for facilitate stuff's acquisition. It's not a normal gameplay than "just an human" multiboxer without any program (switching windows or using several computers, all manually). Read the OP. Look at CCP randoms information graphic. The only thing being banned is input broadcasting for in-game actions. Using ISBoxer is allowed, Using ISBoxers window and hardware management is allowed, using round robin/VFX (seems to be) allowed, even using broadcasting to log in and set up client settings is allowed. This has all been said multiple times.
Strictly speaking, using the part of the EULA you have quoted above, ELinor, EFT, jeveassets, eve-mentant, eve-central, eve-marketdata, etc - and even marketing spreadsheets - are against the EULA as they "facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play".
So yeah. Don't get yourself over excited without fact checking first.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
120
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 15:15:04 -
[2746] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:ShadowNeo29 wrote:"You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play"
ISBoxer is a third-party software used for facilitate stuff's acquisition. It's not a normal gameplay than "just an human" multiboxer without any program (switching windows or using several computers, all manually). Read the OP. Look at CCP randoms information graphic. The only thing being banned is input broadcasting for in-game actions. Using ISBoxer is allowed, Using ISBoxers window and hardware management is allowed, using round robin/VFX (seems to be) allowed, even using broadcasting to log in and set up client settings is allowed. This has all been said multiple times. Strictly speaking, using the part of the EULA you have quoted above, ELinor, EFT, jeveassets, eve-mentant, eve-central, eve-marketdata, etc - and even marketing spreadsheets - are against the EULA as they "facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play". So yeah. Don't get yourself over excited without fact checking first.
All of which they might one day enforce if they wanted and wouldnt have to change there eula |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
190
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 15:15:28 -
[2747] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:ShadowNeo29 wrote:"You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play"
ISBoxer is a third-party software used for facilitate stuff's acquisition. It's not a normal gameplay than "just an human" multiboxer without any program (switching windows or using several computers, all manually). Read the OP. Look at CCP randoms information graphic. The only thing being banned is input broadcasting for in-game actions. Using ISBoxer is allowed, Using ISBoxers window and hardware management is allowed, using round robin/VFX (seems to be) allowed, even using broadcasting to log in and set up client settings is allowed. This has all been said multiple times. Strictly speaking, using the part of the EULA you have quoted above, ELinor, EFT, jeveassets, eve-mentant, eve-central, eve-marketdata, etc - and even marketing spreadsheets - are against the EULA as they "facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play". So yeah. Don't get yourself over excited without fact checking first.
Stop fogging the issue again...since when has eve-central let you control a multitude of logged on clients via one click?
I know what he meant, everyone reading this knows what he meant.
You can keep up the belligerent argumentative attitude for as long as you want, this has been coming for a long time.
Over 2 years ago I spoke about this very problem to John Lander in Newcastle, CCP were watching then how it was going to go...now they've seen and they've acted.
The only thing wrong as far as i'm concerned is they should ban it utterly and completely, and every similar programme. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4509
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 15:23:40 -
[2748] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Stop fogging the issue again...since when has eve-central let you control a multitude of logged on clients via one click?
I know what he meant, everyone reading this knows what he meant. I'm not "fogging" anything. He pointed out how the EULA applies, I pointed out that it would also apply to a lot of other things.
It's simple. ISBoxer *is not banned*. I know that some of you would like to to be, but it's not. The only thing banned, is input broadcasting. You can keep leaping about screeching, but that's simply the way it is.
Drago Shouna wrote:The only thing wrong as far as i'm concerned is they should ban it utterly and completely, and every similar programme. Only time will tell if that will happen. If it does, other people will still find other ways to be better at EVE than you and you'll cry about that too, because at the end of the day this all comes down to jealousy.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
120
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 15:31:44 -
[2749] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:Stop fogging the issue again...since when has eve-central let you control a multitude of logged on clients via one click?
I know what he meant, everyone reading this knows what he meant. I'm not "fogging" anything. He pointed out how the EULA applies, I pointed out that it would also apply to a lot of other things. It's simple. ISBoxer *is not banned*. I know that some of you would like to to be, but it's not. The only thing banned, is input broadcasting. You can keep leaping about screeching, but that's simply the way it is. Drago Shouna wrote:The only thing wrong as far as i'm concerned is they should ban it utterly and completely, and every similar programme. Only time will tell if that will happen. If it does, other people will still find other ways to be better at EVE than you and you'll cry about that too, because at the end of the day this all comes down to jealousy. Lady Rift wrote:All of which they might one day enforce if they wanted and wouldnt have to change there eula They might indeed. I very much doubt they will, but they might. If the real complaint is "people gaining items at an accelerated rate" then they really should. You can make far more trading than any ISBoxer user can make thanks to the marketing tools out there.
CCP has stated that some of there other programs are in violation of the eula in terms of cachescraping but they wouldn't enforce it.
All this move did was clarifying parts of there eula and tell people that they will be enforcing part of it to cut back on the tears when people get banned. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
217
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 15:33:36 -
[2750] - Quote
Yea and then ban mulitboxing cus it should only be one person one account. And ban battleships cus they kill me all the time, and ban plex, cus its not fair that others get an advantage that i don't have. And ban corps since i don't have friends and well that makes it unfair to me against people who do have friends.
Multiboxing will never be banned for the very simple reason that entire ships classes are based around them. And well then your splitting hairs on a multiboxing tool and a OS. Linux lets you set up isboxer like features out of the box.
If you want a perfectly even playing field, there is always chess and go.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
|
|
Enteron Anabente
Provisional Provisions
32
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 15:43:32 -
[2751] - Quote
Hi there,
I was directed to this thread by a GM when I petitioned to ask the following question--can one of the GMs or devs clarify this for me?
Back in 2010 GM Lelouch posted: "'macros' which allow you to group different commands into one keypress are allowed. For example, setting your G1 key to press F1, F2, F3 and so on for you with one key press is allowed (although this specific command is not as useful as it was before now that we have weapon grouping)."
source: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1291641&page=10#274
I would like clarification on whether this ruling still stands. Specifically, is it still allowable to use a keyboard macro to activate multiple modules (within a single client) simultaneously: for example, to activate a set of hardeners, reps (remote or local), smartbombs, etc., since these modules cannot be grouped?
Please note that I am referring to actions that affect only one client. This is not a multiboxing use-case.
Thanks! |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
218
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 15:47:33 -
[2752] - Quote
Enteron Anabente wrote:Hi there, I was directed to this thread by a GM when I petitioned to ask the following question--can one of the GMs or devs clarify this for me? Back in 2010 GM Lelouch posted: "'macros' which allow you to group different commands into one keypress are allowed. For example, setting your G1 key to press F1, F2, F3 and so on for you with one key press is allowed (although this specific command is not as useful as it was before now that we have weapon grouping)." source: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1291641&page=10#274
I would like clarification on whether this ruling still stands. Specifically, is it still allowable to use a keyboard macro to activate multiple modules ( within a single client) simultaneously: for example, to activate a set of hardeners, reps (remote or local), smartbombs, etc., since these modules cannot be grouped? Please note that I am referring to actions that affect only one client. This is not a multiboxing use-case. Thanks!
A relevant follow up is what about programmable keyboards and mice that allow you to do this?
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4509
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 15:51:00 -
[2753] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:CCP has stated that some of there other programs are in violation of the eula in terms of cachescraping but they wouldn't enforce it.
All this move did was clarifying parts of there eula and tell people that they will be enforcing part of it to cut back on the tears when people get banned. WEll no, I'd argue it's further form clarification now than before. Before this was explicitly allowed, as was a host of other methods of using programs to gain items quicker. Now, a single feature has been banned, yet the rest of the program and all of the other programs are still fine.
At least before they weren't enforcing that at all. Now they are partially enforcing it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
120
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 17:06:31 -
[2754] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Lady Rift wrote:CCP has stated that some of there other programs are in violation of the eula in terms of cachescraping but they wouldn't enforce it.
All this move did was clarifying parts of there eula and tell people that they will be enforcing part of it to cut back on the tears when people get banned. WEll no, I'd argue it's further form clarification now than before. Before this was explicitly allowed, as was a host of other methods of using programs to gain items quicker. Now, a single feature has been banned, yet the rest of the program and all of the other programs are still fine. At least before they weren't enforcing that at all. Now they are partially enforcing it.
It comes down to the definition of what it means to obtain items quicker. CCP seams to be concerning themselves with just the processes that actually involve making the client/s faster per real person. Also they banned this ability no matter what program or os gave that function. |
Ersin Baba
E-Baba
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 17:15:44 -
[2755] - Quote
So did I understand correctly:
Question : Someone is allowed to Boxing as individual use, but there should not be automatic functions. ???
- What if we see someone in the game using IS-Boxer with automation , How could we report him. More interestingly, which character should we supposed to report. -- > I have personally seen a guy boxing 49 accounts simultaneously to dig and clear up a ice belt as others were just looking for 1 or 2 circle to finish. It is utterly unfair for the others. Moreover, I saw this *** on EVE-Bazaar to sell this accounts as "mining Accounts" after 4-5 Months as perfect starting accounts with 5B (Of course, I do not tell you the name , all I can say is that he was one of this typical Rule-Bending-Russian-Guys)
My personal Experience : I use IS-Boxer for doing jobs separately on 2 other accounts to follow and judge the situation instead automation ( Instead of ALT+TAB combination between windows). It is practical. My Q. is : Should I stop doing this too or am I allowed to using on?
Currently my ALT Char was bumped in 0.0 sec to a multi-Boxing guy who shoot in same time and cleared up every member of my gank in single hand with max. 20M cheap ships. I am completely against this kind of action, but on the contrary I am not doing that in the game. My purpose is controlling different chars in same time in different grids. Am I still allowed to use that even though it is called Boxing? Should I have to drop it or what? I do not want surprising ban after Jan 1, 2015.
Thank you for your time
E. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
120
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 17:31:47 -
[2756] - Quote
Ersin Baba wrote:So did I understand correctly: Question : Someone is allowed to Boxing as individual use, but there should not be automatic functions. ??? - What if we see someone in the game using IS-Boxer with automation , How could we report him. More interestingly, which character should we supposed to report. -- > I have personally seen a guy boxing 49 accounts simultaneously to dig and clear up a ice belt as others were just looking for 1 or 2 circle to finish. It is utterly unfair for the others. Moreover, I saw this *** on EVE-Bazaar to sell these accounts as "mining Accounts" after 4-5 Months as perfect starting accounts with 5B (Of course, I do not tell you the name , all I can say is that he was one of this typical Rule-Bending-Russian-Guys) Currently my ALT-Char was bumped in 0.0 sec to a multi-Boxing guy who shoot in same time and cleared up every member of my gank in single-handedly with max. 20M cheap ships. I am completely against this kind of action, but on the contrary I am not doing that in the game. My purpose is controlling different chars in same time in different grids. Am I still allowed to use that even though it is called Boxing? Should I have to drop it or what? I do not want surprising ban after Jan 1, 2015. My personal Experience : I use IS-Boxer for doing jobs separately on 2 other accounts to follow and judge the situation instead automation ( Instead of ALT+TAB combination between windows). It is practical. My Q. is : Should I stop doing this too or am I allowed to using on? How would you plan to distinguish the guys like me and the guys like these 2 examples????? Thank you for your time E.
IF one click of your mouse effects more than one toon in game it is a ban. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4509
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 17:36:22 -
[2757] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:It comes down to the definition of what it means to obtain items quicker. CCP seams to be concerning themselves with just the processes that actually involve making the client/s faster per real person. Also they banned this ability no matter what program or os gave that function. For broadcasting, yes. There are other features of programs which allow you to interact with clients faster than "normal gamplay" which are still allowed.
Ersin Baba wrote:Question : Someone is allowed to Boxing as individual use, but there should not be automatic functions. ??? Automation was never allowed. What they've banned now is broadcasting.
Ersin Baba wrote:What if we see someone in the game using IS-Boxer with BROADCASTING, How could we report him. More interestingly, which character should we supposed to report You should report him if you know he is broadcasting. Multiboxing is still allowed, so you will still see big fleets of pilots stripping the ice belts. You'll probably find yourself in trouble if you report everyone you see multiboxing.
Ersin Baba wrote:I have personally seen a guy boxing 49 accounts simultaneously to dig and clear up a ice belt as others were just looking for 1 or 2 circle to finish. It is utterly unfair for the others. Moreover, I saw this *** on EVE-Bazaar to sell these accounts as "mining Accounts" after 4-5 Months as perfect starting accounts with 5B (Of course, I do not tell you the name , all I can say is that he was one of this typical Rule-Bending-Russian-Guys) A high sec ice belt has around 2400 blocks of ice in it, so 49 characters would actually take about 48 cycles to clear a belt. Even unboosted, that should mean you can get at least 3 full procurers worth of ice before he's done.
Ersin Baba wrote:Currently my ALT-Char was bumped in 0.0 sec to a multi-Boxing guy who shoot in same time and cleared up every member of my gank in single-handedly with max. 20M cheap ships. I am completely against this kind of action, but on the contrary I am not doing that in the game. My purpose is controlling different chars in same time in different grids. Am I still allowed to use that even though it is called Boxing? Should I have to drop it or what? I do not want surprising ban after Jan 1, 2015.
My personal Experience : I use IS-Boxer for doing jobs separately on 2 other accounts to follow and judge the situation instead automation ( Instead of ALT+TAB combination between windows). It is practical. My Q. is : Should I stop doing this too or am I allowed to using on? How would you plan to distinguish the guys like me and the guys like these 2 examples????? If you are clicking or pushing a keyboard button once, and it's affecting more than one client, that is no longer allowed. If you are controlling them separately side by side, swapping between windows, that is fine. Either way, you will still be ganked by multibox gankers.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eryn Velasquez
85
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 19:38:20 -
[2758] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:.... There are other features of programs which allow you to interact with clients faster than "normal gamplay" which are still allowed.
Would be nice if you point to the section of the EULA, where you read this.
_GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á_
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4510
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 19:46:03 -
[2759] - Quote
Eryn Velasquez wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:.... There are other features of programs which allow you to interact with clients faster than "normal gamplay" which are still allowed. Would be nice if you point to the section of the EULA, where you read this. It's not in the EULA. It's in this thread. Read the OP. It explicitly states what's not allowed, which is just broadcasting. Here is the infographic CCP Random sent out for people to see too. According to this, round robin and VideoFX are not at all banned, which is what ISBoxer users will be using. I've resubbed ISBoxer and already started using this to control a fleet with no issues in advance of the change. Takes a little longer to get undocked and set up, but other than that is about the same.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
123
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 20:07:32 -
[2760] - Quote
Eryn Velasquez wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:.... There are other features of programs which allow you to interact with clients faster than "normal gamplay" which are still allowed. Would be nice if you point to the section of the EULA, where you read this.
Its not in the eula its against the eula just like cachescrapping is. CCP has always just enforced what it wants when it wants and they leave things vague so that they can change there mind or decide a different way without having to have us all accept the eula again, also makes it easier for CCP to uphold as almost everything can be argued to be against the eula.
CCP devs often post and then either do the opposite or another dev will post the opposite so take everything that isn't in the OP or dev blogs with a grain of salt |
|
|
Eryn Velasquez
85
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 20:12:01 -
[2761] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Eryn Velasquez wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:.... There are other features of programs which allow you to interact with clients faster than "normal gamplay" which are still allowed. Would be nice if you point to the section of the EULA, where you read this. It's not in the EULA. It's in this thread. Read the OP. It explicitly states what's not allowed, which is just broadcasting. Here is the infographic CCP Random sent out for people to see too. According to this, round robin and VideoFX are not at all banned, which is what ISBoxer users will be using. I've resubbed ISBoxer and already started using this to control a fleet with no issues in advance of the change. Takes a little longer to get undocked and set up, but other than that is about the same.
So, it's not in the EULA? Nor in the TOS regarding the useage of 3rd party tools?
C'mon, you're kidding.
If i read the TOS, i can see a real clear statement. Using 3rd party tools to gain an advantage over other players puts you at risk to get banned. Simple as that.
_GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á_
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4511
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 20:15:07 -
[2762] - Quote
Eryn Velasquez wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Eryn Velasquez wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:.... There are other features of programs which allow you to interact with clients faster than "normal gamplay" which are still allowed. Would be nice if you point to the section of the EULA, where you read this. It's not in the EULA. It's in this thread. Read the OP. It explicitly states what's not allowed, which is just broadcasting. Here is the infographic CCP Random sent out for people to see too. According to this, round robin and VideoFX are not at all banned, which is what ISBoxer users will be using. I've resubbed ISBoxer and already started using this to control a fleet with no issues in advance of the change. Takes a little longer to get undocked and set up, but other than that is about the same. So, it's not in the EULA? Nor in the TOS regarding the useage of 3rd party tools? C'mon, you're kidding. If i read the TOS, i can see a real clear statement. Using 3rd party tools to gain an advantage over other players puts you at risk to get banned. Simple as that. CCP is not in need to state, program x and y with function z1, z2 or z3 are allowed. Right, and yet this isn't banned. Just like how cache scraping isn't banned, and just like how TS and mumble overlays are against the EULA, and yet not banned. Seriously, are you new to EVE?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
123
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 20:23:46 -
[2763] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Eryn Velasquez wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Eryn Velasquez wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:.... There are other features of programs which allow you to interact with clients faster than "normal gamplay" which are still allowed. Would be nice if you point to the section of the EULA, where you read this. It's not in the EULA. It's in this thread. Read the OP. It explicitly states what's not allowed, which is just broadcasting. Here is the infographic CCP Random sent out for people to see too. According to this, round robin and VideoFX are not at all banned, which is what ISBoxer users will be using. I've resubbed ISBoxer and already started using this to control a fleet with no issues in advance of the change. Takes a little longer to get undocked and set up, but other than that is about the same. So, it's not in the EULA? Nor in the TOS regarding the useage of 3rd party tools? C'mon, you're kidding. If i read the TOS, i can see a real clear statement. Using 3rd party tools to gain an advantage over other players puts you at risk to get banned. Simple as that. CCP is not in need to state, program x and y with function z1, z2 or z3 are allowed. Right, and yet this isn't banned. Just like how cache scraping isn't banned, and just like how TS and mumble overlays are against the EULA, and yet not banned. Seriously, are you new to EVE?
cache scraping isn't actually allowed but until they find a better way they tolerate it. They are all against the eula meaning that if ccp decided and had the tools to detect them they could ban people with no warring. You are going to have to accept that there are things that CCP just doesn't enforce for varies reasons (might be bad for the game or just straight up can't). They clarified there eula in respect to muiltcasting and said that they will be enforcing that portion of it.
In the end there are banable offences that CCP just ignores and others that they don't. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4511
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 20:28:15 -
[2764] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:cache scraping isn't actually allowed but until they find a better way they tolerate it. They are all against the eula meaning that if ccp decided and had the tools to detect them they could ban people with no warring. You are going to have to accept that there are things that CCP just doesn't enforce for varies reasons (might be bad for the game or just straight up can't). They clarified there eula in respect to muiltcasting and said that they will be enforcing that portion of it.
In the end there are banable offences that CCP just ignores and others that they don't. While in theory, yes, they could ban people without warning of a change in their interpretation of the EULA, they wouldn't because they run a business and it would make pretty bad press. Hell, do you realise they can ban you even if you do nothing wrong? The EULA isn't a legally binding document. They can literally ban your account because they suspect you like the colour purple if they want to. It doesn't mean they will. and at the moment, the other methods of controlling ISBoxer are note lined up for the banhammer, and so people will continue to use them.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
123
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 20:38:25 -
[2765] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Lady Rift wrote:cache scraping isn't actually allowed but until they find a better way they tolerate it. They are all against the eula meaning that if ccp decided and had the tools to detect them they could ban people with no warring. You are going to have to accept that there are things that CCP just doesn't enforce for varies reasons (might be bad for the game or just straight up can't). They clarified there eula in respect to muiltcasting and said that they will be enforcing that portion of it.
In the end there are banable offences that CCP just ignores and others that they don't. While in theory, yes, they could ban people without warning of a change in their interpretation of the EULA, they wouldn't because they run a business and it would make pretty bad press. Hell, do you realise they can ban you even if you do nothing wrong? The EULA isn't a legally binding document. They can literally ban your account because they suspect you like the colour purple if they want to. It doesn't mean they will. and at the moment, the other methods of controlling ISBoxer are note lined up for the banhammer, and so people will continue to use them.
And if you read my post that's all I was saying. mutlicasting is being actively banned in the new year. You are the one who has to respond to every comment in here do you even know what you are arguing for or against anymore? |
HeXxploiT
Little Red X
68
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 22:17:00 -
[2766] - Quote
Good too see CCP making sure people are on a level playing field. Perhaps someday they'll build a feature like this into the game available to all so that no pilot gains unfair advantage. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4516
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 22:32:54 -
[2767] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:And if you read my post that's all I was saying. mutlicasting is being actively banned in the new year. You are the one who has to respond to every comment in here do you even know what you are arguing for or against anymore? I know exactly what I'm arguing, when people like Eryn jump in talking about how it's not allowed, then you jump in in support, then clearly you aren't just saying they can ban you for anything they want.
At the end of the day, it's simple. Broadcasting is banned, the rest of ISBoxer isn't. The end.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eryn Velasquez
85
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 22:33:22 -
[2768] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Eryn Velasquez wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Eryn Velasquez wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:.... There are other features of programs which allow you to interact with clients faster than "normal gamplay" which are still allowed. Would be nice if you point to the section of the EULA, where you read this. It's not in the EULA. It's in this thread. Read the OP. It explicitly states what's not allowed, which is just broadcasting. Here is the infographic CCP Random sent out for people to see too. According to this, round robin and VideoFX are not at all banned, which is what ISBoxer users will be using. I've resubbed ISBoxer and already started using this to control a fleet with no issues in advance of the change. Takes a little longer to get undocked and set up, but other than that is about the same. So, it's not in the EULA? Nor in the TOS regarding the useage of 3rd party tools? C'mon, you're kidding. If i read the TOS, i can see a real clear statement. Using 3rd party tools to gain an advantage over other players puts you at risk to get banned. Simple as that. CCP is not in need to state, program x and y with function z1, z2 or z3 are allowed. Right, and yet this isn't banned. Just like how cache scraping isn't banned, and just like how TS and mumble overlays are against the EULA, and yet not banned. Seriously, are you new to EVE?
No, i'm absolutely not new to eve. But you're repeated argument that the useage of VFX and round robin is "allowed" is wrong.
_GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á_
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4518
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 22:53:29 -
[2769] - Quote
Eryn Velasquez wrote:No, i'm absolutely not new to eve. But you're repeated argument that the useage of VFX and round robin is "allowed" is wrong. Prove it. I've already posted up CCP Randoms graphic detailing in the simplest possible terms what is and isn't allowed. Follow it for VFX and round robin, and they both lead to being allowed. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it banned. Get over it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
283
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 23:05:38 -
[2770] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Eryn Velasquez wrote:No, i'm absolutely not new to eve. But you're repeated argument that the useage of VFX and round robin is "allowed" is wrong. Prove it. I've already posted up CCP Randoms graphic detailing in the simplest possible terms what is and isn't allowed. Follow it for VFX and round robin, and they both lead to being allowed. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it banned. Get over it.
121 pages of basically the same argument over and over.
CCP PLEASE clarify this.
The OP seems to have left a question mark as to what is and is not legal.
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
|
|
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
218
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 23:22:31 -
[2771] - Quote
It is very clear what is and what is not legal. You just don't like it.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Eryn Velasquez
85
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 23:22:50 -
[2772] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Eryn Velasquez wrote:No, i'm absolutely not new to eve. But you're repeated argument that the useage of VFX and round robin is "allowed" is wrong. Prove it. I've already posted up CCP Randoms graphic detailing in the simplest possible terms what is and isn't allowed. Follow it for VFX and round robin, and they both lead to being allowed. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it banned. Get over it.
I would, but the graphic only displays one thing: You will be banned if you use certain features, and you will not be banned if you don't.
And i clearly don't believe, that your repeatedly statements regarding "round robin" and the possibility to automatically switch to the next window after striking one key has been looked at by CCP before publishing this graphic.
_GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á_
|
Nidal Fervor
State War Academy
Caldari State
45
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 23:25:02 -
[2773] - Quote
Round Robin is still input broadcasting. If you want to test CCP go ahead and use it. Be sure to whine a lot when you are banned so we can all laugh at you for it.
It was made clear, it doesn't matter what method you use to achieve it, it is not allowed. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
218
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 23:31:27 -
[2774] - Quote
Nidal Fervor wrote:Round Robin is still input broadcasting. If you want to test CCP go ahead and use it. Be sure to whine a lot when you are banned so we can all laugh at you for it.
It was made clear, it doesn't matter what method you use to achieve it, it is not allowed.
How is it broadcasting? A single key is pressed and a single keypress is sent to a single client. No broadcast there.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4518
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 07:52:08 -
[2775] - Quote
Nidal Fervor wrote:Round Robin is still input broadcasting. If you want to test CCP go ahead and use it. Be sure to whine a lot when you are banned so we can all laugh at you for it.
It was made clear, it doesn't matter what method you use to achieve it, it is not allowed. No it's not. Just because you don't understand how it works, doesn't make it broadcasting.
Broadcasting: 1 keypress = 1 action on multiple clients
Round Robin: 1 keypress = 1 action on 1 client
That's the difference which stops it being affected by this change.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 10:57:58 -
[2776] - Quote
inb4 automatic client switching via macros is banned as well...
I think the way ISboxers are looking for a workaround to avoid the letter of the law is unarguable, but ways of circumventing the intended effect of the new rules are obviously going to get looked at in a later pass...it's just a matter of CCP finding the right wording to do so.
Personally I hope they just release their own window management tools and [edit: actually enforce their] ban [on] all third party applications from affecting the client. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4521
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 13:49:18 -
[2777] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:inb4 automatic client switching via macros is banned as well...
I think the way ISboxers are looking for a workaround to avoid the letter of the law is unarguable, but ways of circumventing the intended effect of the new rules are obviously going to get looked at in a later pass...it's just a matter of CCP finding the right wording to do so.
Personally I hope they just release their own window management tools and [edit: actually enforce their] ban [on] all third party applications from affecting the client. Part of it will be enforcement. Broadcasting is easy, they can see multiple commands from multiple clients on the same IP at the exact same time. Once they start trying to look at other things like round robin, it becomes more difficult. Sure, they could ban isboxer and check for it running on the same machine, but then isboxer isn't the only tool for that. There are countless hotkey programs that can do it, homebrew programs, even some operating systems with tools to help you do that. At that point it would become very difficult to tell if you were banning someone who was playing legitimately or using a tool.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 14:20:56 -
[2778] - Quote
So now you're admitting you would 'cheat' even if round robin was banned because of your belief that they couldn't detect you? Interesting. (trolling ofc)
edit:
TBH I think they might struggle to differentiate broadcasting as it currently stands (if someone codes in suitable delays between clients). But if detection is all that it needs, then they could completely ban ISboxer (after supplying their own window management) and then flag accounts based on detecting concurrent system processes. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
369
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 14:38:15 -
[2779] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:So now you're admitting you would 'cheat' even if round robin was banned because of your belief that they couldn't detect you? Interesting. (trolling ofc)
edit:
TBH I think they might struggle to differentiate broadcasting as it currently stands (if someone codes in suitable delays between clients). But if detection is all that it needs, then they could completely ban ISboxer (after supplying their own window management) and then flag accounts based on detecting concurrent system processes.
So which concurrent processes do you flag? There are so very many window management software setups, and so many sets of hardware capable of doing this trick in the software drivers that it just plain ain't funny. It turns eve's security into the same rat race of other MMOs, on steroids because of the single shard nature.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 15:00:03 -
[2780] - Quote
Well since we know that CCP are obviously averse to how multiboxers are currently using the software (unless this is just an epic troll on 1% of their playerbase) - one would presume that they're not gonna be overly impressed by attempts to sidestep the new rules.
Just sayin' it so that you don't get too attached to round-robinning your way around it!
I have no ideas on what specific detection methods they're gonna use, but they could easily check for background processes of any software they choose to ban - at which stage what happens to you guys? You start trying to avoid detection? Or you learn that they don't want you doing what you're currently doing? |
|
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
124
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 15:11:37 -
[2781] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Lady Rift wrote:And if you read my post that's all I was saying. mutlicasting is being actively banned in the new year. You are the one who has to respond to every comment in here do you even know what you are arguing for or against anymore? I know exactly what I'm arguing, when people like Eryn jump in talking about how it's not allowed, then you jump in in support, then clearly you aren't just saying they can ban you for anything they want. At the end of the day, it's simple. Broadcasting is banned, the rest of ISBoxer isn't. The end.
there is a difference to whats not allowed and what they will ban you for. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4521
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 15:17:41 -
[2782] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Well since we know that CCP are obviously averse to how multiboxers are currently using the software (unless this is just an epic troll on 1% of their playerbase) - one would presume that they're not gonna be overly impressed by attempts to sidestep the new rules.
Just sayin' it so that you don't get too attached to round-robinning your way around it! Whatever they put in place, some people will always find ways around it. Unless they choose to ban multiboxing altogether, some people will always be able to control many more clients than other players, even if it's just by having 8 monitors and lightning reflexes.
Eli Apol wrote:I have no ideas on what specific detection methods they're gonna use, but they could easily check for background processes of any software they choose to ban - at which stage what happens to you guys? You start trying to avoid detection? Or you learn that they don't want you doing what you're currently doing? The list for the software to ban would be bigger than the codebase. It also wouldn't be possible to ban it all. If for example have a Logitech G15 keyboard. I could use the software and drivers with that to do round robins. Would CCP really want to be banning software designed to run major gaming hardware from running alongside their game? I can't imagine that would be very good for their reputation. Worse still when you consider some operating systems actually let you do some of these things naturally. Are they going to ban linux and mac clients too?
It's not about avoiding detection. It's about how they could possibly stop themselves banning legitimate players if people would be bypassing their rules with common hardware and software. How could you stop someone using a G15 to round robin without stopping everyone who uses a G15? There's no reliable way to tell the difference between legitimate and illegal use.
Edit: This isn't a new problem by the way. MMO gaming has always had this issue, and most devs have resigned themselves to the fact that there no way they can enforce these types of restrictions consistently.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 15:34:27 -
[2783] - Quote
"You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game."
Technically G15 macros are already against the EULA so yes they could ban that. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4521
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 16:44:46 -
[2784] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:"You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game."
Technically G15 macros are already against the EULA so yes they could ban that. Indeed, along with all the other keyboards that allow macros. Good luck convincing a game developer to ban gaming keyboards from leading game hardware manufacturers. While automation macros already are banned, a round robin macro wouldn't be distinguishable from someone pushing the keys at the same rate, so they'd literally have to ban the use of gaming keyboards. Never going to happen. Ever.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 16:56:18 -
[2785] - Quote
They don't have to for solo gamers or single clients but if they get a sniff of macros being used across multiple clients perhaps they might not be so lenient...
Anyway, this is all hypothesising about how the future may resolve itself. Maybe the extra wear and tear on digits, keyboards and mice from spamming them 50x as often might temper the current situation enough that it's deemed under control and no longer a detriment to their game design - but if it's not enough and everyone continues the same as before but using round robin as a way to circumvent the new policy, I suspect you'll be seeing tighter and tighter controls to prevent the undesired behaviour from continuing.
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
150
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 17:12:52 -
[2786] - Quote
I don't understand why people are trying find loopholes to get around the ruling or try to twist words to justify continuing what they have been doing. Either accept the ruling or WoW is other there >>>>>>> |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
183
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 17:23:06 -
[2787] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:I don't understand why people are trying find loopholes to get around the ruling or try to twist words to justify continuing what they have been doing. Either accept the ruling or WoW is other there >>>>>>>
1.) Could you give an example of someone trying to find a loophole?
2.) What is your interpretation of the ruling?
Just curious. Thanks. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
308
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 17:23:27 -
[2788] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:"You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game."
Technically G15 macros are already against the EULA so yes they could ban that.
Jesus christ. No matter how many times you idiots say it, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a per-toon basis, not a per-human basis. Stop pretending it's so. |
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 17:43:36 -
[2789] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Eli Apol wrote:"You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game."
Technically G15 macros are already against the EULA so yes they could ban that. Jesus christ. No matter how many times you idiots say it, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a per-toon basis, not a per-human basis. Stop pretending it's so.
That quote is directly from the Eula, where does it say 'on a per toon basis' - it doesn't.
Besides which Lucas was talking about banning of G15's in general, not in a multibox situation - I'm pointing out that all macros are covered by the EULA should CCP decide to enforce it.
I'm not saying they would, but it's pretty crystal clear in that one section that I quoted, please reread it and take in the wording
You may not use... any macros...that facilitate....
I'd say that pressing one button instead of 2 is easier, it's facilitated the process, wouldn't you?
Now they won't enforce that on solo players - at least not in a way related to the current discussion - but the wording is there that they could if they wanted to. If you decided to circumvent the new policy by using keyboard macros to quickly switch clients, or send different keys to different clients, etc, etc, they could easily point at that section of the EULA and say 'bye bye' |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
309
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 17:47:34 -
[2790] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Eli Apol wrote:"You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game."
Technically G15 macros are already against the EULA so yes they could ban that. Jesus christ. No matter how many times you idiots say it, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a per-toon basis, not a per-human basis. Stop pretending it's so. That quote is directly from the Eula, where does it say 'on a per toon basis' - it doesn't.
Spend 30 seconds out of your life and look at previous DEV and GM responses to threads regarding the clause and keyboard macros and you will see, time and time again, responses that say that the clause is on a per-toon basis. Ever since I signed up my alt toons, I've taken a special interest in threads regarding ISBoxing and keyboard macros (g510 and g600 here) and everytime somebody with a 2 month old character age came onto the forums and starts whining that multiboxing breaks the clause, someone from CCP or a GM steps in and slapped them down. |
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4522
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 17:48:02 -
[2791] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:They don't have to for solo gamers or single clients but if they get a sniff of macros being used across multiple clients perhaps they might not be so lenient...
Anyway, this is all hypothesising about how the future may resolve itself. Maybe the extra wear and tear on digits, keyboards and mice from spamming them 50x as often might temper the current situation enough that it's deemed under control and no longer a detriment to their game design - but if it's not enough and everyone continues the same as before but using round robin as a way to circumvent the new policy, I suspect you'll be seeing tighter and tighter controls to prevent the undesired behaviour from continuing. I very much doubt it. Getting rid of broadcasting is seen as a quick win. It's relatively easy to spot and makes a lot of idiots who don't realise how ISBoxer is used happy for a short while. Anything beyond that would be pretty difficult to control, so I doubt we'll see much more on it. I'm sure if you were correct on this, they'd have revised this thread.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
183
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 17:55:00 -
[2792] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Getting rid of broadcasting is seen as a quick win. It's relatively easy to spot and makes a lot of idiots who don't realise how ISBoxer is used happy for a short while.
Do you really think that is what CCP is trying to accomplish? I'm not disagreeing I just hope they have thought things through more than that.
I personally have no clue what so ever what their overall goal is. They haven't said what it is. I wish they would though. |
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 17:55:23 -
[2793] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I very much doubt it. Getting rid of broadcasting is seen as a quick win. It's relatively easy to spot and makes a lot of idiots who don't realise how ISBoxer is used happy for a short while. Anything beyond that would be pretty difficult to control, so I doubt we'll see much more on it. I'm sure if you were correct on this, they'd have revised this thread.
That's exactly the point - if this removes the majority of idiots using ISboxing to 'win at eve' (by earning far more isk/hr than they would otherwise be capable of) and tempers the situation down so that the isk and plex inflation and mineral deflation aren't so affected, then that is all they need to do. But if every single ISboxer then moves to using round robin, macros, setting different keys to send the same command to different clients (and all the other workarounds from dual-boxing.com) then obviously the desired intention will have failed and they'll need to act further...
Or you think they'll give up because of easy workarounds to their policy are still breaking their game balance? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4524
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 17:56:20 -
[2794] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:That quote is directly from the Eula, where does it say 'on a per toon basis' - it doesn't.
Besides which Lucas was talking about banning of G15's in general, not in a multibox situation - I'm pointing out that all macros are covered by the EULA should CCP decide to enforce it.
I'm not saying they would, but it's pretty crystal clear in that one section that I quoted, please reread it and take in the wording
You may not use... any macros...that facilitate....
I'd say that pressing one button instead of 2 is easier, it's facilitated the process, wouldn't you?
Now they won't enforce that on solo players - at least not in a way related to the current discussion - but the wording is there that they could if they wanted to. If you decided to circumvent the new policy by using keyboard macros to quickly switch clients, or send different keys to different clients, etc, etc, they could easily point at that section of the EULA and say 'bye bye' If I push F1 and F2, vs getting a macro to push F1 then F2 when you press a single key, it doesn't allow me to acquire "items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play". At nowhere in there does it say "you can't use keybinds or macros to make things easier". Even if you look at this thread, there's a CCP dev specifically stating that as long as they aren't automated (playing the game on their own) or sending to multiple clients simultaneously (broadcasting) then G15 macros are fine.
And like I've stated so many times before, they don't need to clarify the EULA. They don't need to look at the EULA. They don't even need to have the EULA. They could literally just say "You're banned, because I feel like it", and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
By the way, while we're chopping up the EULA to make it say what we want:
"You may not use ... the user interface ... in any way to acquire items ... in the Game."
Legit.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
309
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 17:59:25 -
[2795] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:That's exactly the point - if this removes the majority of idiots using ISboxing to 'win at eve' (by earning far more isk/hr than they would otherwise be capable of) and tempers the situation down so that the isk and plex inflation and mineral deflation aren't so affected, then that is all they need to do. But if every single ISboxer then moves to using round robin, macros, setting different keys to send the same command to different clients (and all the other workarounds from dual-boxing.com) then obviously the desired intention will have failed and they'll need to act further...
Or you think they'll give up because of easy workarounds to their policy are still breaking their game balance?
Your argument makes sense if CCP made alternate accounts free. Since a person must pay either real life $$$ or PLEX his alts, your argument falls flat on it's face as anyone can sub another toon and make more ISK than a person with one toon.
I personally hope CCP sees the folly of attempting to fix a severed artery with a simple band-aid and instead perform the delicate surgery required to fix the game, but CCP has in the past favored the band-aid approach far more than the delicate surgery. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4524
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 18:03:42 -
[2796] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:Do you really think that is what CCP is trying to accomplish? I'm not disagreeing I just hope they have thought things through more than that.
I personally have no clue what so ever what their overall goal is. They haven't said what it is. I wish they would though.
It feels like their long term goal is to get rid of multiboxing in general, but who knows???? If it's not, then I honestly can't see what else they are trying to accomplish. If there is anything else, then they missed.
I'd be VERY surprised if they tried to get rid of multiboxing altogether.
Eli Apol wrote:That's exactly the point - if this removes the majority of idiots using ISboxing to 'win at eve' (by earning far more isk/hr than they would otherwise be capable of) and tempers the situation down so that the isk and plex inflation and mineral deflation aren't so affected, then that is all they need to do. It won't. It will remove at most a minority of ISBoxer users, while the majority of idiots (like yourself) cry about how people still have valid ways of playing with multiple characters. And PLEX prices will always go up. They've dropped for speculation for now, but before long they'll continue their climb. Fact. As for the isk and minerals, you'll have to show me all this inflation they are going through. Last serious analysis that was done actually showed deflation. People tend to keep saying inflation while they don't actually understand what it means, so avoid that bandwagon.
Eli Apol wrote:But if every single ISboxer then moves to using round robin, macros, setting different keys to send the same command to different clients (and all the other workarounds from dual-boxing.com) then obviously the desired intention will have failed and they'll need to act further...
Or you think they'll give up because of easy workarounds to their policy are still breaking their game balance? No, I think they'll not take it much further because it will be impossible to control the thousands of piece of software and hardware that could be used for these methods without seriously affecting the whole playerbase. This is why I've said from the very beginning that if they want to make an impact, then gameplay changes are required to make mass multiboxing more difficult in the first place.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 18:16:07 -
[2797] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:It won't. It will remove at most a minority of ISBoxer users, while the majority of idiots (like yourself) cry about how people still have valid ways of playing with multiple characters. And PLEX prices will always go up. They've dropped for speculation for now, but before long they'll continue their climb. Fact. As for the isk and minerals, you'll have to show me all this inflation they are going through. Last serious analysis that was done actually showed deflation. People tend to keep saying inflation while they don't actually understand what it means, so avoid that bandwagon. Nice ad hominem and speculation of your own - The fact is, CCP have looked at multiboxing and decided to implement this change. That kinda suggests to me (and any one with a degree of rationality) that they think multiboxing, on the scale it curently works at, is breaking the game...or they just hate you superior beings and want to troll your 'gamestyle'
Lucas Kell wrote:No, I think they'll not take it much further because it will be impossible to control the thousands of piece of software and hardware that could be used for these methods without seriously affecting the whole playerbase. This is why I've said from the very beginning that if they want to make an impact, then gameplay changes are required to make mass multiboxing more difficult in the first place. Change the game that the majority are happy with to cater for the few that are breaking it? Like changing cloak mechanics or adding 4-digit bomb arming codes...seriously the only two suggestions I've seen from people clinging to their personal isk faucets are completely terrible.
Out of curiosity, what would you say your Net Asset Value is across all your toons - and your personal hourly isk income (after plexing ofc)
Me - 100mil/hr, somewhere between 10 and 100billion....edit: takes me about 20hrs to plex my 2 accounts. |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
184
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 18:19:01 -
[2798] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
If it's not, then I honestly can't see what else they are trying to accomplish. If there is anything else, then they missed.
I'd be VERY surprised if they tried to get rid of multiboxing altogether.
So you are saying they are intentionally just making people happy for a short while? To what end?
There will still be large multiboxing mining fleets after this change.
I just can't believe their goal is just to make people on the forums happy for a couple weeks. There is more here than CCP is saying.
CCP Falcon has already stated in other forums that he doesn't like multiboxing and would prefer every character to be controlled by just one player. I just don't see any other reason for this change other than a ramp up to get rid of multiboxing in general. Maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist, but I can't think of any other rational explanation.
I ran the experiments and I can just as easily control my 12 man mining fleet before and after the change with just 12 extra clicks per cycle and a slightly longer (as in half a minute longer) set-up time. You don't even need the round-robin everyone is going on about, you just need video-fx, which CCP has said is fine.
In short, this change will only get rid of people like me who will be quitting on the principle of the matter, and I can't imagine there are very many people who will quit simply on principle, so that will have little impact.
I just don't understand what they are going for. I really, really, really, really wish I did. Only CCP can remedy that problem with a simple post in this forum.
But I'm not holding my breath for that one.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
223
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 18:42:56 -
[2799] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:
CCP Falcon has already stated in other forums that he doesn't like multiboxing and would prefer every character to be controlled by just one player.
Citation required.
There are ships that need you to have multiple accounts to be remotely playable. Unless titan pilots only log in for 5 mins a month to bridge someone, it is expected that they have sitters and cynos and stuff.
I can F1-TAB-F1-TAB-F1 as fast as i can just hit F1 many times. I don't need isboxer for round robin. I don't need anything other than a machine that is good enough to play many clients.
Multiboxing is going nowhere. It is right there in the OP.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4524
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 19:04:01 -
[2800] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Nice ad hominem and speculation of your own - The fact is, CCP have looked at multiboxing and decided to implement this change. That kinda suggests to me (and any one with a degree of rationality) that they think multiboxing, on the scale it curently works at, is breaking the game...or they just hate you superior beings and want to troll your 'gamestyle' Well no, the fact is they looked at broadcasting and decided against that. They didn't decide they don't like multiboxing.
By the way you refer to it as "your 'gamestyle'" by the way, I assume you missed that I subbed my isboxer account when this announcement was made specifically to have the facts about the change first hand. While ive isboxed for maybe 6 months in the past (not religiously but from time to time) I've multiboxed manually a lot more. And to be quite honest I don't do either these days because grinding isk is for peasants.
Eli Apol wrote:Change the game that the majority are happy with to cater for the few that are breaking it? Like changing cloak mechanics or adding 4-digit bomb arming codes...seriously the only two suggestions I've seen from people clinging to their personal isk faucets are completely terrible. That's because theere's been no serious discussion about it. Just because the only ideas raised up have been quick off the top of the head jobs doesn't mean that the gameplay doesn't need to change. many mechanics are FAR too simple. By the way, the majority of multiboxers are miners, that's not an isk faucet.
Eli Apol wrote:Out of curiosity, what would you say your Net Asset Value is across all your toons - and your personal hourly isk income (after plexing ofc)
Me - 100mil/hr, somewhere between 10 and 100billion....edit: takes me about 20hrs to plex my 2 accounts. For my net assets, as a general rule I don't like to get specific, but considerably more than that, put it that way. As for hourly income, not a clue, I don't do anything that generates me income hourly. I'm a trader. I can generally PLEX by the time I get home from work if I log in for 20 minutes at breakfast though.
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
4524
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 19:09:38 -
[2801] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:So you are saying they are intentionally just making people happy for a short while? To what end? I don't know, ask them. There certainly won't be any other differences from this change though. If I had to guess I'd say that like out here in the forum, within CCP there have been those for an against broadcasting, the discussion has come up and they've gone against it, with very little consideration to any follow up changes.
Jason Xado wrote:CCP Falcon has already stated in other forums that he doesn't like multiboxing and would prefer every character to be controlled by just one player. I just don't see any other reason for this change other than a ramp up to get rid of multiboxing in general (or at least multiboxing with more than two or three characters). Maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist, but I can't think of any other rational explanation. I think in general most devs, and players, would prefer that. The fact is though that the game has grown into supporting multiboxing so much that they offer special deals specifically to have multiple accounts. I doubt CCP would do anything to try to break that up unless they were in a considerably stronger position than they currently are.
Jason Xado wrote:I ran the experiments and I can just as easily control my 12 man mining fleet before and after the change with just 12 extra clicks per cycle and a slightly longer (as in half a minute longer) set-up time. You don't even need the round-robin everyone is going on about, you just need video-fx, which CCP has said is fine.
In short, this change will only get rid of people like me who will be quitting on the principle of the matter, and I can't imagine there are very many people who will quit simply on principle, so that will have little impact. Yeah, that's the conclusion I came to as well. Round robin will be ideal for bombers really. The other type of people it will get rid of (or at least downsize) are the 40+ accounts players, of which there are probably only a few. I can only think of 1 off the top of my head.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 19:46:55 -
[2802] - Quote
So a highly rich trader that's a member of CFC whiteknighting someone else's playstyle...
I have to now wonder what the full repercussions of this change might be for your coalition? I mean I know a handful of CFC members well but not enough to understand how this kind of change might affect the coalition that's supposedly 'winning' nullsec.
And you suggest that the majority of multiboxers are miners - which makes me wonder if CFC overly relies upon these cheaply available minerals for their war machine?
I mean that's a whole other aspect of this kind of multiboxing that hasn't even been touched on in this thread - alliances and coalitions not selling their minerals for personal gain but just having X number of clients supplying their industrial sides pretty much for free... are there not enough industry minded players in the fabulous CFC to keep those Titans rolling off the press?
"Curiouser and curiouser" cried Alice... |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
371
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 19:55:42 -
[2803] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Jason Xado wrote:
In short, this change will only get rid of people like me who will be quitting on the principle of the matter, and I can't imagine there are very many people who will quit simply on principle, so that will have little impact.
Yeah, that's the conclusion I came to as well. Round robin will be ideal for bombers really. The other type of people it will get rid of (or at least downsize) are the 40+ accounts players, of which there are probably only a few. I can only think of 1 off the top of my head.
I was up to 70, but not in PVP.
And I know of Bikkus Dikkus, who is verifiable as running 40 or more toons inHighsec HQ incursions.
As for boxed mining fueling the CFCs industrial arm, boxed mining happens. It happens alot, and tends to run boosted high skill mining fleets for reasonably long periods of time. I wouldn't be surprised if as much as a quarter of all miners came from people running at least 2 accounts.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4524
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 20:01:12 -
[2804] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:So a highly rich trader that's a member of CFC whiteknighting someone else's playstyle...
I have to now wonder what the full repercussions of this change might be for your coalition? I mean I know a handful of CFC members well but not enough to understand how this kind of change might affect the coalition that's supposedly 'winning' nullsec. I'm not white knighting anything, and to be honest, you can tinfoil hat about my coalition as much as you want. My words are and always have been my own. With this change I see CCP making a change with little if any benefit, and that's what I'm against. I honestly couldn't care less if you think there's some ulterior motive.
Eli Apol wrote:And you suggest that the majority of multiboxers are miners - which makes me wonder if CFC overly relies upon these cheaply available minerals for their war machine? That's not a suggestion, it's a fact. Try showing up to fanfest sometime.
Eli Apol wrote:I mean that's a whole other aspect of this kind of multiboxing that hasn't even been touched on in this thread - alliances and coalitions not selling their minerals for personal gain but just having X number of clients supplying their industrial sides pretty much for free... are there not enough industry minded players in the fabulous CFC to keep those Titans rolling off the press? I'm not really sure what you're on about with this one if I'm quite honest. Titan and large scale industry in null has generally always been "Ship materials from Jita -> Build locally". We couldn't give a flying **** who stocks Jita.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 20:45:49 -
[2805] - Quote
TLDR: You don't care about ISboxers keeping their preferred gamestyle either, you just want it ended in a different way that requires more coding, changing of mechanics and more hassle for the majority of the playerbase - but you agree that multiplexing (and excessive multiboxing of any fashion?) affects the game in a detrimental way.
And you disagree that hard bans on some of the specific techniques of doing this will be successful?
:) |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4525
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 21:16:02 -
[2806] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:TLDR: You don't care about ISboxers keeping their preferred gamestyle either, you just want it ended in a different way that requires more coding, changing of mechanics and more hassle for the majority of the playerbase - but you agree that multiplexing (and excessive multiboxing of any fashion?) affects the game in a detrimental way.
And you disagree that hard bans on some of the specific techniques of doing this will be successful?:) Pretty much. It's nice to see playstyles not need to get nuked, but it happens, adapt or die. What I don't like to see though is CCP shooting off down the wrong avenue to apply a fix and causing nothing but more tension between parts of the community.
But no, I don't believe multiplexing has any detrimental effect on the game at all, and the economy stats certainly support that. It would be nice for the focus to shift from alts to player interaction, because that's generally more fun for all involved, but no, I wouldn't see any problem with broadcasting/multiplexing continuing to exist. At the end of the day, the people against it wouldn't care if they didn't know it was one player controlling them, so clearly it's driven by envy, not some mystical effect multiboxers are having on the game.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 21:34:05 -
[2807] - Quote
See I'm not envious at all - but it does negatively affect me by making plex more expensive meaning I have to spend extra time to continue playing for free which isn't the same thing as envy at all. Likewise any small scale miners get negatively affected by bad mineral prices without having any need to be envious of the person making more isk than them.
Unless you're Bill Gates you must surely have become accustomed to others having more than you in the real world, let alone having it upset you in a videogame - so yeah I think 'envy' is not the reason that people have a chip on their shoulder about ISboxers - that's without even getting into the direct pvp results where 1 man can effectively suicide gank almost any ship in the game without any need of outside assistance if you cross him the wrong way - or take down a POS - or completely swing a whole battle in nullsec... I can't think of an RL analogy for this. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
Requiem Eternal
16
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 21:38:18 -
[2808] - Quote
i'm very grateful to the mass scale miners (or solo miners) and all miners who make ships and modules affordable. if they use isboxer or not would've not have made much difference for me. And it's already very expensive going out in battleships for most players. and to alliances etc which need ships. and i do believe that it's fair that people use multiple accounts. and its great for people that sell plex that prices are very large, they really deserve as much isk as possible, because they in fact use the real money here. But if an person buy an plex off another player, with isk he have earned. well, it is fair. and it's healthy and nice for the player who sell their plexes for isk. and for people who think its negative for economy etc. well, i have been thinking over it. so why? Mining is one of the most boring things in eve (personal opinion) some people feel that it is relaxing, or funny to manufacture etc.
(and i do have narcolepsy, (this is a bit off theme) and it's incredibly hard for me to mine just around 15 minutes. So i want to thank everyone that mine here :) and thank to everyone who support the community. small or large. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
Requiem Eternal
16
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 21:39:19 -
[2809] - Quote
dual post, lol |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4525
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 21:53:01 -
[2810] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:See I'm not envious at all - but it does negatively affect me by making plex more expensive meaning I have to spend extra time to continue playing for free which isn't the same thing as envy at all. Likewise any small scale miners get negatively affected by bad mineral prices without having any need to be envious of the person making more isk than them. Well I hate to break it to you but PLEX prices will always go up, even without ISBoxer players. PLEX prices are unlikely to go down or any significant amount of time, as people tend to be less eager to buy them for cash when they go down from the last time they bought them. As for mineral prices, they are up, have been up for a long time, even before ISBoxer was big, so I have my doubts on whether that has any effect either. And in both cases, an ISBoxer player has no more effect than the same amount of characters played solo and/or by manual multiboxers. So really, your problem there is the fact that other people exist.
Eli Apol wrote:Unless you're Bill Gates you must surely have become accustomed to others having more than you in the real world, let alone having it upset you in a videogame - so yeah I think 'envy' is not the reason that people have a chip on their shoulder about ISboxers - that's without even getting into the direct pvp results where 1 man can effectively suicide gank almost any ship in the game without any need of outside assistance if you cross him the wrong way - or take down a POS - or completely swing a whole battle in nullsec... I can't think of an RL analogy for this. You'd really be surprised how seriously some people take other people having more to them. Suicide gankers and bombers are an issue, sure, but again they are no more an issue than the same amount of players. If you didn't know they were all being played by one guy, you wouldn't care, so why does the amount of physical players behind the screen matter? Annoy a leader of a strong corp and you can find more solo characters coming down on you than multiboxers tend to run.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
312
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 21:57:57 -
[2811] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:See I'm not envious at all - but it does negatively affect me by making plex more expensive meaning I have to spend extra time to continue playing for free which isn't the same thing as envy at all. Likewise any small scale miners get negatively affected by bad mineral prices without having any need to be envious of the person making more isk than them.
Unless you're Bill Gates you must surely have become accustomed to others having more than you in the real world, let alone having it upset you in a videogame - so yeah I think 'envy' is not the reason that people have a chip on their shoulder about ISboxers - that's without even getting into the direct pvp results where 1 man can effectively suicide gank almost any ship in the game without any need of outside assistance if you cross him the wrong way - or take down a POS - or completely swing a whole battle in nullsec... I can't think of an RL analogy for this.
You're implying that PLEX increasing is relatively recent and is only caused by multiboxed accounts when CCP themselves admitted that less plex was being moved on the market. PLEX is a consumable item that has had it's demand increase thanks to dual character training and there are many people who hoard hundreds if not thousands of PLEX like it was gold. In this case correlation =/= causation.
As I've said and as Lucas has mentioned in previous posts, there is a very vocal subset of the playerbase that hates "Alts Online" and will QQ if you use two toons at once, let alone a fleet. These were the ones running about screaming about bots in local whenever they encountered a mining fleet, or sending hundreds of petitions because they disliked ISBoxing because they couldn't do it or they didn't want to do it.
ISBoxers have always had a "live and let live" policy when it comes to other players partially due to the fact that we sacrifice quite a bit when we box a fleet. |
Solops Crendraven
Solops Inc
27
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 10:36:52 -
[2812] - Quote
Long Live multiplexing!
Check Me Out!!! On Twitch Tv 24/7 enter link description here
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 13:33:31 -
[2813] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:You're implying that PLEX increasing is relatively recent and is only caused by multiboxed accounts when CCP themselves admitted that less plex was being moved on the market. PLEX is a consumable item that has had it's demand increase thanks to dual character training and there are many people who hoard hundreds if not thousands of PLEX like it was gold. In this case correlation =/= causation.
As I've said and as Lucas has mentioned in previous posts, there is a very vocal subset of the playerbase that hates "Alts Online" and will QQ if you use two toons at once, let alone a fleet. These were the ones running about screaming about bots in local whenever they encountered a mining fleet, or sending hundreds of petitions because they disliked ISBoxing because they couldn't do it or they didn't want to do it.
ISBoxers have always had a "live and let live" policy when it comes to other players partially due to the fact that we sacrifice quite a bit when we box a fleet.
It might not be the only cause but when you have players that have excessive isk/hr earning potential and are using increasing numbers of plex across all their accounts, then it's going to exacerbate the problems of plex shortages.
70/40/20/10 accounts being plexed by one player every month? At the high end of the spectrum that's close to 5 years worth of gametime for someone with a single account all gone in a month and all used in bringing in either exorbitant amounts of isk, LP or minerals that are affecting the markets for everyone - it's like a double whammy of bad for the game. And then some of those players falsely claim that they're a key market for CCP because of using these plex (which would get used by other players if they cost less isk anyways) - leeches not whales.
I've never screamed about bots or QQ'd about multiboxers - but I will cheer efforts to restrict them down to less superhuman levels of income multiplication because it's a fix for the game and - as I've already said - I think that people trying to sidestep the implemented measures on technicalities are fighting against the ones making the rules and on a slippery slope to more draconian measures.
It seems that Lucas actually doesn't really care about maintaining ISboxers' playstyles at all so I wouldn't really reference him in your points - he just doesn't believe that this specific change will work as a form of controlling the symptom - which he's currently correct about since there's so many workarounds to the current policy. Where we differ is that I believe the policy can be tightened up to close those loopholes whilst he believes a complete redesign of the core gameplay mechanics is required to do so. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4525
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 13:46:58 -
[2814] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:It might not be the only cause but when you have players that have excessive isk/hr earning potential and are using increasing numbers of plex across all their accounts, then it's going to exacerbate the problems of plex shortages.
70/40/20/10 accounts being plexed by one player every month? At the high end of the spectrum that's close to 5 years worth of gametime for someone with a single account all gone in a month and all used in bringing in either exorbitant amounts of isk, LP or minerals that are affecting the markets for everyone - it's like a double whammy of bad for the game. And then some of those players falsely claim that they're a key market for CCP because of using these plex (which would get used by other players if they cost less isk anyways) - leeches not whales. What plex shortages?
Seriously, look at the market statistics. compare when ISBoxer became more commonplace. PLEX will continue to go up even without ISBoxer accounts. If PLEX going down, if that's really, honestly what you were hoping is going to happen, then you will not be best pleased. There might be a short drop in January from speculation, but by this time next year, we'll be well over the billion mark. Amusingly though, even if PLEX were significantly affected by the change, consider what happens to many these multiboxed miners. They get sold on to new owners to be used in smaller groups, at the cost of 2 PLEX for the transfer and still a PLEX per month.
People always talk about "the economy" in relation to multiboxing, but nobody has been able to offer anything beyond anecdotal evidence that any such correlation exists. Supposedly mineral prices should be in the dirt by now, but even before this thread we were cruising to an all time high.
Eli Apol wrote:It seems that Lucas actually doesn't really care about maintaining ISboxers' playstyles at all so I wouldn't really reference him in your points - he just doesn't believe that this specific change will work as a form of controlling the symptom - which he's currently correct about since there's so many workarounds to the current policy. Where we differ is that I believe the policy can be tightened up to close those loopholes whilst he believes a complete redesign of the core gameplay mechanics is required to do so. That doesn't mean he can't reference my posts. We may have slightly differing viewpoints, but we both recognise that the argument of "multiboxers hurt the economy" is both incorrect and irrelevant (since multiboxing, be it manual or using tools, will continue). It's clear that while your own opinion might not be the same, many people simply hate people who run multiple characters. Some believe it should be one account, some thing a couple or 3 is OK and beyond that it's madness. Dig through some of the old "Die multiboxers die" threads and you'll see it clearly.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 13:54:23 -
[2815] - Quote
The only people with access to full details about the effects of multiboxers on the economy are CCP... and guess who's implementing this change?
So lets think about reasons WHY they might be implementing this:
- because lots of non-multiboxers are whining?
- because it was being used as an excuse by various botters?
- because it adversely affects their game design (through breaking pvp combat with bombers and screwing up their player driven economy)?
Feel free to come up with your own and try to figure out which are the most likely reasons for them to restrict a playstyle like this. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
375
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 13:59:45 -
[2816] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:What plex shortages?
Seriously, look at the market statistics. compare when ISBoxer became more commonplace. PLEX will continue to go up even without ISBoxer accounts. If PLEX going down, if that's really, honestly what you were hoping is going to happen, then you will not be best pleased. There might be a short drop in January from speculation, but by this time next year, we'll be well over the billion mark. Amusingly though, even if PLEX were significantly affected by the change, consider what happens to many these multiboxed miners. They get sold on to new owners to be used in smaller groups, at the cost of 2 PLEX for the transfer and still a PLEX per month.
People always talk about "the economy" in relation to multiboxing, but nobody has been able to offer anything beyond anecdotal evidence that any such correlation exists. Supposedly mineral prices should be in the dirt by now, but even before this thread we were cruising to an all time high.
.
Multi-boxers definately have a major impact on some of the smaller sub-markets, like non-third party LP trading. Some boxers who choose to publicly unload can depress prices by 25% or more for, in one case, about 2 months, by himself.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4526
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 14:07:40 -
[2817] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:The only people with access to full details about the effects of multiboxers on the economy are CCP... and guess who's implementing this change? Are they? Considering they do state of the economy talks every year and full details of the daily market trading totals and averages are widely available (eve-central, eve-marketdata, even straight from CCP via CREST) it seems to me that they aren't the only ones with full details at all.
Eli Apol wrote:So lets think about reasons WHY they might be implementing this:
- because lots of non-multiboxers are whining?
- because it was being used as an excuse by various botters?
- because it adversely affects their game design (through breaking pvp combat with bombers and screwing up their player driven economy)?
Feel free to come up with your own and try to figure out which are the most likely reasons for them to restrict a playstyle like this. - because it was raised by a developer, discussed and the result was to remove broadcasting.
It doesn't have to be for some elaborate reason beyond someone thinking it was a good idea, putting it forward and getting it agreed. In the world of software development, that's generally how it works. But if you were to look at the reason players put forward for not liking it (which is what we are talking about here), most of them is because "waah alts online". Whether or not those people are the reason they decided to change it is anyone's guess.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
375
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 14:09:14 -
[2818] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:The only people with access to full details about the effects of multiboxers on the economy are CCP... and guess who's implementing this change?
So lets think about reasons WHY they might be implementing this:
- because lots of non-multiboxers are whining?
- because it was being used as an excuse by various botters?
- because it adversely affects their game design (through breaking pvp combat with bombers and screwing up their player driven economy)?
Feel free to come up with your own and try to figure out which are the most likely reasons for them to restrict a playstyle like this.
Lets demolish these, eve style.
1: whining and tears mean your opposition is doing it right, and you need to HTFU.
2: fairly easy to spot most bots via logs, as they tend to have even more regular input than broadcast characters, and the smarter bots are mostly going to be updated to look like they aren't even broadcasting.
3: Bombers aren't particularly balanced right now regardless of who is in them.
4: In many ways, boxers are propping up the economy and making it artificially cheap to PVP. Almost everyone agrees that a lower hull cost is good for the numbers fielded in PVP, and especially for newbies
5: While boxers make a large income overall, they are less effecitve at collecting isk than the same number of clients run either single or in groups of 2-3 (the "normal" for most players if one averages active accounts and players) in almost every case.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
224
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 14:10:18 -
[2819] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:
- because it adversely affects their game design (through breaking pvp combat with bombers and screwing up their player driven economy)?
I get really sick of this claim. Killmails are public. If isboxer bombers are doing this so much then either show some evidence or shut up.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 14:11:09 -
[2820] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Are they? Considering they do state of the economy talks every year and full details of the daily market trading totals and averages are widely available (eve-central, eve-marketdata, even straight from CCP via CREST) it seems to me that they aren't the only ones with full details at all
Show me a graph where they have incomes of multi character users vs non-multi character users. I believe this is only available to CCP and members of the CSM so far (Mike from the CSM mentioned the availability of this information a few months ago during a general discussion in a public incursion chat). This is not publicly available. |
|
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 14:15:05 -
[2821] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Eli Apol wrote:
- because it adversely affects their game design (through breaking pvp combat with bombers and screwing up their player driven economy)?
I get really sick of this claim. Killmails are public. If isboxer bombers are doing this so much then either show some evidence or shut up.
Do you live in a hole? Have you not seen the effect of small groups of bombers on nullsec fleet battles over the past few months? Outside of T3 doctrines bombers have absolutely demolished various subcap support fleets - and I have it on good authority that these have largely been multiboxed bomber squadrons controlled by just one or two players. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4526
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 14:15:55 -
[2822] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Multi-boxers definately have a major impact on some of the smaller sub-markets, like non-third party LP trading. Some boxers who choose to publicly unload can depress prices by 25% or more for, in one case, about 2 months, by himself. As do non-ISBoxer characters, even solo ones. Sometimes I use just a single alt to crash an entire product for no reason beyond the fun of it. Mutliboxers aren't the reason, you simply only notice when it's a multiboxer doing it publicly, because they are doing it publicly. A corporation, an alliance, a group of mates, or even a nolifing individual can all do exactly the same thing.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
224
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 14:18:06 -
[2823] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Eli Apol wrote:
- because it adversely affects their game design (through breaking pvp combat with bombers and screwing up their player driven economy)?
I get really sick of this claim. Killmails are public. If isboxer bombers are doing this so much then either show some evidence or shut up. Do you live in a hole? Have you not seen the effect of small groups of bombers on nullsec fleet battles over the past few months? Outside of T3 doctrines bombers have absolutely demolished various subcap support fleets - and I have it on good authority that these have largely been multiboxed bomber squadrons controlled by just one or two players.
I am in some of these fleets. We are not isboxing. Yea not much effect or you would be able to point to it.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
376
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 14:18:08 -
[2824] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Are they? Considering they do state of the economy talks every year and full details of the daily market trading totals and averages are widely available (eve-central, eve-marketdata, even straight from CCP via CREST) it seems to me that they aren't the only ones with full details at all Show me a graph where they have incomes of multi character users vs non-multi character users. I believe this is only available to CCP and members of the CSM so far (Mike from the CSM mentioned the availability of this information a few months ago during a general discussion in a public incursion chat). This is not publicly available.
This isn't hard to figure out though.
Ship scan a boxed miner. Now, assume maximum boosts and skills and you have an upper limit per character. Multiply this by the number of characters being run.
For incursion boxers, follow their fleet for an hour here and there. Average the site times, then do the appropriate payout math.
For anom boxers: ask about their ticks. multiply by number of characters, then skim their tax rate off.
Anything else you want to claim is boxed en masse?
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4526
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 14:21:55 -
[2825] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Show me a graph where they have incomes of multi character users vs non-multi character users. I believe this is only available to CCP and members of the CSM so far (Mike from the CSM mentioned the availability of this information a few months ago during a general discussion in a public incursion chat). This is not publicly available. What would that graph prove about the economy? Absolutely nothing. The only information you need to know to work out economic impact is the state of the economy for the items you are considering and the popularity of ISBoxer amongst EVE users, both of which can be found online.
And pretty soon you'll see for yourself. Broadcasting is banned from January. Watch PLEX prices drop due to speculation, bounce most of the way back, then continue on the uphill jog towards 1b.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 14:22:15 -
[2826] - Quote
Yeah that gives you the average hourly rate, now tell me how much of an effect that's having over the whole game - do you have the number of multiboxing accounts to hand? What percentage of the playerbase that is? How much of an effect that percentage is having over the whole game?
Please let us all know and we can all see whether this is a non-trivial effect. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4526
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 14:25:29 -
[2827] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Yeah that gives you the average hourly rate, now tell me how much of an effect that's having over the whole game - do you have the number of multiboxing accounts to hand? What percentage of the playerbase that is? How much of an effect that percentage is having over the whole game?
Please let us all know and we can all see whether this is a non-trivial effect. I'm beginning to understand why it appears you have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about the effect on the economy.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 14:27:02 -
[2828] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I'm beginning to understand why it appears you have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about the effect on the economy.
I've been wondering for a while how you're a successful trader with such an inablity to discern the effects of supply and demand on markets.
Each to their own I guess. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
376
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 14:29:55 -
[2829] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Yeah that gives you the average hourly rate, now tell me how much of an effect that's having over the whole game - do you have the number of multiboxing accounts to hand? What percentage of the playerbase that is? How much of an effect that percentage is having over the whole game?
Please let us all know and we can all see whether this is a non-trivial effect. I'm beginning to understand why it appears you have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about the effect on the economy.
So, what he was the player percentage of boxers and the overall number of boxes, and then wanted the inpact of these boxes on the whole economy of eve expressed as a single percentage?
Is that what he was asking for?
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 14:31:06 -
[2830] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:So, what he was the player percentage of boxers and the overall number of boxes, and then wanted the inpact of these boxes on the whole economy of eve expressed as a single percentage?
Is that what he was asking for?
Percentage of the playerbase using input multiplexing
Percentage of minerals supplied on the market by this subset
Percentage of isk created by this subset
Percentage of LP created by this subset
etc etc....
edit:
Percentage of the monthly plex usage attributable to this subset.... |
|
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
376
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 14:36:52 -
[2831] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I'm beginning to understand why it appears you have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about the effect on the economy.
I've been wondering for a while how you're a successful trader with such an inablity to discern the effects of supply and demand on markets. Each to their own I guess.
Each boxer handing off their toons decreases the number of plex in the short term, by selling the character, which costs 2 plex per character. These characters still need to live on active, subscribed accounts, and so continue to use 1 plex per month. This is an overall uptick in demand.
As for the recent plex price drop, there are a number of boxers who had stocked up x months/years per character of plex against ever needing isk to plex something urgently. Many of the larger boxers reduced the number of characters they will keep this strategic reserve for and thus a large cache of plex hit the market in a reasonably short period of time, causing speculation to drop the markets for a while. The boxers and other parties with the sense to close their mouth and look down then it rains stopped putting their plex up when they figured out that the market was becoming depressed, and so you see a more bounded curve for now, as there are still reserves which have a price at which they will be dumped which weren't there before.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
376
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 14:43:08 -
[2832] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:James Baboli wrote:So, what he was the player percentage of boxers and the overall number of boxes, and then wanted the inpact of these boxes on the whole economy of eve expressed as a single percentage?
Is that what he was asking for? Percentage of the playerbase using input multiplexing Percentage of minerals supplied on the market by this subset Percentage of isk created by this subset Percentage of LP created by this subset etc etc.... edit: Percentage of the monthly plex usage attributable to this subset....
You can make some pretty tight estimates from public data. around B-2 categorization if you know intel analysis.
Players: maybe 2%, upper bound of 10% who have a input multiplexing method installed but not in common use
Minerals ~10%, Not more than 20% as an absolute upper bound.
ISK: 10%, 20% as an absolute upper bound
LP: 2-3% of total LP, higher if you take incursion LP alone due to the higher concentration of boxers.
Plex usage: 12-15%, upper bound of 20%
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 14:44:37 -
[2833] - Quote
Completely true. And every single boxer (both IS'd and manual) that does not pay subscriptions creates a demand for plex according to how many accounts they have.
Now if we (wrongly I know) assume that the supply is more or less constant, then eliminating multiplexed accounts reduces demand which leads to cheaper prices.
Of course this is a horrible simplification because both the supply and demand are also determined by the isk price of the plex as well in fairly complex ways - BUT - reducing a blanket amount of demand by restricting multiboxing like this WILL affect the plex market even if it is tending to increase anyways.
Supply and demand, like I said. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4526
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 14:53:55 -
[2834] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:I've been wondering for a while how you're a successful trader with such an inablity to discern the effects of supply and demand on markets.
Each to their own I guess. Perhaps it's because I understand there's more complexity to the economy than simple supply and demand based off of anecdotal evidence. Your entire principle is "A multiboxer buys more PLEX for subs than a single player, thus they are the reason PLEX prices are high". Except you don't know how much PLEX is bought by multiboxers. Over half the PLEX put into the game is bought and stored by traders, specifically because traders know it will always go up in price. In that way it's better to hold PLEX than liquid ISK. You also don't know what other uses people have for PLEX. Fanfest for example can be paid in PLEX. A full set of tickets for someone to go to fanfest is 50 PLEX (4.1 years gametime) and if they are taking their partner who is going on SoE tour, 106 PLEX (8.8 years gametime). Then there's character purchases, PLEX to AUR, resculpting, dual character training, etc.
The fact is that the economy stats prove that with the increase in ISBoxer use, the market has not shifted in any noticeable manner. Mineral prices have practically done the opposite of what people claim ISBoxer has done to them. The "but the economy" whines are always from people with very little knowledge of the subject.
James Baboli wrote:So, what he was the player percentage of boxers and the overall number of boxes, and then wanted the impact of these boxes on the whole economy of eve expressed as a single percentage?
Is that what he was asking for? Honestly, it's not entirely clear. It seems to be that he wants to prove that multiboxers earn more than non-multiboxers and thus they must be negatively impacting the economy.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 15:00:00 -
[2835] - Quote
Lets put this simply...
Total Demand = Miscellaneous demand + Multiplexer demand
Is Total Demand going to increase or decrease if we remove multiplexers (assuming that multiplexer demand is a positive amount)
We can even reverse this incredibly simple equation when talking about supply of minerals, isk and LP:
Total Supply = Miscellaneous supply + Multiplexer supply
is Total Supply going to increase or decrease if we remove multiplexers (assuming that multiplexer supply is a positive amount)
Kthx bye. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4526
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 15:08:00 -
[2836] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Lets put this simply...
Total Demand = Miscellaneous demand + Multiplexer demand
Is Total Demand going to increase or decrease if we remove multiplexers (assuming that multiplexer demand is a positive amount)
We can even reverse this incredibly simple equation when talking about supply of minerals, isk and LP:
Total Supply = Miscellaneous supply + Multiplexer supply
is Total Supply going to increase or decrease if we remove multiplexers (assuming that multiplexer supply is a positive amount)
Kthx bye. Who knows. Maybe those multiboxers will sell their characters and the overall number of active account will not decrease, but the extra 2 PLEX per character will spike demand. Either way it's irrelevant. PLEX price will go up, and then you'll be sitting there going "but, but but... the demand should have gone down!". Repeatedly smashing your head against the same brick wall with the same dumb comment written on it won't make it less dumb. Multiboxers do not negatively affect the economy any more than other use of PLEX does.
I understand that you don't get it, but that's the fact. Continue to kick and scream about the economy all you want, you'll still be paying over a billion a PLEX next year, guaranteed.
Edit: by the way, in both those cases the biggest flaw you have is that you assume that those values are fixed rather than fluid. Remember earlier when I said that the economy was more complex than rudimentary supply vs demand?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 15:21:22 -
[2837] - Quote
Thanks for finally conceding that it does have an effect on the economy.
It was a tough few pages there but the fifth grade math made it in the end. Thank god I was about to pull out the box of sweets and start asking what happens when we take 3 away from David and give them to Sarah. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4532
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 15:28:12 -
[2838] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Thanks for finally conceding that it does have an effect on the economy.
It was a tough few pages there but the fifth grade math made it in the end. Thank god I was about to pull out the box of sweets and start asking what happens when we take 3 away from David and give them to Sarah. You have an effect on the economy. Everyone has an effect on the economy. What you were stating though is that ISBoxers have a significant detrimental effect on the economy and thus should be removed because you think it will make your PLEX cheaper, which it won't because they don't. Don't try to wiggle yourself out of the hole you dug when you suddenly realise you have no facts to back up your claim.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 15:33:59 -
[2839] - Quote
I asked whether it was a non-trivial effect. You (via a variety of quite simplistic ad hominems that seem to be one of your trademarks on these forums) implied that the economy was unaffected by multiplexers at all.
Whether or not it's non-trivial is only known to one group of people - the developers that decided to enact this ban.
I have yet to hear another credible reason for them to do so.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4532
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 15:43:18 -
[2840] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:I asked whether it was a non-trivial effect. You (via a variety of quite simplistic ad hominems that seem to be one of your trademarks on these forums) implied that the economy was unaffected by multiplexers at all.
Whether or not it's non-trivial is only known to one group of people - the developers that decided to enact this ban.
I have yet to hear another credible reason for them to do so. And no, it's doesn't have a non-trivial effect. As is clearly evidenced by the economy statistics available to you. We've already clearly covered why you are saying it anyway. You think PLEX prices will drop enabling you to buy cheaper PLEX if ISBoxer users aren't there. That won't happen.
And you've yet to hear a reason you believe to be credible. That doesn't mean the reasons people have suggested aren't credible, it simply means you don't like them. I'd certainly suggest that "but the economy!" isn't a credible reason given the lack of evidence to suggest that ISBoxer miners have any effect on the economy over and above other players.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 15:54:27 -
[2841] - Quote
I have just two accounts and can PLEX them easily within my gametime each month (usually within one weekend tbh), PLEX prices are not a personal worry for me but I was pointing out that they are dependent somewhat upon the number of multiplexers.
Which reasons are there which aren't due to gameplay or economy balance?? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4532
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 16:09:23 -
[2842] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:I have just two accounts and can PLEX them easily within my gametime each month (usually within one weekend tbh), PLEX prices are not a personal worry for me but I was pointing out that they are dependent somewhat upon the number of multiplexers.
Which reasons are there which aren't due to gameplay or economy balance??
- Following complaints from envious players that it's "unfair"
- Simply because a dev put it forward as an idea and it got accepted (you'd be surprised how many times in development environments this occurs)
To be honest though, you know exactly why I think it's happened. People were suddenly aware of bomber fleets. It's not new, but it's been in the blogs a lot more - probably because it happened to the CFC. Following that it was raised by CSMs, discussed by CCP and a decisions was made to nerf bombers in an attempt to fix it. CCP put forward a change, announced it, and bomber pilots started shrieking their complaints. So CCP pulled the cloak mechanic change and instead figured that removing broadcasting would resolve the issue (which it won't). Realistically they were right in the first place. The problem is with the gameplay mechanics, and that's where it should be fixed. It has nothing to do with the economy.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 16:33:01 -
[2843] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:I am in some of these fleets. We are not isboxing. Yea not much effect or you would be able to point to it. Allegedly this isn't true according to someone who seemed to know better when I already mentioned that as a reason...
But fair enough, that's the only other valid reason I could think of as well and indeed it's not mutually exclusive to the effects on the market and economy.
One thing to remember though is that CSM Mike mentioned CCP's access to the figures for the market and economy when he was discussing the effect of multiboxers (multiplexers was not used as a term to differentiate the broadcasting users at this stage) in a PvE centric public channel, I presumed that perhaps they were looking at these figures whilst making their decision.
2 birds 1 stone perhaps. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
315
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 21:16:09 -
[2844] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:I am in some of these fleets. We are not isboxing. Yea not much effect or you would be able to point to it. Allegedly this isn't true according to someone who seemed to know better when I already mentioned that as a reason... But fair enough, that's the only other valid reason I could think of as well and indeed it's not mutually exclusive to the effects on the market and economy. One thing to remember though is that CSM Mike mentioned CCP's access to the figures for the market and economy when he was discussing the effect of multiboxers (multiplexers was not used as a term to differentiate the broadcasting users at this stage) in a PvE centric public channel, I presumed that perhaps they were looking at these figures whilst making their decision. 2 birds 1 stone perhaps. I certainly wouldn't write off the market effects based upon anecdotal evidence about bombers being the reason.
Making a bad change for all the right reasons is still a bad change. These same people who would have CCP remove broadcasting would also have CCP remove any non-consensual PVP in highsec, and remove scams.
EVE has a reputation for breaking the norm of MMOs. It allows scams (and some argue it encourages them with the way the market's set up. I personally do not know enough about the market or the relevant skills to form an opinion on whether EVE truly encourages scams or if it is more 'absent minded' regarding such things), allows non-consensual PVP in supposedly "safe" systems (not counting rookie systems), allows ganks, has wardecs that allow PVP in high-sec areas, and has a greater focus on player skill than in-game skills or items than other games that I've looked at.
EVE is (was) one of the last places that allowed unrestricted multiboxing. WoW restricts it to non-PVP usage, LOTRO recently banned it (if I remember correctly), DDO has no follow or assist command and the targeting system there is poor. Now that EVE has all but banned ISBoxer and similar software, many are now wondering why they're bothering to pay or sub their accounts for EVE when games like Elite: Dangerous and Star Citizen are coming out soon. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
129
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 22:03:41 -
[2845] - Quote
No evidence this is a good or a bad change.
There are always those who try to push ccp to make high sec safer and there are also those that are pushing the other way. CCP will take there game in the direction they think best if you really disagree with it then unsub and sit around waiting for the other games to come out. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
316
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 22:17:35 -
[2846] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:No evidence this is a good or a bad change.
thatsThePoint.jpg
Lady Rift wrote:if you really disagree with it then unsub and sit around waiting for the other games to come out.
I am allowed to voice my opinion without resorting to such drastic measures. I was merely bringing something to light that may not have been visible for the "grr boxers" crowd.
If you wish to suppress people's voice and opinion and leave only one voice as "the truth" then I suggest taking a look at any history book written in the past 50 years. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
129
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 01:08:01 -
[2847] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Lady Rift wrote:No evidence this is a good or a bad change. thatsThePoint.jpg Lady Rift wrote:if you really disagree with it then unsub and sit around waiting for the other games to come out. I am allowed to voice my opinion without resorting to such drastic measures. I was merely bringing something to light that may not have been visible for the "grr boxers" crowd. If you wish to suppress people's voice and opinion and leave only one voice as "the truth" then I suggest taking a look at any history book written in the past 50 years.
any grr boxer person left this thread 25-100 pages ago which also has all the things you are trying to point out to them repeated over and over.
You are the one that suggested people might leave to go play other games that aren't out yet I just supported them in that should they choose to take that route. I never told anyone to quit you where the one that suggested there might not a reason to play this game anymore. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
318
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 02:30:29 -
[2848] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:any grr boxer person left this thread 25-100 pages ago which also has all the things you are trying to point out to them repeated over and over.
You are the one that suggested people might leave to go play other games that aren't out yet I just supported them in that should they choose to take that route. I never told anyone to quit you where the one that suggested there might not a reason to play this game anymore.
Eli and Tyr are still here. As well as the others who pop in just to say "grr boxers" and then disappear.
While I did suggest (and have been told by other boxers) that some will leave for other games, you told me to unsub simply for continuing a discussion and I quoted your exact phrasing in my previous response. If you wish to delete or edit what you said as some form of retroactive "no I didn't, you're changing my arguments", go right ahead. Such narrow-mindedness will get you nowhere IRL, not to mention EVE.
Also, consider our side of the picture for a moment. We've been minding our own business mostly for the past however-long ISBoxing has been a thing, not attempting to change gameplay for those who do not adhere to a very narrow interpretation of the EULA. We've mostly stuck to the shadows, with a few notable exceptions such as TheWiz, Replicator, Ammzi, Oodell, and bikkus. We've been targeted since the beginning by gankers and by wardeccers the likes of Marmite because of a strange version of xenophobia or panphobia, although in this case it isn't fear of other people or "everything" but fear of something they do not understand; much like how a two month old pilot would react upon seeing Chribba's Veldnaught in Jita. We're the constant target of threads in GD that generally go "I saw a bot, why isn't he banned?" or "Ban ISBoxer because he shouldn't have multiple accounts". Generally, these rare souls are laughed at until the local ISD locks it and reaffirms that ISBoxer and multiboxing did not break the EULA so long as there was still a person behind the seat. Fast foward a bit, and we start hearing nasty rumors from Replicator and the smaller, less visible gank-boxers about downed ships getting reimbursed, and ISD suddenly stepping up and locking any attempts to discuss these threads on GD. Any and all attempts to get an official statement from CCP were met with "gtfo", "nothing's changed" (despite evidence to the contrary), or "it's part of an active discussion regarding ISBoxers and no, we won't ask for advice or opinions from any ISBoxers". Many took this as an attack on ISBoxer, including myself. Now fast forward to the OP, and we, just like some of the wormhole corps and alliances, are wondering why we're supposed to say "Moar please" when someone's hitting us with the stick while tossing the carrot in the trash.
Players can endure only so much before they cut their losses and run. |
Jeune
Anomalous Existence
Low-Class
11
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 04:07:54 -
[2849] - Quote
Thank you, CCP. I've just resubbed this account and two others after a year of inactivity. Maybe more to follow. Other recent changes were the major reasons, but this was the deciding factor.
Again, Thank You.
P.S. - To all those leaving soon; Can I have your stuff? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4536
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 08:16:19 -
[2850] - Quote
Jeune wrote:Thank you, CCP. I've just resubbed this account and two others after a year of inactivity. Maybe more to follow. Other recent changes were the major reasons, but this was the deciding factor.
Again, Thank You.
P.S. - To all those leaving soon; Can I have your stuff? If I were you, I wouldn't make it a long sub. If other people multiboxing is what kept you away, you'll be very disappointed when you realise they will still be multiboxing in January.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 09:28:20 -
[2851] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Eli and Tyr are still here. As well as the others who pop in just to say "grr boxers" and then disappear.
Sorry to burst your bubble buddy but I'm not a grrrr boxer or QQing about boxing as your side of the court keeps trying to brand anyone that disagrees with you.
I'm not emotionally (nor economically) invested in multiplexing like you are - I can just see that it's bad for game balance and design to have such an easily scalable form of solo income.
I fly with multiboxers fairly regularly, indeed I've been happy at unsociable hours to fly with dual boxing logi and dps ships to make up numbers and speed up sites to increase my own income, when perhaps the fleet would otherwise have had to stand down entirely. There have been times I've been allowed to leech payouts with my second inactive account when fleets have been low on numbers, so directly benefited from my passive dual boxing style. I've had the joys of yourself and Bikkus accelerating tower bashes and increasing my raw isk/hr... I've even benefited from the cheaper mineral prices that I'm fighting against.
On an eve-wide scale, this will actually be a bad change for me personally since as an incursion runner I'm one of the more space-rich in general (although incredibly space-poor compared to WH people, large scale traders and alliance heads) and this has only really been of benefit to me.
I am interested in manual multiboxing and have been ever since watching RnK vids where prominent members have been flying dual roles in small pvp fleets - it's something I've been practicing in quiet corners of SiSi from time to time - it takes real skill to split attention like that - in terms of pve multiplexing though it's an isk/hr multiplier with minimal risk, pure and simple. So yeah, I don't really see the 'grrrboxers' crew QQing about this change, I see the multiplexers QQing about a restriction of their income faucet aka 'playstyle'. |
Rawthorm
D.M.T inc
Circle-Of-Two
30
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 09:28:30 -
[2852] - Quote
Jeune wrote:Thank you, CCP. I've just resubbed this account and two others after a year of inactivity. Maybe more to follow. Other recent changes were the major reasons, but this was the deciding factor.
Again, Thank You.
P.S. - To all those leaving soon; Can I have your stuff?
For the benefit of the audience, would you please show us all on the chart where the bad little ISBoxers touched you? Whatever they did to you must have been bad if that's been a serious factor in keeping you away from EvE all these years.
Its ok, your safe now. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4536
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 10:13:00 -
[2853] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:I can just see that it's bad for game balance and design to have such an easily scalable form of solo income. FYI, trading is more scalable, requires less effort, less hardware and makes significantly more isk than any multiboxer could. Traders also buy more PLEX and manipulate more markets than a multiboxer. So I guess you'll also be in support of getting rid of trading then?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 10:19:01 -
[2854] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Eli Apol wrote:I can just see that it's bad for game balance and design to have such an easily scalable form of solo income. FYI, trading is more scalable, requires less effort, less hardware and makes significantly more isk than any multiboxer could. Traders also buy more PLEX and manipulate more markets than a multiboxer. So I guess you'll also be in support of getting rid of trading then?
Strawman is strawman
Feel free to manipulate all you like, just don't manipulate prices across every hub at the same time using multiplexing across clients - at least you have to independently change your 0.01 isk prices to compete in every market. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4537
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 10:38:29 -
[2855] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Strawman is strawman No strwaman there. Your argument for supporting the change is about ISBoxer being too scalable and causing economic damage. Since trading is more scalable and in fact does cause significant economic damage, there's no reason for you to not be against that too. Unless of course you're not being honest about yuor reasons for hating the change.
Eli Apol wrote:Feel free to manipulate all you like, just don't manipulate prices across every hub at the same time using multiplexing across clients - at least you have to independently change your 0.01 isk prices to compete in every market. And here we have the crux of it. Your issue has nothing to do with any gameplay factors, it's purely to do with the number of clicks someone has to perform to achieve it. You feel it's unfair that someone puts in less effort than you because they've optimised their setup. It's an emotional response.
Following the changes, ISBoxer will still ISBox nearly as much using VideoFX and round robin. since that increases their number of clicks to the same as a manual multiboxer, you'll have to find some other reason to get all mad.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 11:04:45 -
[2856] - Quote
lols
I love the way you flit from one side of the argument to the other according to your whims.
One minute you're proboxing and accusing us all of QQing over boxers and having an emotional response - the next you want them to change core mechanics (possibly breaking the entire game) in order to have a more feasible fix for boxing...
Make up your mind.
Markets can be entered by any level of player, solo or boxed, they just need X amount of capital and knowledge of how the markets work.
Market trading is probably the only part of Eve where a solo, single account player CAN be more effective than any number of toons, whether boxed or played by individuals, so long as they play cleverly (and can raise enough capital to compete).
At one stage, I trained just one of my alts into trading and basically ended up buying and selling all of the faction ammo going in and out of Amarr for a period of weeks, making hundreds of millions a day - then I realised I was bored shitless playing 0.01 isk games all day and had better things to do with my life. If I'd wanted to scale that up, it would have required twice the amount of attention in maintaining buy and sell orders across two hubs.
EDIT: Thinking about it more, mirth is an emotional response, so perhaps I am, as you say, emotionally invested in this argument |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4538
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 11:39:48 -
[2857] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:lols
I love the way you flit from one side of the argument to the other according to your whims.
One minute you're proboxing and accusing us all of QQing over boxers and having an emotional response - the next you want them to change core mechanics (possibly breaking the entire game) in order to have a more feasible fix for boxing... My stance hasn't changed at all. I think this change is pointless and attacks the wrong players for the result they are aiming for, and will have very little impact at all. I support multiboxers existing because I don't judge how people play the game, like some people do. I'd prefer if overly simplistic game mechanics were more involved, which would naturally make multiboxing more difficult. It wouldn't be a goal to make multiboxing more difficult, but it would certainly have that effect.
Eli Apol wrote:Markets can be entered by any level of player, solo or boxed, they just need X amount of capital and knowledge of how the markets work.
Market trading is probably the only part of Eve where a solo, single account player CAN be more effective than any number of toons, whether boxed or played by individuals, so long as they play cleverly (and can raise enough capital to compete). Are you saying people can't enter into the tasks multiboxer perform? A miner can be in a barge in 8 days and a venture on their first. You don't have to run 50 accounts to make isk from mining, ratting or even ganking. Much like trading, it scales. A solo character could not be more effective than a certain number of players, because there's limits to how many orders you can have open, and you'd need to be constantly travelling between hubs.
Eli Apol wrote:At one stage, I trained just one of my alts into trading and basically ended up buying and selling all of the faction ammo going in and out of Amarr for a period of weeks, making hundreds of millions a day - then I realised I was bored shitless playing 0.01 isk games all day and had better things to do with my life. If I'd wanted to scale that up, it would have required twice the amount of attention in maintaining buy and sell orders across two hubs. Sounds like you were doing it wrong. Trading done right should require no more than about a half hour a day sorting out traders. You can play 0.01 games but if you pick the items right you don't need to. Ammo is usually a bad idea because everyone jumps on ammo for the margins.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2750
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 11:49:49 -
[2858] - Quote
Dear Lucas, I do not mean this to sound as insulting as it may appear, but given how much you post lately, are you a Tippia alt?
This is not a signature.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4538
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 12:03:39 -
[2859] - Quote
Uh, no. And I often post this much. Where have you been? I have my own fan club.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 12:20:01 -
[2860] - Quote
So you'd prefer to change 'overly simplistic mechanics' - even though a lot of players like those 'overly simplistic mechanics' and indeed the whole of pvp and pve combat relies upon the mechanics as they currently are...
So, essentially you want to play a different game and make the people that enjoy the current game, play a different game...
right. |
|
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
65
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 13:36:12 -
[2861] - Quote
My, my.
I thought this crying has stopped around page 102 but the most butthurt goonie qqers are still here. Just how low are you willing to go with your crying to get free stuff from CCP?
This change is correct, as it removes one-button substitute-for-skill thingie. Same with jump drives. People who can't be leet anymore are naturally crying about it, and just won't stop, because they were getting free stuff by crying before and expect tears to work again.
Let's pray CCP stays tear-proof this time.
That said, CCP already gave in to tears on the game time tossing topic. That is worrying me. Dear CCP, if you were going to toss game time around anyway, you didn't need to wait till after christmas to start banning broadcasting tearbears. And if you weren't, then how about covering that tear damage hole in your resistances?
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.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4538
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 13:43:30 -
[2862] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:So you'd prefer to change 'overly simplistic mechanics' - even though a lot of players like those 'overly simplistic mechanics' and indeed the whole of pvp and pve combat relies upon the mechanics as they currently are...
So, essentially you want to play a different game and make the people that enjoy the current game, play a different game...
right. Much like how they decided that the industry mechanics they had back in the beginning of time needed changing, how sov mechanics need changing (and are soon to be changed), I think old mechanics which don't promote a player interacting with the game to play should be reviewed, yes. If a mechanic is simple enough to be used semi-afk, or broadcasted on scale (with broadcasting being nothing but a dumb repeater), then it clearly isn't a well designed mechanic. CCP know this, and their new release schedule was specifically designed so they can tackle older more complex problems like these. You're really grasping here to suggest that the game should just stay exactly as it is because someone's day will be ruined if you change their mechanic.
At the end of the day, the game evolves. It's nothing like it was when I joined in 2005. Mechanics which were way too simple back then are now fleshed out (including space itself).
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
4538
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 13:49:00 -
[2863] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:I thought this crying has stopped around page 102 but the most butthurt goonie qqers are still here. Just how low are you willing to go with your crying to get free stuff from CCP? lol, another "Everything comes back to goonies" guy. You realise most goonies are immensely happy with this change, right? Goon ratting is done AFK. It requires zero input, certainly not broadcast input, so they don't miss out on that. Most capital multiboxing is done manually, with the only ISBoxer capital pilot I know not being in the CFC. And most importantly, this entire change was brought about because a single player managed to take out a whole CFC fleet using multiboxed bombers.
Basil Pupkin wrote:This change is correct, as it removes one-button substitute-for-skill thingie. Same with jump drives. It takes considerably more skill and understanding of game mecahncis to use ISBoxer. They've not banned ISBoxer though, so those skilled players can continue to multibox in other, legal ways.
Educate yourself before posting on a topic.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
65
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 14:00:04 -
[2864] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:I thought this crying has stopped around page 102 but the most butthurt goonie qqers are still here. Just how low are you willing to go with your crying to get free stuff from CCP? lol, another "Everything comes back to goonies" guy. You realise most goonies are immensely happy with this change, right? Goon ratting is done AFK. It requires zero input, certainly not broadcast input, so they don't miss out on that. Most capital multiboxing is done manually, with the only ISBoxer capital pilot I know not being in the CFC. And most importantly, this entire change was brought about because a single player managed to take out a whole CFC fleet using multiboxed bombers. Basil Pupkin wrote:This change is correct, as it removes one-button substitute-for-skill thingie. Same with jump drives. It takes considerably more skill and understanding of game mecahncis to use ISBoxer. They've not banned ISBoxer though, so those skilled players can continue to multibox in other, legal ways. Educate yourself before posting on a topic.
Please, less butthurt, it's painful just reading this, I can only imagine how it is writing it.
First 25 pages contain a crap load of goon PITA. You can't deny that. Then they switched to posting alts without even changing the lines. Then they organized petition spam (extreme form of goon tears), doing it from their mains again. It's all here, documented in this very topic!
Now please educate me on the following topics (but please do so after subduing the pain, I may not bear reading it again):
1) Where in my post did you see a reference to multiboxing in general?
2) Where in my post did you see a reference to ISBoxer in particular.
3) Where in my post did you see a reference to game activities, such as ratting?
4) You are so desperate to prove you're still leet, that you even went to denying the fact that input broadcasting is a substitute for skill. Do you really think so? What are your reasons?
One thing I did learn from your post. It appears that goon tears not just went along with the change, but brought it, and now trying to fight yesterday's tears with today's tears to roll it back. Goonies be goonies, really...
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.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4538
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 14:12:32 -
[2865] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Now please educate me on the following topics (but please do so after subduing the pain, I may not bear reading it again):
1) Where in my post did you see a reference to multiboxing in general?
2) Where in my post did you see a reference to ISBoxer in particular.
3) Where in my post did you see a reference to game activities, such as ratting?
4) You are so desperate to prove you're still leet, that you even went to denying the fact that input broadcasting is a substitute for skill. Do you really think so? What are your reasons? I apologise. I was under the impression that you'd read the topic of the thread before posting. Now I realise you literally searched around for a CFC member posting so you could whine a bit about them. What's the matter, get recruitment scammed?
And perhaps if you want to see why input broadcasting takes skill to properly utilise you should try it out. Guarantee you'd not even finish setting up before your head exploded.
Basil Pupkin wrote:One thing I did learn from your post. It appears that goon tears not just went along with the change, but brought it, and now trying to fight yesterday's tears with today's tears to roll it back. Goonies be goonies, really... Actually "goonies" don't want it rolled back at all (not that something that hasn't come out yet can be rolled back) since it's beneficial to them. And if you read my posts, you see that while I don't agree with this change I have no problem with other changes which make multiboxing more difficult by altering gameplay mechanics to be more involving for the player.
You see, something you missed is how little impact this change will actually have on ISBoxers anyway. Look about the thread for "round robin" and "VideoFX". These are two techniques that will still be allowed from January the 1st, which allow nearly as much control as input broadcasting. VideoFX is particularly powerful, allowing you to merge multiple clients into a single screen (it can basically look like a ship has 20 mining lasers for example, with each actually being on a different client).
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 14:36:36 -
[2866] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Much like how they decided that the industry mechanics they had back in the beginning of time needed changing, how sov mechanics need changing (and are soon to be changed), I think old mechanics which don't promote a player interacting with the game to play should be reviewed, yes. If a mechanic is simple enough to be used semi-afk, or broadcasted on scale (with broadcasting being nothing but a dumb repeater), then it clearly isn't a well designed mechanic. CCP know this, and their new release schedule was specifically designed so they can tackle older more complex problems like these. You're really grasping here to suggest that the game should just stay exactly as it is because someone's day will be ruined if you change their mechanic.
At the end of the day, the game evolves. It's nothing like it was when I joined in 2005. Mechanics which were way too simple back then are now fleshed out (including space itself).
Now that you mention it, perhaps trading needs to be made more involving as well rather than just 30mins a day of adjusting your orders...
And yes change is good, hopefully this change will have a positive effect and they follow up on people sidestepping the new intentions of this ruling by expanding their scope to include window switching macros...
And with that we've gone full circle back to where I was several pages ago - sidestepping this ban is a futile effort because CCP's intent has been made pretty clear - dodging their intent on technicalities will just lead to more stringent policies in the future to eliminate the loopholes.
Auf wiedersehen pet. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4539
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 15:02:13 -
[2867] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Now that you mention it, perhaps trading needs to be made more involving as well rather than just 30mins a day of adjusting your orders...maybe a tetris mini-game to shuffle your stock around or a mini FPS with a pricing gun... Absolutely! I mean not a minigame, I think they are pretty dire and I'm sure there are better ways of making a mechanic more involved, but certainly yes, trading is another example of a mechanic that needs to be improved.
Eli Apol wrote:And yes change is good, hopefully this change will have a positive effect and they follow up on people sidestepping the new intentions of this ruling by expanding their scope to include window switching macros... Which they won't, because as previously stated there's no reliable way to tell if someone is using one of thee methods or not. So the change will be broadcasting, and perhaps ISBoxer specifically if they decide to go that route (doubt it). Hence my belief that the change is pointless.
Eli Apol wrote:And with that we've gone full circle back to where I was several pages ago - sidestepping this ban is a futile effort because CCP's intent has been made pretty clear - dodging their intent on technicalities will just lead to more stringent policies in the future to eliminate the loopholes. And yet, you've still not managed to explain what that clear intent is. The only clarity is they don't want broadcasting, which round robin and VFX are not, so using them isn't sidestepping. It's only sidestepping if you assume their goal is to attack multiboxers specifically, in which case logging on multiple clients at all is sidestepping.
The sort of it is this: They've banned broadcasting, and only broadcasting. Everything else (that was OK to do before this change, i.e. no automation) is fair game and thus will be used until they do something to target that too.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
129
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 15:14:58 -
[2868] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Lady Rift wrote:any grr boxer person left this thread 25-100 pages ago which also has all the things you are trying to point out to them repeated over and over.
You are the one that suggested people might leave to go play other games that aren't out yet I just supported them in that should they choose to take that route. I never told anyone to quit you where the one that suggested there might not a reason to play this game anymore. Eli and Tyr are still here. As well as the others who pop in just to say "grr boxers" and then disappear. While I did suggest (and have been told by other boxers) that some will leave for other games, you told me to unsub simply for continuing a discussion and I quoted your exact phrasing in my previous response. If you wish to delete or edit what you said as some form of retroactive "no I didn't, you're changing my arguments", go right ahead. Such narrow-mindedness will get you nowhere IRL, not to mention EVE.
I NEVER told you to unsub or to stop talking about it the topic. you are the one saying people might unsub and go play other games (which weren't out yet) cause of this change. I was just joining you in that if people really dislike the change than maybe it time to move on to other games where you like the changes that are made to those games.
my exact wording
it if you really disagree with it then unsub and sit around waiting for the other games to come out.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4539
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 15:22:51 -
[2869] - Quote
To be fair, that does kinda read like you saying the classic: If you don't like it, unsub.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
Requiem Eternal
17
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 15:52:24 -
[2870] - Quote
It's kinda funny/weird/annoying?'etc, to see some people think that some Things is so simple when the facts is that it's not omg, i have learned a lot. But i have way more to learn. and simple? no way. lol. But challenging, yep :) I enjoy the Challenge trying to get better... And its not like eve is easy, its so simple doing 1 small mistake that can result in so much loss in game) (trust me, i have lost a lot off ships) and for People saying that it's so easy getting it setup and going etc. probably never have tried. (unless it's me that totally suck at it) lol. (and setting it up in the easiest way might not be hard, but if you would try doing anything like you have seen on youtube without 10's or maybe 100's of hours invested. probably would be unable to do the same. and normally more accounts is better than one, and there is no one denying it. but per character it might be less efficient? well, it would depend. a lot about the circumstances. And investing a lot off time in eve might normally ''pay off'' and think about that if you work for 1 hour. you can pay for an plex with would've taken you 3-6 hours each day with 5 accounts (and used 2 days to have mined enough to buy 1 plex if mining 3-6 hours as i said( 5 accounts ) and that is a lot off time. So, i dont see any reson to ''hate'' big scale miners. they use loads off time i guess. or big scale whatever.
(and even if you would need 2 hours of work be able to pay off an plex) it is still way less time invested than an higesec miner need to do to be able to pay something like that off with isk. (and that's a lot off hours) (and indeed, some miners who like mining)
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
319
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 16:03:20 -
[2871] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:I NEVER told you to unsub or to stop talking about it the topic. you are the one saying people might unsub and go play other games (which weren't out yet) cause of this change. I was just joining you in that if people really dislike the change than maybe it time to move on to other games where you like the changes that are made to those games.
my exact wording
it if you really disagree with it then unsub and sit around waiting for the other games to come out.
You either just told me to unsub, or you were trying (and failed) to tell OTHER people to unsub. If you're trying to say something else and don't have the right phrasing, either don't say it, or call up your grade 8 English/Grammar teacher and apologize for sleeping in class.
All I did was echo the thoughts presented to me by some fellow boxers; nothing more. Or do I really have to go around and ask people who said what because some forum warrior can't understand that I interact with other users? |
Josef Djugashvilis
2752
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 16:14:31 -
[2872] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Uh, no. And I often post this much. Where have you been? I have my own fan club.
Stop staring in the mirror, it will really cut your fan club numbers down
This is not a signature.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
129
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 16:18:20 -
[2873] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Lady Rift wrote:I NEVER told you to unsub or to stop talking about it the topic. you are the one saying people might unsub and go play other games (which weren't out yet) cause of this change. I was just joining you in that if people really dislike the change than maybe it time to move on to other games where you like the changes that are made to those games.
my exact wording
it if you really disagree with it then unsub and sit around waiting for the other games to come out.
You either just told me to unsub, or you were trying (and failed) to tell OTHER people to unsub. If you're trying to say something else and don't have the right phrasing, either don't say it, or call up your grade 8 English/Grammar teacher and apologize for sleeping in class. All I did was echo the thoughts presented to me by some fellow boxers; nothing more. Or do I really have to go around and ask people who said what because some forum warrior can't understand that I interact with other users?
You are the one that brought up people unsubing cause of the change to go play other games that aren't out yet. I merely echoed that.
If people feel so strongly disagree with a change in this or in any game they play they should find a new game. One that they like the changes and the vision of the devs in.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
129
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 16:24:46 -
[2874] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:To be fair, that does kinda read like you saying the classic: If you don't like it, unsub.
cause its still valid.
This change has been like many others lots of tears, lots of attacking and defending the change and lots predictions on the health and state of the game. All without even see how these changes play out. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
319
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 16:55:58 -
[2875] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:You are the one that brought up people unsubing cause of the change to go play other games that aren't out yet. I merely echoed that.
If people feel so strongly disagree with a change in this or in any game they play they should find a new game. One that they like the changes and the vision of the devs in.
Your phrasing was poor, so of course I misunderstood what you were trying to say, however that doesn't change the fact that you're attempting to deny them the opportunity to voice their concerns and ask CCP to change something that they see as detrimental. Thankfully, CCP's forums do not work that way. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4542
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 17:05:32 -
[2876] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Stop staring in the mirror, it will really cut your fan club numbers down :p I use "fan club" as a friendly way of describing those people that follow me around going "Oh god Lucas is posting".
Lady Rift wrote:This change has been like many others lots of tears, lots of attacking and defending the change and lots predictions on the health and state of the game. All without even see how these changes play out. Well yeah, that's part of the problem. The change is unlikely to make much of a difference without more changes (reasons for which have been discussed at length), yet has turned parts of the community against each other in a massive bitchfest. You can't honestly say that either side of the argument is free from attacks, trolls and tears.
Either way though, it's still no reason for anyone to unsub. The whole point of the forums is to put forward our concerns and questions, and for a discussion to evolve for CCP to follow and take on board. Saying "if you don't like it, unsub" really doesn't help anyone.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nidal Fervor
State War Academy
Caldari State
45
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 17:07:54 -
[2877] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Now that you mention it, perhaps trading needs to be made more involving as well rather than just 30mins a day of adjusting your orders...maybe a tetris mini-game to shuffle your stock around or a mini FPS with a pricing gun... Absolutely! I mean not a minigame, I think they are pretty dire and I'm sure there are better ways of making a mechanic more involved, but certainly yes, trading is another example of a mechanic that needs to be improved. Eli Apol wrote:And yes change is good, hopefully this change will have a positive effect and they follow up on people sidestepping the new intentions of this ruling by expanding their scope to include window switching macros... Which they won't, because as previously stated there's no reliable way to tell if someone is using one of thee methods or not. So the change will be broadcasting, and perhaps ISBoxer specifically if they decide to go that route (doubt it). Hence my belief that the change is pointless. Eli Apol wrote:And with that we've gone full circle back to where I was several pages ago - sidestepping this ban is a futile effort because CCP's intent has been made pretty clear - dodging their intent on technicalities will just lead to more stringent policies in the future to eliminate the loopholes. And yet, you've still not managed to explain what that clear intent is. The only clarity is they don't want broadcasting, which round robin and VFX are not, so using them isn't sidestepping. It's only sidestepping if you assume their goal is to attack multiboxers specifically, in which case logging on multiple clients at all is sidestepping. The sort of it is this: They've banned broadcasting, and only broadcasting. Everything else (that was OK to do before this change, i.e. no automation) is fair game and thus will be used until they do something to target that too.
According to the isboxer wiki, round robin is input broadcasting: http://isboxer.com/wiki/Round-robin
Round-robin is a name given to the idea of sending an instruction (such as a Key Combination) to each of several windows, one at a time.
If you intend to use round robin to send your input to multiple clients, one at a time, it is still input broadcasting.
Multiboxing is fine, but YOU must control each client yourself. If software is replicating your controls to more than one window then you are input broadcasting, it doesn't matter if you use a delay to try to hide it, this only shows you are trying to avoid being caught cheating by making your actions less obvious. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
26989
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 17:09:47 -
[2878] - Quote
i get the feeling these threads arent as much for feedback as they are for letting players vent til they get tired
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4542
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 17:24:03 -
[2879] - Quote
Nidal Fervor wrote:According to the isboxer wiki, round robin is input broadcasting: http://isboxer.com/wiki/Round-robin
Round-robin is a name given to the idea of sending an instruction (such as a Key Combination) to each of several windows, one at a time. If you intend to use round robin to send your input to multiple clients, one at a time, it is still input broadcasting. Multiboxing is fine, but YOU must control each client yourself. If software is replicating your controls to more than one window then you are input broadcasting, it doesn't matter if you use a delay to try to hide it, this only shows you are trying to avoid being caught cheating by making your actions less obvious. So which part of one at a time confused you? If you push 1 button and it sends 1 command to 1 client and only 1 client, it's not broadcasting. It doesn't matter if you then push that same button to send the same command to the next client. As long as you don't multiply the input, (i.e. send a command to 5 clients from 1 button press), then it's OK.
Here is a handy gif - The bottom one is round robin.
And here is CCP Randoms flowchart explanation of the rules. Using round robin, at question 4 you would return to the "It's OK"
It really can't be explained much more simply than that.
Edit: Oh, and in most cases, a well configured VideoFX will outperform round robin anyway.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
65
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 17:55:31 -
[2880] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I apologise. I was under the impression that you'd read the topic of the thread before posting. Now I realise you literally searched around for a CFC member posting so you could whine a bit about them. What's the matter, get recruitment scammed?
Your apology is insincere. I gave you a topic review, which of course you didn't quote (skipped reading it, perhaps?), which highlighted my points inside this thread. I do not blame you, after all, maybe those points were too painful for you, but this certainly isn't the reason to keep a misleading impression.
Lucas Kell wrote:And perhaps if you want to see why input broadcasting takes skill to properly utilise you should try it out. Guarantee you'd not even finish setting up before your head exploded.
I peeked into a video tutorial on it, and found it to be about as difficult as suicide ganking - which, as we all know, is the easiest activity in eve at the moment. Takes a setting up once, true, but it's a routine, no actual difficulty is involved.
Lucas Kell wrote:Actually "goonies" don't want it rolled back at all (not that something that hasn't come out yet can be rolled back) since it's beneficial to them. And if you read my posts, you see that while I don't agree with this change I have no problem with other changes which make multiboxing more difficult by altering gameplay mechanics to be more involving for the player.
Buddy, please, there are a crap ton of crying goonies in the thread, you really want me to start quoting them? Or we can accept the obvious and move on already.
Lucas Kell wrote:You see, something you missed is how little impact this change will actually have on ISBoxers anyway. Look about the thread for "round robin" and "VideoFX". These are two techniques that will still be allowed from January the 1st, which allow nearly as much control as input broadcasting. VideoFX is particularly powerful, allowing you to merge multiple clients into a single screen (it can basically look like a ship has 20 mining lasers for example, with each actually being on a different client).
You see, if it is so little impact, then why is there a threadnaught of goonie tears about it? You bring so many reasons why it shouldn't be here, yet here it is. You do seem like the kind of pal with problems in facing the objective reality, but even you can't deny a tear thread while posting in it.
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.
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4542
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 18:06:31 -
[2881] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Your apology is insincere. I gave you a topic review, which of course you didn't quote (skipped reading it, perhaps?), which highlighted my points inside this thread. I do not blame you, after all, maybe those points were too painful for you, but this certainly isn't the reason to keep a misleading impression. I apologise again! It came out like you were just talking complete rubbish, some of which you can't possibly have known is fact, as a way to insult a group of players you seem to have a particular dislike for.
Basil Pupkin wrote:I peeked into a video tutorial on it, and found it to be about as difficult as suicide ganking - which, as we all know, is the easiest activity in eve at the moment. Takes a setting up once, true, but it's a routine, no actual difficulty is involved. And yet, you haven't tried it, and thus your opinion on the level of skill it takes to set up and use effectively is worth precisely zero. And no, while you only need to set up layout and controls once, you need to sort out your squad and get everyone running in sync every single time you go out.
Basil Pupkin wrote:Buddy, please, there are a crap ton of crying goonies in the thread, you really want me to start quoting them? Or we can accept the obvious and move on already. I guarantee there are a heck of a lot more goons that either don't care or are happy this is happening. I mean the first page of the thread has 4 goon posts, only one could even be remotely thought of as tears, and even that very remotely.
Basil Pupkin wrote:You see, if it is so little impact, then why is there a threadnaught of goonie tears about it? You bring so many reasons why it shouldn't be here, yet here it is. You do seem like the kind of pal with problems in facing the objective reality, but even you can't deny a tear thread while posting in it. Except it's not, is it. Basically you've read a thread and you've got a stick up your ass because goons have scammed you, killed you or rejected you. So all rationality goes out of the window and suddenly everything is about goons. It's not the first time we've seen it, it won.t be the last. To be honest mate, nobody gives a crap. Whatever made you so mad you have to roll around the forum dribbling and screaming about "goonies", get over it. It's a game.
If you want to proceed on topic, by all means do, but if you're just going to whine about "goonies", your posts are irrelevant.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
319
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 18:10:51 -
[2882] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:You see, if it is so little impact, then why is there a threadnaught of goonie tears about it? You bring so many reasons why it shouldn't be here, yet here it is. You do seem like the kind of pal with problems in facing the objective reality, but even you can't deny a tear thread while posting in it.
Taking into consideration the percentage of EVE that can be arsed to post on the forums, and then taking the percentage of that that is in the CFC/Goons, we see that there is no real "overabundance" of tears from one coalition/alliance than another on a per capita basis. Please take a statistics class. |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
65
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 18:20:38 -
[2883] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:Your apology is insincere. I gave you a topic review, which of course you didn't quote (skipped reading it, perhaps?), which highlighted my points inside this thread. I do not blame you, after all, maybe those points were too painful for you, but this certainly isn't the reason to keep a misleading impression. I apologise again! It came out like you were just talking complete rubbish, some of which you can't possibly have known is fact, as a way to insult a group of players you seem to have a particular dislike for. Basil Pupkin wrote:I peeked into a video tutorial on it, and found it to be about as difficult as suicide ganking - which, as we all know, is the easiest activity in eve at the moment. Takes a setting up once, true, but it's a routine, no actual difficulty is involved. And yet, you haven't tried it, and thus your opinion on the level of skill it takes to set up and use effectively is worth precisely zero. And no, while you only need to set up layout and controls once, you need to sort out your squad and get everyone running in sync every single time you go out. Basil Pupkin wrote:Buddy, please, there are a crap ton of crying goonies in the thread, you really want me to start quoting them? Or we can accept the obvious and move on already. I guarantee there are a heck of a lot more goons that either don't care or are happy this is happening. I mean the first page of the thread has 4 goon posts, only one could even be remotely thought of as tears, and even that very remotely. Basil Pupkin wrote:You see, if it is so little impact, then why is there a threadnaught of goonie tears about it? You bring so many reasons why it shouldn't be here, yet here it is. You do seem like the kind of pal with problems in facing the objective reality, but even you can't deny a tear thread while posting in it. Except it's not, is it. Basically you've read a thread and you've got a stick up your ass because goons have scammed you, killed you or rejected you. So all rationality goes out of the window and suddenly everything is about goons. It's not the first time we've seen it, it won.t be the last. To be honest mate, nobody gives a crap. Whatever made you so mad you have to roll around the forum dribbling and screaming about "goonies", get over it. It's a game. If you want to proceed on topic, by all means do, but if you're just going to whine about "goonies", your posts are irrelevant.
You appear to be lost in your gooniecentrism. All right, let me throw you a bone. I have met goonies in another game before eve. What upset me about them is their constant side shifting - the game had clear-cut sides, and they jumped them whenever one side started to win, to always get the goodies of a winning team while doing nothing to earn them. They shattered the balance we had before they appeared, their crapton of alts and spies on every side turned things upside down, and what has been a pretty good game has depopulated and died, thanks to goons. A few months after that I picked up eve, and surprise, same goonies. Of course, they had no chance to kill or scam me, since I already knew what kind of scum they are. That is my reason for grrr goons or whatever you call it, and it has nothing to do with eve - just knowing that they exploit everything a proper player won't, so hard that it becomes recognized as cheat, then start a monsoon of tears and cries for compensation when the cheat is fixed - is enough. This is the last time I'm going to reply to your self-pity, your provocations can be ignored.
I dunno about the quantity, but majority of tear contribution to this tear threadnaught are goonies like you, who keep crying, trying to be leet while they can, and trying to prove more to themselves than to anyone else that they can still be leet even after it's going live, covering away from the truth that their skill substitute button is getting taken away, and burning their tear launchers in overheat to show how insignificant the change is.
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.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4542
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 19:41:24 -
[2884] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:I have met goonies in another game before eve. What upset me about them is their constant side shifting - the game had clear-cut sides, and they jumped them whenever one side started to win, to always get the goodies of a winning team while doing nothing to earn them. They shattered the balance we had before they appeared, their crapton of alts and spies on every side turned things upside down, and what has been a pretty good game has depopulated and died, thanks to goons. So tl;dr, they did what they could to maximise their gains while minimising their efforts? Sounds pretty smart.
And yes, you are simply in this thread whining because you have a problem with goons in general, and nothing to do with this actual thread. Thanks for confirming.
Basil Pupkin wrote:I dunno about the quantity, but majority of tear contribution to this tear threadnaught are goonies like you, who keep crying, trying to be leet while they can, and trying to prove more to themselves than to anyone else that they can still be leet even after it's going live, covering away from the truth that their skill substitute button is getting taken away, and burning their tear launchers in overheat to show how insignificant the change is. Well first off, I unfortunately can't claim to be a goonie. Secondly, you should seriously do your homework. Goons, as a whole are on the other side of this debate. It's because of goons that multiboxing is getting looked at, because it was their (well our, the CFC) losses to multiboxed bombers which suddenly brought this all up.
Seriously, null players don't need to multibox, because tasks which require multiboxing, like mining are scrub as ****. If we want to grind isk, we grab a nice AFKtar, pop it in an anom and come back later. The only benefit to a null alliance would be multiboxed bomber fleets, which a) will still be possible, and b) we don't need because we have more than enough pilots to fill a fleet of them. If you want to stick your head in the sand and scream "No it can't be true!", go right ahead, but right now you are on the side of the goons.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Steppa Musana
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2014.12.13 00:25:11 -
[2885] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Goons, as a whole are on the other side of this debate. It's because of goons that multiboxing is getting looked at, because it was their (well our, the CFC) losses to multiboxed bombers which suddenly brought this all up.
Heh no surprise there. Goonies are notorious for their incessant whining when an accepted form of gameplay is used against them successfully. I agree with them most of the time, but like usual Goons are the biggest hypocrites in New Eden. They love to tout HTFU and are big supporters of The New Order - the biggest HTFU don't-whine-to-CCP group in the game - yet they cry like children when mechanics work against them. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
320
|
Posted - 2014.12.13 01:15:41 -
[2886] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:The New Order - the biggest HTFU don't-whine-to-CCP
Huh, that's funny. Coulda sworn I saw them raging at CCP about how the Bowhead had too much EHP, not to mention when they gave freighters lowslots.... |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
284
|
Posted - 2014.12.13 09:37:04 -
[2887] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:I have met goonies in another game before eve. What upset me about them is their constant side shifting - the game had clear-cut sides, and they jumped them whenever one side started to win, to always get the goodies of a winning team while doing nothing to earn them. They shattered the balance we had before they appeared, their crapton of alts and spies on every side turned things upside down, and what has been a pretty good game has depopulated and died, thanks to goons. So tl;dr, they did what they could to maximise their gains while minimising their efforts? Sounds pretty smart. And yes, you are simply in this thread whining because you have a problem with goons in general, and nothing to do with this actual thread. Thanks for confirming. Basil Pupkin wrote:I dunno about the quantity, but majority of tear contribution to this tear threadnaught are goonies like you, who keep crying, trying to be leet while they can, and trying to prove more to themselves than to anyone else that they can still be leet even after it's going live, covering away from the truth that their skill substitute button is getting taken away, and burning their tear launchers in overheat to show how insignificant the change is. Well first off, I unfortunately can't claim to be a goonie. Secondly, you should seriously do your homework. Goons, as a whole are on the other side of this debate. It's because of goons that multiboxing is getting looked at, because it was their (well our, the CFC) losses to multiboxed bombers which suddenly brought this all up. Seriously, null players don't need to multibox, because tasks which require multiboxing, like mining are scrub as ****. If we want to grind isk, we grab a nice AFKtar, pop it in an anom and come back later. The only benefit to a null alliance would be multiboxed bomber fleets, which a) will still be possible, and b) we don't need because we have more than enough pilots to fill a fleet of them. If you want to stick your head in the sand and scream "No it can't be true!", go right ahead, but right now you are on the side of the goons.
Lucas your replies here show, you need to stop posting now.
Every sentence just makes you look more ignorant than the previous.
"Well first off, I unfortunately can't claim to be a goonie" - Should read; I am only a Goon pet
"because it was their (well our, the CFC) losses" - Not sure here but; Goon and Pet losses
"Seriously, nul players - - - , like mining are scrub as **** "; You do yourself and your alliance no justice with silly comments like this. (Try reading your overlords forums some time)
The rest of your post simply shows - You don't have much of a grasp on the day to day workings of the CFC.
IMO the only "leet" thing about Goons is that they still somehow manage to keep all their loyal pets running to the whistle.
You did get one thing right, Goons whining has brought about a lot of change (good and bad) in nulsec that affects "everyone".
Lucas; Leave Goon propaganda to Goon Propaganda Team, they manage to make themselves look bad all on their own. They don't need your "help".
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
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
256
|
Posted - 2014.12.13 09:44:02 -
[2888] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Steppa Musana wrote:The New Order - the biggest HTFU don't-whine-to-CCP Huh, that's funny. Coulda sworn I saw them raging at CCP about how the Bowhead had too much EHP, not to mention when they gave freighters lowslots....
While giving feedback on a proposed new ship/mechanic to the game is quite different then the usual carebear song of coming to the forums to whine to CCP to make the game safer for them after being exploded, I think you are remembering what you want to remember. I didn't stick around for that whole threadnaught, but I just skimmed the first few pages and it is mostly players complaining that the Bowhead didn't have enough EHP - which worked and CCP buffed it before release.
As for freighter low slots, I recall there being a consensus among gankers that this would actually make ganking easier as haulers can't seem to resist putting those expanded cargoholds on and anti-tanking their haulers as actually turned out to be the case. Perhaps I am just remembering what I want to remember as well.
But to the topic of this thread, on principle it seems wrong to allow third-party software or hardware to provide an advantage to players. It should be prohibited, but I would hate to see more players banned for something they didn't do so I trust that CCP is able to detect this behaviour accurately. I lack the information to judge whether this behaviour is technically possible to detect accurately, but if they can, clearly CCP should enforce this part of the existing EULA.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4544
|
Posted - 2014.12.13 10:01:42 -
[2889] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Lucas your replies here show, you need to stop posting now.
Every sentence just makes you look more ignorant than the previous.
"Well first off, I unfortunately can't claim to be a goonie" - Should read; I am only a Goon pet
"because it was their (well our, the CFC) losses" - Not sure here but; Goon and Pet losses
"Seriously, nul players - - - , like mining are scrub as **** "; You do yourself and your alliance no justice with silly comments like this. (Try reading your overlords forums some time)
The rest of your post simply shows - You don't have much of a grasp on the day to day workings of the CFC.
IMO the only "leet" thing about Goons is that they still somehow manage to keep all their loyal pets running to the whistle.
You did get one thing right, Goons whining has brought about a lot of change (good and bad) in nulsec that affects "everyone".
Lucas; Leave Goon propaganda to Goon Propaganda Team, they manage to make themselves look bad all on their own. They don't need your "help". I'm sure in your warped anti-CFC mine, everything anyone in the CFC has ever said makes them seem more ignorant to you, so that would seem to be your problem, not mine. Whatever was done to you to make you so incredibly butthurt, I hope it was spectacular.
And in all honesty, I couldn't give a flying **** what you think of what I say. Don't like it? Don't read it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kadm
Catfish Gumbo
Try Rerolling
32
|
Posted - 2014.12.13 15:04:56 -
[2890] - Quote
This is an email that I sent to the developers that had posted on this thread. After a week with no reply, I submitted it as a petition, and was told it should be posted here to be addressed.
Quote:Uncertainty
From: Kadm
Sent: 2014.11.29 15:40
To: CCP Falcon, CCP FoxFour, CCP Phantom, CCP Random,
Good day,
My name is Kadm, and I'm a mass-scale multiboxer. I have thirty four (well, had) active accounts, and maintain one-hundred and one characters in EVE. These characters are divided into three fleets plus miscellaneous supporting characters.
You could probably infer it, but the recent changes to the EULA have a significant impact on me. I look at them a bit differently than most folks have. I knew something would happen someday. I'm surprised, but not upset quite the same way other people are.
People will always search for a way to maintain what they have. I've looked at a few EULA compliant methods of maintaining what I've built for myself, and while I'm not sure how they'll work, people will always persist and try.
My uncertainty comes in how everything is going to be handled going forward. My initial reaction to the changes was to give a sigh and pack things up, tell me partner and friends that we would roll into a small corp, and just play with a few accounts again.
It's a sad thing to feel like you've sunk over eleven thousand dollars into a game, but unlike most people, I know that I've gotten my moneys worth. There's no feeling like landing on the Jita undock in 21 Oracles and vaporising people playing suspect docking games, or helping a small corp move into a wormhole, giving them a chance to grow. There are many things that I'd planned, that I don't think I'll get to do now, but the things I've done have been fun.
Many of my friends want me to stay. And part of me wants to stay. In my eight years playing EVE, this is probably the most exciting the game has ever been. While there have een times I've worried for EVE, this isn't one of them. The six week development cycle has been the best thing I've ever seen happen to the game.
But the idea of staying is filled with uncertainty. If I go through the trouble of setting myself and my fleets up in a EULA compliant manner, what will happen? People will still feel like wronged when I shoot them, even if there's a difference in how it works on my end. How many petitions will it take before it's easier for CCP to remove me, rather than explain the difference between what I'm doing now, and what I'm doing then? What thresholds are in place to differentiate key duplication from fast keystrokes? If I rebind hotkeys to put them closer together, will I be automatically detected and banned for being too fast?
And what happens if I'm banned? My partner and I reap approximately two to four billion isk an hour when we're running sites. If I'm banned, that's the end, but how would that effect the people I play the game with? When their wallets are drained of the isk made from my efforts. What about my allies? If I help them siege a tower, or kill an enemy fleet, and I get banned, what happens to them? Are they banned for taking my help?
And what do I do if I think I was wrongfully banned? Do I spend weeks escalating to try and reverse the process? How do I even prove that I'm EULA compliant, going forward?
This is my greatest concern. How will all of this effect me, and is it worth trying to be EULA compliant, if playing by the rules may still mean that my friends and I may suffer for it.
I'm not sure who should recieve this, so I'm going to blindly mail it out to anyone who has touched the keymultiplexing and ISBoxing topics the last few days.
If you tell me that my concerns are valid, I won't be upset. As I said earlier, I've had my fun. The memories I've made with my characters are priceless. There is nothing that compares with your friends saying, "Wow, that looks cool," as a dozen Tengus land and start firing missiles, or people cursing your very presence because they know their time in W-space is at an end.
It's hard to imagine going back to anything other than that, but at the end of the day, I love EVE Online, and CCP games. Even if I wouldn't have as much reason to play, there is no game company out there that deserves my money as much as I feel you do. Even if I have to forsake my exa-scale boxing, I'll likely stay.
I thank you all for your time, and I appreciate any guidance that you can give me in this.
Kadm |
|
|
Paula Trevaline
Aberrance
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.13 17:05:49 -
[2891] - Quote
I do appreciate the timing. I sub my accounts yearly and pay them up in December due to the sales that abound at xmas.
CCP will do what CCP does. My opinions on the matter mean nothing, all I can do is review the changes and perform the justification of spending my time and money on the game.
I'm not throwing my towel in with quiting now, I'll likely sub one month on each account as I return to the game (paid a year and barely played. Good too read this now.) and see how the allowed functionality works for me; I've not been using broadcasting for 2 years and was just recently determined to use it more.. and it seemed pretty important to validate keeping the accounts paid yearly as such.
Given all the other changes in the game that are apparently ruining any small-group gameplay and requiring everyone to be part of one of the big cooperative player groups and play the linear game rather than a sandbox, the odds are high that CCP just lost 8 accounts with minimal activity that pay yearly.
Best case scenario I see is I transfer my characters with notable SP into 3 or so account and drop the other 5 completely. After that, I just spend a few months seeing if the game is even worth playing in it's current state.. which is growing questionable from what all the active veterans I'm talking to are telling me.
This is sad as I've played since beta, and these accounts have been around 3/4+ of the time. On the other hand, I've been spending to much on Eve and not playing enough so it's a good thing that CCP has sent the message they don't want my money.
It's about time I looked at other games. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
321
|
Posted - 2014.12.13 17:20:49 -
[2892] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Steppa Musana wrote:The New Order - the biggest HTFU don't-whine-to-CCP Huh, that's funny. Coulda sworn I saw them raging at CCP about how the Bowhead had too much EHP, not to mention when they gave freighters lowslots.... While giving feedback on a proposed new ship/mechanic to the game is quite different then the usual carebear song of coming to the forums to whine to CCP to make the game safer for them after being exploded, I think you are remembering what you want to remember. I didn't stick around for that whole threadnaught, but I just skimmed the first few pages and it is mostly players complaining that the Bowhead didn't have enough EHP - which worked and CCP buffed it before release. As for freighter low slots, I recall there being a consensus among gankers that this would actually make ganking easier as haulers can't seem to resist putting those expanded cargoholds on and anti-tanking their haulers as actually turned out to be the case. Perhaps I am just remembering what I want to remember as well. But to the topic of this thread, on principle it seems wrong to allow third-party software or hardware to provide an advantage to players. It should be prohibited, but I would hate to see more players banned for something they didn't do so I trust that CCP is able to detect this behaviour accurately. I lack the information to judge whether this behaviour is technically possible to detect accurately, but if they can, clearly CCP should enforce this part of the existing EULA.
You are quite right. I was remembering events in in-game channels and mistakenly attributing them to the forums.
Though I seem to remember someone mentioning that they were fiddling multiple times with the Bowhead EHP before final release.
I think we're both remembering the posts of the ones who didn't read the full change notes and simply saw "freighters get lowslots" and started whining without bothering to read the notes. |
Paula Trevaline
Aberrance
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.13 17:21:11 -
[2893] - Quote
Kadm wrote:
But the idea of staying is filled with uncertainty. If I go through the trouble of setting myself and my fleets up in a EULA compliant manner, what will happen? People will still feel like wronged when I shoot them, even if there's a difference in how it works on my end. How many petitions will it take before it's easier for CCP to remove me, rather than explain the difference between what I'm doing now, and what I'm doing then? What thresholds are in place to differentiate key duplication from fast keystrokes? If I rebind hotkeys to put them closer together, will I be automatically detected and banned for being too fast?
Kadm
[/quote]
Exactly. Zero tolerance is a silly concept when you quantify transgression through inference.
I take pride in being a legit player. I multiboxed without ISBoxer for 5 years and was known for being able to stagger 5+ accounts with specific strategies and not use any kind of broadcasing or multibox software. Even those strategies at times entailed such rapid window switching and mouse movement that the server could detect it as "input broadcast" based on the symptomatic behavior.
I'm don't want to sully my memory with Eve by quitting after my accounts are 1st-strike banned due to a false positive in a zero tolerance environment; whether it's via the above, or ensuring that all keystrokes in ISBoxer were a 1:1. Both technically and even purely legit; yet I can get banned for them based on the color of my skin... I mean the appearance of my keystrokes.
I rather just quit or close all but a few accounts and avoid that scenario. |
Paula Trevaline
Aberrance
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.13 17:34:58 -
[2894] - Quote
On the false positive note, I just induced what would likely be detected as one. Logs/Chat windows timestamp's don't indicate fraction of seconds that might appear on CCP servers, I can say I just induced heavy network lag and switched across 8 windows with a 2 second gap each and all log entries/chat entries I tested this method with came across as the same second on the timestamp.
More likely than not this behaved identical to a broadcast from the server review, unless CCP has applied good networking practices and embedded the client-side timestamp into the keystroke data uploaded to the server.
If it wasn't already there, and they add it to properly police this behavior.... they've also just increased network bandwidth consumption to some degree as every command would need the extra data. Not a big deal, but it all depends on the details.
Regardless, false positives are an ambiguous question as we have no real idea if they are even properly developing their system. Given the code details I've witnessed playing since beta, I lean more to throwing my hands in the air to avoid sullying my memories by quiting on a ban and just give up now as even if I try to fly just 3-5 ships manually at a time I will most likely be banned for it.
Oh well. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
321
|
Posted - 2014.12.13 17:43:34 -
[2895] - Quote
Paula Trevaline wrote:On the false positive note, I just induced what would likely be detected as one. Logs/Chat windows timestamp's don't indicate fraction of seconds that might appear on CCP servers, I can say I just induced heavy network lag and switched across 8 windows with a 2 second gap each and all log entries/chat entries I tested this method with came across as the same second on the timestamp.
More likely than not this behaved identical to a broadcast from the server review, unless CCP has applied good networking practices and embedded the client-side timestamp into the keystroke data uploaded to the server.
If it wasn't already there, and they add it to properly police this behavior.... they've also just increased network bandwidth consumption to some degree as every command would need the extra data. Not a big deal, but it all depends on the details.
Regardless, false positives are an ambiguous question as we have no real idea if they are even properly developing their system. Given the code details I've witnessed playing since beta, I lean more to throwing my hands in the air to avoid sullying my memories by quiting on a ban and just give up now as even if I try to fly just 3-5 ships manually at a time I will most likely be banned for it.
Oh well.
Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment here, CCP claimed they would be able to distinguish between a round-robin person spamming F1 and actual broadcasting
/Devil's Advocate
Then again, it's CCP..... |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
284
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 00:31:40 -
[2896] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Lucas your replies here show, you need to stop posting now.
Every sentence just makes you look more ignorant than the previous.
"Well first off, I unfortunately can't claim to be a goonie" - Should read; I am only a Goon pet
"because it was their (well our, the CFC) losses" - Not sure here but; Goon and Pet losses
"Seriously, nul players - - - , like mining are scrub as **** "; You do yourself and your alliance no justice with silly comments like this. (Try reading your overlords forums some time)
The rest of your post simply shows - You don't have much of a grasp on the day to day workings of the CFC.
IMO the only "leet" thing about Goons is that they still somehow manage to keep all their loyal pets running to the whistle.
You did get one thing right, Goons whining has brought about a lot of change (good and bad) in nulsec that affects "everyone".
Lucas; Leave Goon propaganda to Goon Propaganda Team, they manage to make themselves look bad all on their own. They don't need your "help". I'm sure in your warped anti-CFC mind, everything anyone in the CFC has ever said makes them seem more ignorant to you, so that would seem to be your problem, not mine. Whatever was done to you to make you so incredibly butthurt, I hope it was spectacular. And in all honesty, I couldn't give a flying **** what you think of what I say. Don't like it? Don't read it.
Pretty close to the response i would expect from a CFC drone.
At least the Goon propaganda team can respond without having to make unfounded personal attacks and incorrect assumptions.
I'm not anti CFC, I am anti all large coalitions. The reason it may seem I am anti CFC to you is, you highlighted CFC involvement - I responded to your post. I can't respond to a post that highlights the CFC by using N3/PL as an example, can I?
Large coalitions create stagnation and lack of content, which we have had more than enough of for the last few years. Not everyone wants to sit in 200 or 1000 man fleets. Some like small fleets and gang warfare - This change to the EULA (for better or worse) removes yet another way the smaller groups can counter the overwhelming numbers fielded by large coalitions.
I'm not pro multicasting pvp fleets by any means. I believe it needs to go as it is not balanced and creates unfair advantage but then a 40,000 member coalition is not balanced either - Should CCP ban people for joining a 1,000 man fleet? It creates an unfair advantage to any small group.
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
27175
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 00:40:41 -
[2897] - Quote
what are you on about?
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4545
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 00:41:26 -
[2898] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:I R HATE GOONZ COS THEY BADDED ME There there kiddo.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
Cube Alliance
70
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 04:46:51 -
[2899] - Quote
So i am currently a multiboxer (i run 10x battleships for incursion HQ sites, and no i dont make that much isk, Usually i only get one pay out, the other 9 characters just helping the fleet get faster payouts, also i was in the NEO II as a single team, lost horribly but was fun)
ive used isboxer to broadcast for targeting and navigation mostly, which means i wont be able to do that anymore....
Not to sound dramatic or anything, but i guess this means i'll be done with eve, because i found single-boxing to be too boring long ago :\
I mean i guess i'll just sell all my stuff and plex one character for a while, but basically... im going to try to find a new MMO :\
ive heard some stuff about star citizen, might have to see how thats coming along |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
27247
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 04:59:17 -
[2900] - Quote
Yes, brosef, I recall your NEO performance. Everyone does. I came in here only because I recognized your name.
I'm surprised it took you this long to find a reason to quit EVE.
I've been meaning to ask you, why spend all that ISK on NEO when you KNOW how it's going to turn out, bringing nightmares, when your opponents would also figure out you'd bring nightmares (or other incursion ships)?
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
|
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
284
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 05:14:32 -
[2901] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Yes, brosef, I recall your NEO performance. Everyone does. I came in here only because I recognized your name.
I'm surprised it took you this long to find a reason to quit EVE.
I've been meaning to ask you, why spend all that ISK on NEO when you KNOW how it's going to turn out, bringing nightmares, when your opponents would also figure out you'd bring nightmares (or other incursion ships)?
I believe he answered your question before you asked it
Quote: lost horribly but was fun)
Much of the "fun" aspect of eve has been eroding over the last few years.
Good on him for doing something he found was "fun"
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
27270
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 05:19:51 -
[2902] - Quote
Fair enough. He did it for fun. Also ISBoxes incursions to generate ISK to what end... inflate PLEX prices?
To do it all again next month?
How unaware of oneself do you have to be to state those things, in this thread, as Battle Cube.
So that other question, why it took this long to figure out maybe his EVE experience was not great.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4548
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 10:07:05 -
[2903] - Quote
Battle Cube wrote:So i am currently a multiboxer (i run 10x battleships for incursion HQ sites, and no i dont make that much isk, Usually i only get one pay out, the other 9 characters just helping the fleet get faster payouts, also i was in the NEO II as a single team, lost horribly but was fun)
ive used isboxer to broadcast for targeting and navigation mostly, which means i wont be able to do that anymore....
Not to sound dramatic or anything, but i guess this means i'll be done with eve, because i found single-boxing to be too boring long ago :\
I mean i guess i'll just sell all my stuff and plex one character for a while, but basically... im going to try to find a new MMO :\
ive heard some stuff about star citizen, might have to see how thats coming along Elite Dangerous is pretty cool. I'd advise getting a decent flight stick though, makes so much difference.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 10:19:15 -
[2904] - Quote
Thank you CCP, I'm glad to read that!
I'm using a few client simultaneously and i never used extra software tools to manage them. Not alone because it's unfair against all other players. I did not use such tools like ISBoxer because I like to "play" the game and not to automate it.
Truly I'm a bit sad for players who think they need to use such tools to have fun in the game. But those guys have to understand that the EVE-Universe can't belong only to them!
Guy's, don't be afraid about CCP's income. The PLEX price will decrease and peoples who buy PLEX with real world money will have to buy more of it to get the same amount of ISK. I like that idea!
I'm looking forward to the mineral prices and I'm happy about don't get bomped and ganked from several toons with just one brain behind!
Fly Safe
Nico |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4548
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 10:28:54 -
[2905] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:I did not use such tools like ISBoxer because I like to "play" the game and not to automate it. ISBoxer is not automation. Fact.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Truly I'm a bit sad for players who think they need to use such tools to have fun in the game. But those guys have to understand that the EVE-Universe can't belong only to them! It's not about need, it's about want. I don't need to drive to work, It's a mission but I could walk, but I prefer driving there. Using a tool to augment your playstyle isn't a bad thing.
Luckily for them, the ISBoxer users can still use ISBoxer. Only one function is being banned.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Guy's, don't be afraid about CCP's income. The PLEX price will decrease and peoples who buy PLEX with real world money will have to buy more of it to get the same amount of ISK. I like that idea!
I'm looking forward to the mineral prices and I'm happy about don't get bomped and ganked from several toons with just one brain behind! PLEX and mineral prices won't change beyond the speculation that is currently causing a dip and a spike. Once January passes and the speculation ends, the prices will return to normal, and PLEX will continue on its journey through 1b/PLEX which it will likely achieve next year.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 10:38:50 -
[2906] - Quote
Just quickly ducking my head in again to drop this off:
http://www.themittani.com/features/eves-post-automation-economy
Not exactly the article I'd have written, but pretty clearly sums up the argument I was making - enjoy flooding the comments there as well Lucas ^^
Adieu again fair forum thread o/ |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
27289
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 10:51:03 -
[2907] - Quote
the guy labeled himself an alliance. hell of a time to leave, when he finally has a decent shot at holding SOV.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4548
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 10:57:25 -
[2908] - Quote
Why would I even need to respond there? I don't even need to click on the link and can already tell you the author has no clue what he's talking about since he's talking about automation, which ISBoxer does not do. I'm sure there's plenty of dumb articles written by clueless idiots you can link here. It won't suddenly make a difference.
Edit: Having read it, yes, that's one of the dumbest posts I've ever read. He even has a screenshot of VideoFX (the thing ISBoxer players will use going forward) while talking about how ISBoxer players will stop.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 11:33:57 -
[2909] - Quote
Quote:ISBoxer is not automation. Fact.
Maybe chaeting is the right expression.
Quote:It's not about need, it's about want. I don't need to drive to work, It's a mission but I could walk, but I prefer driving there. Using a tool to augment your playstyle isn't a bad thing.
That's a wrong comparison in my eyes. The right would be: You are driving to work with more than one car - what makes no sense.
My reason to use more than one toon simulaneously is to do thinks which I could not do if I would have just one toon. I bet that's also the reason for ISBoxer (or similar tools) users.
I've limited myself to 4 simultaneously opened clients per screen, becaus that's the count i can control proper without any additional tools.
I know that makes me slower than guys who have to control less toons than me and that is fair and everyones free decision.
Broadcasting commands to several clients isn't fair in my opinion, because you're overpowered compared to other non-broadcasting players - e.g. broadcasting a bomber or a ganker fleet.
Using e.g. 10 broadcasted bombers, gankers or miners is like you have one ship with 10 times of the ability of a single ship.
Thats effectively equal to a god mode and cheating in my eyes.
If you don't broadcast commands to your 10 ships you even would have 10 times of effect, but you would be ~10 times slower than a single toon, what makes it fair.
Quote:PLEX and mineral prices won't change beyond the speculation that is currently causing a dip and a spike. Once January passes and the speculation ends, the prices will return to normal, and PLEX will continue on its journey through 1b/PLEX which it will likely achieve next year.
No hard feelings, but i hope you're way off!
Cheers
Nico
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
228
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 11:52:02 -
[2910] - Quote
Quote:I've limited myself to 4 simultaneously opened clients per screen, becaus that's the count i can control proper without any additional tools.
There are many people in this thread that think your cheating. Of course that is mostly cus they are jealous.
I have 3 monitors at home and 6 at work :D. I can set linux up to allow me to play many clients pretty easily without any extra tool other than a decent operating system. So how many is too many?
Quite frankly why everyone gets soo upset about this is a mystery. Who cares if its one person or many people? Really what difference does it make? the 1 second it takes a fleet to fire at a FC command is no different than using isboxer.
The game itself is designed around multiple accounts per person. Super capitols just wouldn't work at all without them, and capitols would suck.
If someone wants to have 20 accounts, power to him/her. If someone else wants only 1 account, cool whatever. But if you going to do the "everyone should have the same as me" crap then please just play a different game. Even if isboxer was banned you would complain about multiboxing, if that got banned you would complain about big fleets crushing you, if that was banned you would complain about bittervets having an unfair skill point advantage......
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4548
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 12:19:29 -
[2911] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Maybe chaeting is the right expression. It's not chaeting. It's not even cheating. It's allowed. Even after this change, ISBoxer will still be allowed. It's an efficiency tool, nothing more. Much like how traders use spreadhseet and other tools to make trading more efficient, ISBoxing makes simple repetitive tasks more efficient.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:That's a wrong comparison in my eyes. The right would be: You are driving to work with more than one car - what makes no sense.
My reason to use more than one toon simulaneously is to do thinks which I could not do if I would have just one toon. I bet that's also the reason for ISBoxer (or similar tools) users. It's right in the sense that you can control 20 characters manually if you want to, it's just a lot of effort. ISBoxer allows you to reduce that effort. It doesn't do anything for you, it simply augments your ability.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Broadcasting commands to several clients isn't fair in my opinion, because you're overpowered compared to other non-broadcasting players - e.g. broadcasting a bomber or a ganker fleet.
Using e.g. 10 broadcasted bombers, gankers or miners is like you have one ship with 10 times of the ability of a single ship.
Thats effectively equal to a god mode and cheating in my eyes.
If you don't broadcast commands to your 10 ships you even would have 10 times of effect, but you would be ~10 times slower than a single toon, what makes it fair. But then why is it any more unfair that a guy with 9 friends who all come and gank you? It's not. If you didn't know that a multiboxer was a multiboxer, then it wouldn't upset you. On a per-character level, they aren't any better than a manual player, so your whole problem is what, that there's only 1 player behind the screen? That seems incredibly irrational to me.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:No hard feelings, but i hope you're way off! I very much doubt I will be. PLEX price hasn't been long term reduced by anything else, so I doubt removing one feature of a multibox program will be more than a momentary blip. I'm absolutely positive we'll see 1b/PLEX next year, that is without a doubt.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 12:42:52 -
[2912] - Quote
Quote:There are many people in this thread that think your cheating. Of course that is mostly cus they are jealous.
I agree.
Quote:I have 3 monitors at home and 6 at work :D. I can set linux up to allow me to play many clients pretty easily without any extra tool other than a decent operating system. So how many is too many?
The more clients you are using the slower you are in therms of controling them. So there is no quastion about fairness in this point in my opinion.
Quote:Quite frankly why everyone gets soo upset about this is a mystery. Who cares if its one person or many people? Really what difference does it make? the 1 second it takes a fleet to fire at a FC command is no different than using isboxer.
Imagine a gankfleet broadcasted from one person blows you up in an expansive ship. That would not happened if broadcasters would get banned.
I got ganked from CODE and some Goons while i was in an Obelisk. They did a really good job. It was made brilliant and from a huge count of players. I would get really pissed off if I would get ganked from one player with broadcasted ships. One player with non-broadcasted ships would have a hard job to kill me because of his control delay.
Quote:The game itself is designed around multiple accounts per person. Super capitols just wouldn't work at all without them, and capitols would suck.
I bet you'll find a different way beside broadcasting them, to control your ships the fair way.
Quote:If someone wants to have 20 accounts, power to him/her. If someone else wants only 1 account, cool whatever. But if you going to do the "everyone should have the same as me" crap then please just play a different game. Even if isboxer was banned you would complain about multiboxing, if that got banned you would complain about big fleets crushing you, if that was banned you would complain about bittervets having an unfair skill point advantage.....
That's why finding proper rules is so hard. You cant provide to get 100% of us happy.
What I dont like about CCP's decision is the hard break at 01.01.2015. I know guys who have 20 toons and more, which are well plexed for the next few month. All the PLEX are spent for nuts, because no one can/won't control so many toons without additional tools like ISBoxer.
It would be very fair if CCP would let those players the chance to play the already plexed playtime like usual with ISBoxer or which tool ever. Or they return the PLEX in a special initiative to players who otherwise feel cheated due to that change.
Cheers
Nico |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4548
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 12:47:31 -
[2913] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:I got ganked from CODE and some Goons while i was in an Obelisk. They did a really good job. It was made brilliant and from a huge count of players. I would get really pissed off if I would get ganked from one player with broadcasted ships. One player with non-broadcasted ships would have a hard job to kill me because of his control delay. Why does it matter how many players did it? If you didn't know how many players did it, you wouldn't care, so the fact that you do is a purely emotional response.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
27309
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 12:50:36 -
[2914] - Quote
he's right though. freighter ganks are getting hit so hard that he can start running expanded cargoholds.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 13:08:37 -
[2915] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:I got ganked from CODE and some Goons while i was in an Obelisk. They did a really good job. It was made brilliant and from a huge count of players. I would get really pissed off if I would get ganked from one player with broadcasted ships. One player with non-broadcasted ships would have a hard job to kill me because of his control delay. Why does it matter how many players did it? If you didn't know how many players did it, you wouldn't care, so the fact that you do is a purely emotional response.
Sure, there is a difference! A fleet of many players is a cool thing and a huge part of the spirit of EVE in my eyes. Every fleet member can make a mistake or can do something more than right to let an operation succeed or not. That isn't the fact if one player controls everything in that fleet broadcasted.
It's just the multiplication of effect without any penalty. That's unfair!
I could join CODE or the Goons to revenge the spy way or I could join them because I like their work.
But broatcasting players are mostly in a seperated world where other players can't join their actions. Other players are just disturbing in their eyes. But on the other side they are making lots of ISK with non-broadcasters.
It's pure destructive play-behavior in a MMO like EVE! They have a huge impact on the game in therms of item prices, eradicated sites, belts and so on, but they dont play with us but alone or against us with terrific power.
Cheers
Nico |
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 13:13:04 -
[2916] - Quote
More players, more chance of AWOXing and spais...
I've yet to hear of an ISboxer giving away intel of his movements to anyone unwillingly. Perhaps I don't hang around in the right asylums. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4548
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 13:18:33 -
[2917] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Sure, there is a difference! A fleet of many players is a cool thing and a huge part of the spirit of EVE in my eyes. Every fleet member can make a mistake or can do something more than right to let an operation succeed or not. That isn't the fact if one player controls everything in that fleet broadcasted. The spirit of EVE is multiboxing. It's pretty much a game design goal. And it really makes no difference to most rational people how many actual players there are behind accounts. And sure, a person can make a mistake, but quite often that doesn't make much difference as other fill in the void. If a broadcaster makes a mistake however, every singe one of his alts makes that mistake too.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:It's just the multiplication of effect without any penalty. That's unfair! This is the crux of it. It has nothing to do with gameplay or the economy or efficiency, or any of that. It's a purely emotional response because to you it's unfair that a player can do something you aren't willing to do. You want everyone to have to play your way, so you don't get left behind.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:I could join CODE or the Goons to revenge the spy way or I could join them because I like their work.
But broatcasting players are mostly in a seperated world where other players can't join their actions. Other players are just disturbing in their eyes. But on the other side they are making lots of ISK with non-broadcasters. But that;s not "broadcasters" that's all multiboxers. Even a manual multiboxer won't let you join their group of alts. And trust me, a well played manual multiboxer can make as much if not slightly more isk than many broadcasters as you have better granular control over your clients.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:It's pure destructive play-behavior in a MMO like EVE! They have a huge impact on the game in therms of item prices, eradicated sites, belts and so on, but they dont play with us but alone or against us with terrific power. No they don't. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest they have this profound impact on the economy. That's purely guesswork from angry players like yourself. The fact is, character for character, they have no more impact than the same number of solo controlled characters, and there really aren't as many broadcast multiboxers as you think there are. You'll realise that when January rolls round and you see how many players are still flying whole fleets.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 13:59:58 -
[2918] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:The spirit of EVE is multiboxing. It's pretty much a game design goal. And it really makes no difference to most rational people how many actual players there are behind accounts. And sure, a person can make a mistake, but quite often that doesn't make much difference as other fill in the void. If a broadcaster makes a mistake however, every singe one of his alts makes that mistake too.
A bad broadcaster has a chance of 50% to press the right buttons in the right order. There is no void to fill, no group dynamic.
It's like playing EVE as a single player game, what sounds ok, but it isn't ok because of the huge impact on other players.
And yeah, I like multiboxing too. I feel unchallenged when I control just one toon. I would lose that challange with a broadcast tool.
Lucas Kell wrote:This is the crux of it. It has nothing to do with gameplay or the economy or efficiency, or any of that. It's a purely emotional response because to you it's unfair that a player can do something you aren't willing to do. You want everyone to have to play your way, so you don't get left behind.
No, I don't feel left behind. I could do the same or blow them all up to solve that problem emotional.
But that's not a solution because it's like an arms race. The longer such an arms race takes the more toons will be controled by one player. That's a terrible game experience for e.g. new players and a reason to quit with EVE as soon as you noticed the arms race. Therefore we need rules to stop that race and to reduce the account count per player to a controllable number (like being limited by screen count).
Lucas Kell wrote:But that;s not "broadcasters" that's all multiboxers. Even a manual multiboxer won't let you join their group of alts. And trust me, a well played manual multiboxer can make as much if not slightly more isk than many broadcasters as you have better granular control over your clients.
Yes, ISK/Client but much more in total, what causes the huge impact to other players.
Lucas Kell wrote:No they don't. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest they have this profound impact on the economy. That's purely guesswork from angry players like yourself. The fact is, character for character, they have no more impact than the same number of solo controlled characters, and there really aren't as many broadcast multiboxers as you think there are. You'll realise that when January rolls round and you see how many players are still flying whole fleets.
For me there is a difference between e.g. 50 toons controlled by one person or by 50 persons. Imagine 50 toons pulling all into one direction to reach one goal. No controversial, no mistakes and a huge amount of ISK. Thats much more organized than the most corps. You mean that dont cause any impact? I think we wont come together in that point.
Cheers
Nico |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4548
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 14:39:19 -
[2919] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:A bad broadcaster has a chance of 50% to press the right buttons in the right order. There is no void to fill, no group dynamic.
It's like playing EVE as a single player game, what sounds ok, but it isn't ok because of the huge impact on other players.
And yeah, I like multiboxing too. I feel unchallenged when I control just one toon. I would lose that challange with a broadcast tool. Right, but if a broadcaster makes a mistake, it;s game over. If a guy in a group makes a mistake, it's generally no big deal.
And I don't feel challenged running 20 accounts, even manually. Different people like different things. Some of these top level ISBoxers put in far more effort than you can imagine, because it's next level challenges.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:No, I don't feel left behind. I could do the same or blow them all up to solve that problem emotional.
But that's not a solution because it's like an arms race. The longer such an arms race takes the more toons will be controled by one player. That's a terrible game experience for e.g. new players and a reason to quit with EVE as soon as you noticed the arms race. Therefore we need rules to stop that race and to reduce the account count per player to a controllable number (like being limited by screen count). I don;t believe many new players quit because there's a multiboxer about. I don't suppose most new players even notice. New players quit because the gameplay is boring. The thing is though, ISK doesn't mean much in this game, so who really cares if someone wants to multibox it? That said, a high level trader makes considerably more ISK than a multiboxer could dream of. Why aren't traders coming under fire for being too far ahead of newbies?
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Yes, ISK/Client but much more in total, what causes the huge impact to other players. Why does it? Why does 10 characters controlled by one guy make any more difference than 10 individually controlled characters? There's no difference whatsoever to their impact on other players.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:For me there is a difference between e.g. 50 toons controlled by one person or by 50 persons. Imagine 50 toons pulling all into one direction to reach one goal. No controversial, no mistakes and a huge amount of ISK. Thats much more organized than the most corps. You mean that dont cause any impact? I think we wont come together in that point. No, it certainly doesn't make any more impact. If it did, the top tier players would all be multiboxers, but none of them are. The only difference between individual characters and multiboxers is your own feelings. If you didn't know they were multiboxers, you simply wouldn't care. That in itself proves there is no impact. If there was an impact, your reaction would be to that impact, not to the idea of multiboxers.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 15:10:01 -
[2920] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:A bad broadcaster has a chance of 50% to press the right buttons in the right order. There is no void to fill, no group dynamic.
It's like playing EVE as a single player game, what sounds ok, but it isn't ok because of the huge impact on other players.
And yeah, I like multiboxing too. I feel unchallenged when I control just one toon. I would lose that challange with a broadcast tool. Right, but if a broadcaster makes a mistake, it;s game over. If a guy in a group makes a mistake, it's generally no big deal. And I don't feel challenged running 20 accounts, even manually. Different people like different things. Some of these top level ISBoxers put in far more effort than you can imagine, because it's next level challenges. Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:No, I don't feel left behind. I could do the same or blow them all up to solve that problem emotional.
But that's not a solution because it's like an arms race. The longer such an arms race takes the more toons will be controled by one player. That's a terrible game experience for e.g. new players and a reason to quit with EVE as soon as you noticed the arms race. Therefore we need rules to stop that race and to reduce the account count per player to a controllable number (like being limited by screen count). I don;t believe many new players quit because there's a multiboxer about. I don't suppose most new players even notice. New players quit because the gameplay is boring. The thing is though, ISK doesn't mean much in this game, so who really cares if someone wants to multibox it? That said, a high level trader makes considerably more ISK than a multiboxer could dream of. Why aren't traders coming under fire for being too far ahead of newbies? Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Yes, ISK/Client but much more in total, what causes the huge impact to other players. Why does it? Why does 10 characters controlled by one guy make any more difference than 10 individually controlled characters? There's no difference whatsoever to their impact on other players. Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:For me there is a difference between e.g. 50 toons controlled by one person or by 50 persons. Imagine 50 toons pulling all into one direction to reach one goal. No controversial, no mistakes and a huge amount of ISK. Thats much more organized than the most corps. You mean that dont cause any impact? I think we wont come together in that point. No, it certainly doesn't make any more impact. If it did, the top tier players would all be multiboxers, but none of them are. The only difference between individual characters and multiboxers is your own feelings. If you didn't know they were multiboxers, you simply wouldn't care. That in itself proves there is no impact. If there was an impact, your reaction would be to that impact, not to the idea of multiboxers.
You can say what you want. The arms race has to be stopped and im glad that CCP has the same opinion. It's good for your and my health and for all other players, especially new ones. As soon as I noticed I can do nothing with one toon compared e.g. to a 20 toon ice mining fleet controlled by one person, I had to decide to quit the game or to join the arms race. I dont know how many players decided to quit, but im sad about all of them.
I like to see different faces and not "Ice Miner 1", "Ice Miner 2", "..." and so on in the local chat. Who want to see that? The only thing you think is "Well, he want to be 20 times stronger than I ever can be... thats the game i want to play :/".
Not everyone wants to play eve like having a job in here. It's a cool world but still a virtual game. If I see no chance to become better than other guys I will quit, because the effort to control so many toons is to high for me and has nothing to do with becoming better. Just numbers count, and when you have 10 toons I'll have 11, so I'm better than you. That sounds like it is - stupid.
Thats not a challnge. It's more like: "Lets see who will be frustrated first!"
Is a frustration based gameplay what you want? It isn't what I want and it seems like I'm not alone with this opinion.
Cheers
Nico |
|
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
229
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 15:22:29 -
[2921] - Quote
If you think there was an arms race to have the most accounts, you are wrong. Really put up or shut up. Show us these fleets of 50+ ships roaming around winning eve? Hell even 20+. I see the odd 3-5 ships (including scout+links), and when i see they are probably multiboxing, I deliberately PvP in a way to make it hard to deal with (spread points/webs/ewar).
If you think these changes will reduce multiboxing or isboxing much at all your also wrong.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 15:28:21 -
[2922] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:If you think there was an arms race to have the most accounts, you are wrong. Really put up or shut up. Show us these fleets of 50+ ships roaming around winning eve? Hell even 20+. I see the odd 3-5 ships (including scout+links), and when i see they are probably multiboxing, I deliberately PvP in a way to make it hard to deal with (spread points/webs/ewar).
If you think these changes will reduce multiboxing or isboxing much at all your also wrong.
Maybe, but we'll have the right to report broadcasters when we detect them. Hopefully many guys will take the chance to do it.
For a more fair game.
Cheers
Nico |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
229
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 15:34:19 -
[2923] - Quote
You know the server ticks are 1 second right. There is literally no difference in a game play mechanic perspective between perfect synchronization and and all hitting f1 in about 1/2 a second. (1/2 a second is a long time. )
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 15:47:18 -
[2924] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:You know the server ticks are 1 second right. There is literally no difference in a game play mechanic perspective between perfect synchronization and and all hitting f1 in about 1/2 a second. (1/2 a second is a long time. )
Many of them have similar character names. Anyways, I dont know much about the technical possibilities, but broadcasting multiplexers should have the same IP address? Maybe there is also an individual signature on all client installations. I dont know how CCP will find them but I'm sure they will find many. I'm pleased even if they find just 50% of the active broadcasters, after it is forbidden to be one. I hope most of them will stop broadcasting after it is forbidden.
lol, it sounds like a witch-hunt xD but it isn't yet!
Cheers
Nico |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4551
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 15:55:02 -
[2925] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:You can say what you want. The arms race has to be stopped and im glad that CCP has the same opinion. It's good for your and my health and for all other players, especially new ones. As soon as I noticed I can do nothing with one toon compared e.g. to a 20 toon ice mining fleet controlled by one person, I had to decide to quit the game or to join the arms race. I dont know how many players decided to quit, but im sad about all of them. Even after this change, multiboxing will still be better than not multiboxing. That will never change.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Not everyone wants to play eve like having a job in here. It's a cool world but still a virtual game. If I see no chance to become better than other guys I will quit, because the effort to control so many toons is to high for me and has nothing to do with becoming better. Just numbers count, and when you have 10 toons I'll have 11, so I'm better than you. That sounds like it is - stupid.
Thats not a challnge. It's more like: "Lets see who will be frustrated first!"
Is a frustration based gameplay what you want? It isn't what I want and it seems like I'm not alone with this opinion. Whatever you do, there will always be someone willing to go further than you are and beat you. You have no chance of becoming better because you want the game changed to fit you rather than you changing to fit the game. Even then though, we're only talking a single metric of comparison. Mutliboxers aren't the best at everything in the game, not even making isk (traders lead that).
And even then, after all of this people will still be able to use ISBoxer thanks to VideoFX and round robin, so what's really going to change?
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
4551
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 15:57:35 -
[2926] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Many of them have similar character names. Anyways, I dont know much about the technical possibilities, but broadcasting multiplexers should have the same IP address? Maybe there is also an individual signature on all client installations. I dont know how CCP will find them but I'm sure they will find many. I'm pleased even if they find just 50% of the active broadcasters, after it is forbidden to be one. I hope most of them will stop broadcasting after it is forbidden.
lol, it sounds like a witch-hunt xD but it isn't yet! Many people will have similar names, even if they don't broadcast. You will still be able to control 20, 30 even 40 miners without broadcasting, so you'll be reporting people who aren't broadcasting. You realise that falsely reporting players is also against the EULA, right?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Paula Trevaline
Aberrance
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 16:13:29 -
[2927] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:[quote=Paula Trevaline]
Then again, it's CCP.....
Ya. I've heard and seen it all over the decade+. A spade is a spade and histories can't be ignored. This is why I don't fear the change, but I fear the gray area it creates... quantification through inference resulting in ban.
I'd rather move forward being positive, but I also don't want to read 50000 forum posts. As per the first post, they are still 30 day banning (stealing 10-15$ of your money across every account involved) on a first offense on something they can't truly say with 100% certainty. Given the ambiguous quantification of the policy violation, it seems the money might be better spent at the casino. |
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 16:16:17 -
[2928] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:You can say what you want. The arms race has to be stopped and im glad that CCP has the same opinion. It's good for your and my health and for all other players, especially new ones. As soon as I noticed I can do nothing with one toon compared e.g. to a 20 toon ice mining fleet controlled by one person, I had to decide to quit the game or to join the arms race. I dont know how many players decided to quit, but im sad about all of them. Even after this change, multiboxing will still be better than not multiboxing. That will never change. Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Not everyone wants to play eve like having a job in here. It's a cool world but still a virtual game. If I see no chance to become better than other guys I will quit, because the effort to control so many toons is to high for me and has nothing to do with becoming better. Just numbers count, and when you have 10 toons I'll have 11, so I'm better than you. That sounds like it is - stupid.
Thats not a challnge. It's more like: "Lets see who will be frustrated first!"
Is a frustration based gameplay what you want? It isn't what I want and it seems like I'm not alone with this opinion. Whatever you do, there will always be someone willing to go further than you are and beat you. You have no chance of becoming better because you want the game changed to fit you rather than you changing to fit the game. Even then though, we're only talking a single metric of comparison. Mutliboxers aren't the best at everything in the game, not even making isk (traders lead that). And even then, after all of this people will still be able to use ISBoxer thanks to VideoFX and round robin, so what's really going to change?
Hey, it's not my change, it's a decision of CCP and I agree with it. It's a rule to make the live in EVE better than before. At the first look not for everyone but for the most of us. Thats noble.
It's also a cut into my options. I don't have the chance to try ISBoxer or similar tools after the 01.01.2015 without having the risk of trouble. But thats ok because it's good for single toon players, new players, also healthy for actual broadcasting multiboxers and therefore good for EVE.
Cheers
Nico |
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 16:18:34 -
[2929] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Many of them have similar character names. Anyways, I dont know much about the technical possibilities, but broadcasting multiplexers should have the same IP address? Maybe there is also an individual signature on all client installations. I dont know how CCP will find them but I'm sure they will find many. I'm pleased even if they find just 50% of the active broadcasters, after it is forbidden to be one. I hope most of them will stop broadcasting after it is forbidden.
lol, it sounds like a witch-hunt xD but it isn't yet! Many people will have similar names, even if they don't broadcast. You will still be able to control 20, 30 even 40 miners without broadcasting, so you'll be reporting people who aren't broadcasting. You realise that falsely reporting players is also against the EULA, right?
Belive me, I see the difference between a broadcaster and a usual multiboxer. Thats an easy task for me. Just shout if you need help to spot one.
Cheers
Nico |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
323
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 17:49:52 -
[2930] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Belive me, I see the difference between a broadcaster and a usual multiboxer. Thats an easy task for me. Just shout if you need help to spot one.
Cheers
Nico
I refuse to believe that you can tell the difference between someone as used to boxing like Lax or MiRai using lots of VFX and round-robin, and a simple broadcaster. As evidence, I give you all the idiots in this thread who say "ban the botters" because they can't make a distinction themselves. I used to run a setup of Rattlesnakes + Loki for fun. No broadcasting needed if I wanted to. A boxer can do 75000 raw alpha with 2 gardes and 4 DDAs in a single server tick with drone assist.
Also, Round Robin Broadcasting + F1 bound to scroll wheel down. GG, I just broadcasted F1 to every client in a matter of a few milliseconds and they'll fire on the same server tick if done correctly. |
|
|
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
Cube Alliance
72
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 18:00:50 -
[2931] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Yes, brosef, I recall your NEO performance. Everyone does. I came in here only because I recognized your name.
I'm surprised it took you this long to find a reason to quit EVE.
I've been meaning to ask you, why spend all that ISK on NEO when you KNOW how it's going to turn out, bringing nightmares, when your opponents would also figure out you'd bring nightmares (or other incursion ships)?
Because i found multiboxing to be a fun way to be part of the eve community, I'll say first i dont pvp much and i Never multibox PVP, i have no practice, i just thought it was hilarious, and everyone got a kick out of it so im glad of that :) (And why bring incursion ships? to represent! XD)
And multiboxing in incursions has been fun, because ive been able to bring the FC's choice of 10 machs 10nightmares or 10 vindis, in the fleets i fly with it is appreciated because sites get done faster and no one loses isk (im not taking anyones spots).
yeah i could still multibox by using isboxer's videoFX.... but that doesnt feel in the spirit of the game. Not to mention the extra clicks to do anything, changing the look of the UI isnt something i want to do.
ive heard a lot about how this change is because of PVP in nullsec, bombers or something.... why not ban the use of input broadcasting/multiplexing only for PVP? :\ Some other MMOs handle it that way... But anyway... |
Bolimbe
Shiga's Playground
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 18:18:41 -
[2932] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:The Sandbox ....What can be will be......except when we decide it's not to be. Compliments of CCP...
It is not how you interact with the sandbox that makes it a sandbox, It is what you do inside the sandbox that makes it a sandbox. |
Erasmus Grant
EVE University
Ivy League
5
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 18:33:03 -
[2933] - Quote
YAY! More power for the little guy. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
324
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 18:43:05 -
[2934] - Quote
Erasmus Grant wrote:YAY! More power for the little guy.
Implying EWAR is nonexistant
Implying EWAR is less useful vs multiboxers
Implying there aren't dedicated hulls with bonuses to racial EWAR
Implying Cap Warfare does nothing to multiboxers
Implying that a single Falcon or single Celestis wouldn't royally screw with a boxer
Implying that 10 separate people are disadvantaged when maneuvering out of EWAR range
2/10 made me respond. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4555
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 19:26:06 -
[2935] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:It's also a cut into my options. I don't have the chance to try ISBoxer or similar tools after the 01.01.2015 without having the risk of trouble. But thats ok because it's good for single toon players, new players, also healthy for actual broadcasting multiboxers and therefore good for EVE. Yes you do. ISBoxer is not banned. ISBoxer will still be totally usable after January. Broadcasting is only a tiny fraction of what it can do.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Belive me, I see the difference between a broadcaster and a usual multiboxer. Thats an easy task for me. Just shout if you need help to spot one. No, you really don't, since there's no way to spot them. You're just going with "they all have the same name and there's a lot of them so they must be broadcasting". But following this change, those same people with the same names will still multibox using VideoFX, which is allowed. Most of the people you will see online after January will not be broadcasting, since it's insanely easy for the server to spot a broadcaster due to action timing. So unless you are able to see the server logs, you certainly won't be able to spot them. But by all means, report every multiboxer you see.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
27346
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 22:34:20 -
[2936] - Quote
Battle Cube wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Yes, brosef, I recall your NEO performance. Everyone does. I came in here only because I recognized your name.
I'm surprised it took you this long to find a reason to quit EVE.
I've been meaning to ask you, why spend all that ISK on NEO when you KNOW how it's going to turn out, bringing nightmares, when your opponents would also figure out you'd bring nightmares (or other incursion ships)? Because i found multiboxing to be a fun way to be part of the eve community, I'll say first i dont pvp much and i Never multibox PVP, i have no practice, i just thought it was hilarious, and everyone got a kick out of it so im glad of that :) (And why bring incursion ships? to represent! XD) And multiboxing in incursions has been fun, because ive been able to bring the FC's choice of 10 machs 10nightmares or 10 vindis, in the fleets i fly with it is appreciated because sites get done faster and no one loses isk (im not taking anyones spots). yeah i could still multibox by using isboxer's videoFX.... but that doesnt feel in the spirit of the game. Not to mention the extra clicks to do anything, changing the look of the UI isnt something i want to do. ive heard a lot about how this change is because of PVP in nullsec, bombers or something.... why not ban the use of input broadcasting/multiplexing only for PVP? :\ Some other MMOs handle it that way... But anyway...
something that continues only to support its own growth is basically a cancer.
my suggestion to you is joining a larger group and contributing that way, and continuing to play EVE.
I 10 box myself, and it's possible to run incursions without ISBoxer whatsoever. as much as I would like to see Incursions not used as an ISK printing machine, my honest assessment is you don't have to leave.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
284
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 23:30:24 -
[2937] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:If you think there was an arms race to have the most accounts, you are wrong. Really put up or shut up. Show us these fleets of 50+ ships roaming around winning eve? Hell even 20+. I see the odd 3-5 ships (including scout+links), and when i see they are probably multiboxing, I deliberately PvP in a way to make it hard to deal with (spread points/webs/ewar).
If you think these changes will reduce multiboxing or isboxing much at all your also wrong. Maybe, but we'll have the right to report broadcasters when we detect them. Hopefully many guys will take the chance to do it. For a more fair game. Cheers Nico
How would YOU detect a broadcaster?
Can you tell the difference between someone broadcasting and someone using round robin key sets?
Can you tell the difference between someone running 9 or 10 accounts, who has a highend machine with good internet and someone who is broadcasting to multiple clients via software?
Are you going to report and possibly get someone banned because YOU think he is broadcasting?
I have 9 accounts that can all do the same task very efficiently OR they can do many different tasks nearly as efficiently.
Am I multicasting or do I play my accounts as single entities, just very quickly?
Would you report me as a broadcaster / multicaster.
The simple idea CCP is accepting reports of breaches from players is going to see lots of multiboxers come under scrutiny for no other reason than - his characters all have similar names (mine don't).
Like any EULA breach, it falls on the player to prove his or her innocence, how does one go about proving he or she did not break the rules if CCP get it wrong?
EG;
CCP got it wrong, they believe I am multicasting and gave me a 30 day ban but I am not - How do I prove it is due to the amount I spent on my computer and the strength of my internet that allows me to play multiple accounts so efficiently?
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
|
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
Cube Alliance
73
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 23:39:11 -
[2938] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Battle Cube wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Yes, brosef, I recall your NEO performance. Everyone does. I came in here only because I recognized your name.
I'm surprised it took you this long to find a reason to quit EVE.
I've been meaning to ask you, why spend all that ISK on NEO when you KNOW how it's going to turn out, bringing nightmares, when your opponents would also figure out you'd bring nightmares (or other incursion ships)? Because i found multiboxing to be a fun way to be part of the eve community, I'll say first i dont pvp much and i Never multibox PVP, i have no practice, i just thought it was hilarious, and everyone got a kick out of it so im glad of that :) (And why bring incursion ships? to represent! XD) And multiboxing in incursions has been fun, because ive been able to bring the FC's choice of 10 machs 10nightmares or 10 vindis, in the fleets i fly with it is appreciated because sites get done faster and no one loses isk (im not taking anyones spots). yeah i could still multibox by using isboxer's videoFX.... but that doesnt feel in the spirit of the game. Not to mention the extra clicks to do anything, changing the look of the UI isnt something i want to do. ive heard a lot about how this change is because of PVP in nullsec, bombers or something.... why not ban the use of input broadcasting/multiplexing only for PVP? :\ Some other MMOs handle it that way... But anyway... something that continues only to support its own growth is basically a cancer. my suggestion to you is joining a larger group and contributing that way, and continuing to play EVE. I 10 box myself, and it's possible to run incursions without ISBoxer whatsoever. as much as I would like to see Incursions not used as an ISK printing machine, my honest assessment is you don't have to leave.
i could keep multiboxing in incursions, i could setup marauders and perma tank VGs, and doing that would make me more isk than what i do now. But i play eve so i can play with the Poeple that i play with - i fly with communities in incursions. This rule against input multiplexing makes it simply inconvenient to multibox more than 4-6 at a time in incursions, reduces efficiency, but mostly its just annoying.
Id rather they just say "No multiboxing, No multiple accounts. One account per person only." rather then JUST take away input multiplexing. Yeah we can still multibox, but additional rules....
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
27346
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 23:56:33 -
[2939] - Quote
yeah about incursion "communities." the PVE is isolated from the rest of the game yet it affects the game economy. I don't agree with its existence. mining is different, it contributes. I'm basically saying incursion communities can die too. one can wish.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
199
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 00:18:44 -
[2940] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:If you think there was an arms race to have the most accounts, you are wrong. Really put up or shut up. Show us these fleets of 50+ ships roaming around winning eve? Hell even 20+. I see the odd 3-5 ships (including scout+links), and when i see they are probably multiboxing, I deliberately PvP in a way to make it hard to deal with (spread points/webs/ewar).
If you think these changes will reduce multiboxing or isboxing much at all your also wrong. Maybe, but we'll have the right to report broadcasters when we detect them. Hopefully many guys will take the chance to do it. For a more fair game. Cheers Nico How would YOU detect a broadcaster? Can you tell the difference between someone broadcasting and someone using round robin key sets? Can you tell the difference between someone running 9 or 10 accounts, who has a highend machine with good internet and someone who is broadcasting to multiple clients via software? Are you going to report and possibly get someone banned because YOU think he is broadcasting? I have 9 accounts that can all do the same task very efficiently OR they can do many different tasks nearly as efficiently. Am I multicasting or do I play my accounts as single entities, just very quickly? Would you report me as a broadcaster / multicaster. The simple idea CCP is accepting reports of breaches from players is going to see lots of multiboxers come under scrutiny for no other reason than - his characters all have similar names (mine don't). Like any EULA breach, it falls on the player to prove his or her innocence, how does one go about proving he or she did not break the rules if CCP get it wrong? EG; CCP got it wrong, they believe I am multicasting and gave me a 30 day ban but I am not - How do I prove it is due to the amount I spent on my computer and the strength of my internet that allows me to play multiple accounts so efficiently?
The big impact of this ruling is apps like isboxer will no longer support multibroadcasting for Eve(the ev specifically mentioned disabling the feature). Sure some players will find a way to do it, but it will be like botting(low quality and from shady sources). |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
327
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 01:50:43 -
[2941] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote:Sure some players will find a way to do it, but it will be like botting(low quality and from shady sources).
If someone was botting, this change meant nothing to them as botting was already against the EULA as defined by input automation without requiring human interaction, human input, or a person behind the keyboard issuing commands.
As for the silly notion that this will stop all ISBoxing..... No. This will not stop people from running ISBoxxed fleets at all if they are dedicated. I predict that people will start to switch to drone-assist comps, alpha-heavy comps, or will head to nullsec where they can run multiple marauders or AFKtars and still earn decent ISK.
CCP wants more player interaction? Awesome. They did a decent job with the drone aggro in NPC AI, even though I personally dislike it and would've loved to see NPCs using drones, I understand the reasoning behind the change.
But this is the wrong change to make if they want to be taken seriously as a company instead of a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. They have a rich history of looking at a problem and taking the time to find the right solution, or the best one with the legacy code, and they implement it.
The best example in my mind is the drone assist upper limit of 50 per target. There was an issue raised by a vocal subset of the EVE playerbase (unlimited drones being triggered by a single Loki or Huginn), and there was an array of changes they could've done. They could have removed drone assist outright, they could hard-cap it, they could've left it untouched and said "Everything is working fine". If they chose to remove it completely, they would've been impacting more than just the slowcat fleets. If they left it alone, they would've seen a massive surge in Pantheon / slowcat fleets, and the minimum bar for holding SOV in nullsec would be that much higher. Instead, they capped it at 50, a reasonable number that would prevent the massive carrier blobs while letting small fleet gatecamps, roams, incursion, and wormhole fleets work just fine with minimal effort required to change procedure.
Unless you're completely blind, the same thing happened with ISBoxing. A small subset of the playerbase (F1 monkeys in nullsec, idiots who aren't willing to distinguish between kitchen sink incursion fleets and elite communities, and the rare miner who doesn't understand words like 'destroyer' and 'Talos' and kicks up a whine whenever there's a boxxed miner in the belt) raised a ruckus. CCP looked at the array of choices (Ban ISBoxer and all similar software altogether, change the gameplay so that single-boxed characters would have an advantage, or tell the vocal players to HTFU and explore the many options available to them in the wonderful sandbox that is EVE. In our eyes, CCP went for a (not very balanced) compromise between banning ISBoxer, and telling players to HTFU, without looking at changing the gameplay to reward solo players or dualboxers, and without bothering to ask any questions to the ISBoxing community nor presenting any credentials, graphs, studies, or information supporting these changes. I'll say it again; I've personally seen more people complain and quit because of CODE in it's relatively short lifespan than I have of people complaining about ISBoxers in my 3ish years of EVE. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4555
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 08:05:09 -
[2942] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote:The big impact of this ruling is apps like isboxer will no longer support multibroadcasting for Eve(the ev specifically mentioned disabling the feature). Sure some players will find a way to do it, but it will be like botting(low quality and from shady sources). It's only going to be off by default rather than on by default like it currently is when you select "EVE" as your base profile. You will still be able to turn it on, and many people will, since as the OP says you can still use it to log in and change client settings.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Carmen Electra
The Scope
Gallente Federation
15518
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 08:09:01 -
[2943] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:yeah about incursion "communities." the PVE is isolated from the rest of the game yet it affects the game economy. I don't agree with its existence. mining is different, it contributes. I'm basically saying incursion communities can die too. one can wish.
Don't agree with incursions or incursion communities? How is mining not PvE?
Bacon makes us stronger
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
230
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 08:34:33 -
[2944] - Quote
Quote:Id rather they just say "No multiboxing, No multiple accounts. One account per person only." rather then JUST take away input multiplexing. Yeah we can still multibox, but additional rules....
That has to be the stupiest idea ever. Banning multiboxing would make burn jita look like Sunday stroll with Merry ******* Poppins. Banning multiple accounts would mean that almost all of new Eden would unsub in a month.
I am just a month away from properly flying a Dread, there is no way in hell i am waiting for enough corpies to be online with nothing to do to move it every time. And you expect titan pilots to do what? Train for years just to log in once a week for bridging?
This game and its game play is designed around multiboxing. Entire ship classes don't work without it.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
27352
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 08:44:29 -
[2945] - Quote
Carmen Electra wrote:Rain6637 wrote:yeah about incursion "communities." the PVE is isolated from the rest of the game yet it affects the game economy. I don't agree with its existence. mining is different, it contributes. I'm basically saying incursion communities can die too. one can wish. Don't agree with incursions or incursion communities? How is mining not PvE?
mining is fairly noble, imo. players need miners. in contrast, no one needs incursion runners.
despite incursions being level 4 missions on steroids, it makes a difference what players do with incursion income. if it's to support activity elsewhere in the game, that makes sense to me. farming incursions to support a lossy PVP habit, for example. but those players whose mains are -all- incursion pilots, and their only goal is green, blue, and purple incursion ships? it really doesn't contribute to the pulse of this game.
when it comes to key broadcasted fleets... miners drive prices down. incursion runners... not so much.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
Requiem Eternal
17
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 10:52:58 -
[2946] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Carmen Electra wrote:Rain6637 wrote:yeah about incursion "communities." the PVE is isolated from the rest of the game yet it affects the game economy. I don't agree with its existence. mining is different, it contributes. I'm basically saying incursion communities can die too. one can wish. Don't agree with incursions or incursion communities? How is mining not PvE? mining is fairly noble, imo. players need miners. in contrast, no one needs incursion runners. despite incursions being level 4 missions on steroids, it makes a difference what players do with incursion income. if it's to support activity elsewhere in the game, that makes sense to me. farming incursions to support a lossy PVP habit, for example. but those players whose mains are -all- incursion pilots, and their only goal is green, blue, and purple incursion ships? it really doesn't contribute to the pulse of this game. when it comes to key broadcasted fleets... miners drive prices down. incursion runners... not so much.
Well, Lp is an big part of incursions as far as i know. So through that it make items etc. (with the lp store) and there is plenty of People who need that's etc implants..
Edit: Huh`? |
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
42
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 11:16:39 -
[2947] - Quote
JGar Rooflestein wrote:Going to go out and say this. I own 7 accounts.
They are not all in the same space but infact spread out in different regions. They mine. I control the all via Innerspace (isoboxers form broadcasting commands to multiple clients). Now with Innerspace being banned how will I be caught.
Still can't believe how silly people are.
1) Search for clients running on the same IP.
2) Check how synchronized commands are given by the clients.
If all the ships react the same way within a given time frame -> ban.
It's very easy to spot such a behavior if the ships are in the same system, but programs are not limited to a visual feedback like a player. I spotted an is multicast boxer just two days ago in Jita. A fleet of 15 Herons warped to a jump gate and away from it like a fish swarm. Perfect synchronization, no time delay. No human can do this, at least not for a longer period. You would go crazy after some jumps.
After seeing this I could only think and thank again that this will be a ban in near future.
o/
|
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
42
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 11:31:03 -
[2948] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:
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:
[list]
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.
[...]
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
Your statement lacks one important point. If someone wants money back he/she must prove that he/she actually paid real money for the game.
If you want a refund with real money you must provide you actually paid for it. And honestly, I really doubt there are lots of people out there willing to pay 100-200 USD/month just to play a game.
In reality you have used multi boxing to earn as much isk as possible to buy plex within the game and keep your accounts running.
And yes, this is an advantage over people playing the regular style because the most rewarding ways to earn isk is bound to groups (Incursions, C6 anom ratting). Single player replacing the requirement for a group by using a multiplexing program shouldn't be allowed and aren't any longer.
No matter how many likes you got with your posts, feel free to adapt or search for another game. At least from my end you won't be missed.
o/ |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4555
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 12:06:38 -
[2949] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:It's very easy to spot such a behavior if the ships are in the same system, but programs are not limited to a visual feedback like a player. I spotted an is multicast boxer just two days ago in Jita. A fleet of 15 Herons warped to a jump gate and away from it like a fish swarm. Perfect synchronization, no time delay. No human can do this, at least not for a longer period. You would go crazy after some jumps.
After seeing this I could only think and thank again that this will be a ban in near future. So apparently you've never heard of fleet warp.
Dustpuppy wrote:And yes, this is an advantage over people playing the regular style because the most rewarding ways to earn isk is bound to groups (Incursions, C6 anom ratting). Single player replacing the requirement for a group by using a multiplexing program shouldn't be allowed and aren't any longer. Trading makes considerably more isk than any multiboxer could, and requires no broadcast software.
Dustpuppy wrote:People like you don't pay USD (real money) for the accounts so CCP won't lose a single cent when you cancel all of them. The plex you won't buy beginning Jan 1st will be bought by someone else. They might be cheaper but still bought at the same speed. Wrong. Consumption of PLEX is as good, if not a slightly better income stream for CCP. If the amount of PLEX consumed drops too much, so will the price, and so less people will be willing to pay for them with cash. Unless every multiboxed character lost is replaced with a new account, then obviously the consumption of PLEX will decrease.
That said, most multiboxers won;t be quitting as they can still multibox in other valid ways, so it's irrelevant. It certainly sounds like you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about though.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
43
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 12:47:08 -
[2950] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Wrong. Consumption of PLEX is as good, if not a slightly better income stream for CCP. If the amount of PLEX consumed drops too much, so will the price, and so less people will be willing to pay for them with cash. Unless every multiboxed character lost is replaced with a new account, then obviously the consumption of PLEX will decrease.
That said, most multiboxers won;t be quitting as they can still multibox in other valid ways, so it's irrelevant. It certainly sounds like you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about though.
I am willing to wait and see if you are right, but I am pretty sure you are wrong. Last year on a meeting CCP showed a slide with the plex price vs. plex consumption rate. This value of consumed plexes was pretty stable, plex consumption was independent of the market price.
I am pretty sure this behavior won't change just because some people stop playing with 10-20 accounts at the same time. People will still buy plex at the same rate from CCP, some will consume them, others buy them from CCP. Hell, maybe the amount of purchased plexes will increase because people trying to fund a shiny bling bling ship get less isk when selling the plex and require some more to achieve their goal.
So before saying "these botters were healthy for the game and CCPs income" or saying I have no clue about marketing, please wait until January. I doubt hell will break loose and everyone is leaving the game.
On the other side I welcome the change. As soon as you allow automatizing, boting etc. a game made for people becomes a game for the one who owns the best program to run the game and looses attraction. |
|
|
Rawthorm
D.M.T inc
Circle-Of-Two
31
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 13:06:51 -
[2951] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Wrong. Consumption of PLEX is as good, if not a slightly better income stream for CCP. If the amount of PLEX consumed drops too much, so will the price, and so less people will be willing to pay for them with cash. Unless every multiboxed character lost is replaced with a new account, then obviously the consumption of PLEX will decrease.
That said, most multiboxers won;t be quitting as they can still multibox in other valid ways, so it's irrelevant. It certainly sounds like you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about though. I am willing to wait and see if you are right, but I am pretty sure you are wrong. Last year on a meeting CCP showed a slide with the plex price vs. plex consumption rate. This value of consumed plexes was pretty stable, plex consumption was independent of the market price. I am pretty sure this behavior won't change just because some people stop playing with 10-20 accounts at the same time. People will still buy plex at the same rate from CCP, some will consume them, others buy them from CCP. Hell, maybe the amount of purchased plexes will increase because people trying to fund a shiny bling bling ship get less isk when selling the plex and require some more to achieve their goal. So before saying "these botters were healthy for the game and CCPs income" or saying I have no clue about marketing, please wait until January. I doubt hell will break loose and everyone is leaving the game. On the other side I welcome the change. As soon as you allow automatizing, boting etc. a game made for people becomes a game for the one who owns the best program to run the game and looses attraction.
It might be interesting to note that consumption rate is likely people actually using the Plex they have, where as a lot of people store them as investments. As such number of Plex purchased off the market is often higher than Plex consumed (IE activated) and thus why prices go up even when Plex consumption (activation) seems static. |
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
Cube Alliance
73
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 13:07:01 -
[2952] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Quote:Id rather they just say "No multiboxing, No multiple accounts. One account per person only." rather then JUST take away input multiplexing. Yeah we can still multibox, but additional rules.... That has to be the stupiest idea ever. Banning multiboxing would make burn jita look like Sunday stroll with Merry ******* Poppins. Banning multiple accounts would mean that almost all of new Eden would unsub in a month. I am just a month away from properly flying a Dread, there is no way in hell i am waiting for enough corpies to be online with nothing to do to move it every time. And you expect titan pilots to do what? Train for years just to log in once a week for bridging? This game and its game play is designed around multiboxing. Entire ship classes don't work without it.
and thats kind of my point, they are making a rule that effects some but not all multiboxers, why go half way? Either allow multiboxing or dont.
It seems to me its always something in nullsec where people abuse some mechanic, and then, And only then, does CCP make a change, and sometimes it only effects those in null.... but often it floods over into highsec.
Cripple hundreds of multiboxers in highsec mining/pve/whatever that has nothing to do with the reason they are making this rule change.... No, id like to see them say "No multiboxing Whatsoever" and listen to the cries from capital/supercapital/titan pilots. |
Rawthorm
D.M.T inc
Circle-Of-Two
31
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 13:14:18 -
[2953] - Quote
Battle Cube wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Quote:Id rather they just say "No multiboxing, No multiple accounts. One account per person only." rather then JUST take away input multiplexing. Yeah we can still multibox, but additional rules.... That has to be the stupiest idea ever. Banning multiboxing would make burn jita look like Sunday stroll with Merry ******* Poppins. Banning multiple accounts would mean that almost all of new Eden would unsub in a month. I am just a month away from properly flying a Dread, there is no way in hell i am waiting for enough corpies to be online with nothing to do to move it every time. And you expect titan pilots to do what? Train for years just to log in once a week for bridging? This game and its game play is designed around multiboxing. Entire ship classes don't work without it. and thats kind of my point, they are making a rule that effects some but not all multiboxers, why go half way? Either allow multiboxing or dont.
Because CCP has backed itself into a corner. The design of EvE requires at some levels that you multibox. To do a 180 would require a fundamental change in EvE's design, from top to bottom. That's a huge amount of work in an exercise that will be the financial equivalent of an orbital strike.
The flip side is to allow completely unregulated multibox use which obviously makes some people unhappy and potentially causes issues with the way income scales for some activities.
Both of these options are clearly unacceptable to CCP, so they've resorted to enforcing some vauge line in the sand that they can shift in whatever direction the winds blow. Sadly I can imagine that leaves anyone who lives near that line feeling like they are being jerked around for showing EvE 10 years of loyalty. |
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
Cube Alliance
73
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 13:21:02 -
[2954] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:yeah about incursion "communities." the PVE is isolated from the rest of the game yet it affects the game economy. I don't agree with its existence. mining is different, it contributes. I'm basically saying incursion communities can die too. one can wish.
and i could just as easily say that nullsec is isolated from the rest of the game and yet it affects the economy. I dont agree with its existence. Incursions are different, they contribute. Im basically saying nullsec communities can die too. one can wish. :D |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4556
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 13:26:24 -
[2955] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:I am pretty sure this behavior won't change just because some people stop playing with 10-20 accounts at the same time. Hell, maybe the amount of purchased plexes will even increase because people trying to fund a shiny bling bling ship get less isk when selling the plex and require to buy some more from CCP to achieve their goal. Of course it will. People who are willing to spend $15 to get 900m isk aren't necessarily going to spend the same amount of cash for half that in isk. Personally though, I don't think much will change at all because only a small fraction of multiboxers will stop, and like you rightly pointed out, consumption occurs in other ways.
At the end of the day though, less subs is less income for CCP, regardless of how you want to dress it up. You might want to pretend players paying with PLEX don't contribute, but it's simply not the case.
Dustpuppy wrote:So let's wait until January and then you can tell me if your nightmares became true and hell breaks lose because a boting support tool finally is banned. I doubt it will happen and all what we will see is that more poeple start playing which come from other bot overrun games and all what we lose are people which won't be missed at all. Fair trade. It's not a botting support tool, there's a massive difference between multiboxing tools and botting. Remarks like that really do prove you have no clue what you are on about. Besides, you still seem to have missed the part where ISBoxer will still be fully usable following the change. Only one feature has been banned which arguably isn't even the most important one.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
43
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 13:43:45 -
[2956] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Of course it will. People who are willing to spend $15 to get 900m isk aren't necessarily going to spend the same amount of cash for half that in isk.
Is this statement based on an assumption or based on facts?
Concerning botting: please explain to me how a client which is using the identical input of another one is not a bot? Does it have it's own brain and individual reaction scheme or does it just follow the orders without thinking?
You might want to splice hairs here but as long as more than one ship reacts in an identical way (because of multiplexing the input to more than one client) it is a bot. Doesn't matter if in the end a person sits ans steers 20 ships with a single mouse click or if the remaining brain also is substituted by another program.
Consider yourself lucky because CCP accepted this kind of game style a grey zone but now also decided to think in the same way: if one player presses one button and ten ship do the same then nine of them are bots and are no longer legal.
Meet you in 2015, maybe, and maybe with less chars. o/ If you decide to leave and still are frustrated for not being refunded, contact me. I will take all your stuff :)
And if CCP wants to make me even more happy - ban the round robin feature of the third party software. Let the is multiboxer click around just like the regular ones and another resort of resistance for this plague will fall. |
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
Cube Alliance
73
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 14:29:09 -
[2957] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Of course it will. People who are willing to spend $15 to get 900m isk aren't necessarily going to spend the same amount of cash for half that in isk.
Is this statement based on an assumption or based on facts? Concerning botting: please explain to me how a client which is using the identical input of another one is not a bot? Does it have it's own brain and individual reaction scheme or does it just follow the orders without thinking? You might want to splice hairs here but as long as more than one ship reacts in an identical way (because of multiplexing the input to more than one client) it is a bot. Doesn't matter if in the end a person sits ans steers 20 ships with a single mouse click or if the remaining brain also is substituted by another program. Consider yourself lucky because CCP accepted this kind of game style a grey zone but now also decided to think in the same way: if one player presses one button and ten ship do the same then nine of them are bots and are no longer legal. Meet you in 2015, maybe, and maybe with less chars. o/ If you decide to leave and still are frustrated for not being refunded, contact me. I will take all your stuff :) And if CCP wants to make me even more happy - ban the round robin feature of the third party software. Let the is multiboxer click around just like the regular ones and another resort of resistance for this plague will fall.
Does the computer have its own brain and individual reaction scheme, or does it just follow orders without thinking?
Congrats - Every Single Player is a bot for replicating their moves from their fingers into the keyboard which replicates to the computer which replicates to the game which replicates to the network, etc etc.
And there is no "round robin feature".... its literally just going around and clicking on each one in a circle |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4556
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 14:35:45 -
[2958] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:Is this statement based on an assumption or based on facts? Obviously it's an assumption based on people's behaviour. People have differing values of money. Claiming that a decrease in PLEX price will not affect the number of PLEX bought at all assumes that everyone buying PLEX is getting enough value for money that a marked decrease wouldn't change their minds. On top of that it assumes that players who get 900m this month would be happy to get considerably less next moth for the same price, which I very much doubt.
Again though, the short of it is that a decrease in subs is a decrease in income for CCP, no matter which way you twist it.
Dustpuppy wrote:Concerning botting: please explain to me how a client which is using the identical input of another one is not a bot? Does it have it's own brain and individual reaction scheme or does it just follow the orders without thinking? Because it's not automated. A bot takes actions on it's own. It may not have decision makign capability, but it doesn't require a player to input every command it performs for it to do it. A broadcast multiboxer has to tell their clients what to do. The fact that it hits more than one client is irrelevant. A global keybind will hit multiple windows, but you wouldn't suggest that a global keybind is botting. You seem to be very confused as to what bots actually do. The OP pretty well defined the difference between input automation and input broadcasting, maybe you should read it.
Dustpuppy wrote:Consider yourself lucky because CCP accepted this kind of game style a grey zone but now also decided to think in the same way: if one player presses one button and ten ship do the same then nine of them are bots and are no longer legal.
Meet you in 2015, maybe, and maybe with less chars. o/ If you decide to leave and still are frustrated for not being refunded, contact me. I will take all your stuff :) I think you misunderstand. I generally don't multibox. I have in the past, but I don't these days. I'm considering running out a fleet again however specifically to harvest the tears from all the people that seem to think it's now impossible to mass multibox within the rules. But I'm not arguing this change because I don't think changes are required, I'm arguing it because the method they are choosing to use is the wrong one. They are treating the symptom. The cause is that several gameplay mechanics are far too simple and don't require much interaction from players. Those mechanics should be reviewed. But hey, that's just me. Maybe you prefer keeping crappy gameplay, CCP certainly seem to.
Dustpuppy wrote:And if CCP wants to make me even more happy - ban the round robin feature of the third party software. Let the is multiboxer click around just like the regular ones and another resort of resistance for this plague will fall. Well that's very unlikely to happen. Round robin can be done with enough pieces of software and hardware that it would be impossible ban them all specifically (not to mention unlikely to even be tried, since gaming keyboards can do it - I doubt a game would want to ban gaming hardware), and from a server point of view there would be no reliable way to differentiate between a manual multiboxer and a round robin.
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
4556
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 14:39:20 -
[2959] - Quote
Battle Cube wrote:And there is no "round robin feature".... its literally just going around and clicking on each one in a circle Round robin is a type of keybind, which when pressed performs the same task on the next client, moving on each time. So say you set up one for F1 on 3 clients, each press would be like this:
Press 1 - F1 on Client A
Press 2 - F1 on Client B
Press 3 - F1 on Client C
Press 4 - F1 on Client A
Press 5 - F1 on Client B
It means that instead of broadcasting, you just set these up then hammer the bound key (or bind it to your scrollwheel and scroll down quickly). Between that and VideoFX (the ability to chop up multiple clients and put key UI elements on a single screen), this entire change is pointless.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
Cube Alliance
73
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:26:30 -
[2960] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Battle Cube wrote:And there is no "round robin feature".... its literally just going around and clicking on each one in a circle Round robin is a type of keybind, which when pressed performs the same task on the next client, moving on each time. So say you set up one for F1 on 3 clients, each press would be like this: Press 1 - F1 on Client A Press 2 - F1 on Client B Press 3 - F1 on Client C Press 4 - F1 on Client A Press 5 - F1 on Client B It means that instead of broadcasting, you just set these up then hammer the bound key (or bind it to your scrollwheel and scroll down quickly). Between that and VideoFX (the ability to chop up multiple clients and put key UI elements on a single screen), this entire change is pointless.
ah, scrollwheel....
Well its not entirely pointless.... it DOES make it inconvenient to play the way we want to - and they may just make that method against the rules too, although it gets more convoluted |
|
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
230
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:32:36 -
[2961] - Quote
Of course you can always set up your OS so the following would work
F1 , Tab.........F1 client 1
F1 , Tab.........F1 client 2
F1, Tab.........F1 client 3
F1, Tab.........F1 client 1
F1, Tab.........F1 client 2
No need for any extra software and i can type that just as fast as just hitting F1. So you can't ban that without banning multiboxing.
And well a large chunk of eve multibox. So if the CSM is something that is suppose to represent the players..........
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
Cube Alliance
73
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:35:27 -
[2962] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Of course you can always set up your OS so the following would work
F1 , Tab.........F1 client 1
F1 , Tab.........F1 client 2
F1, Tab.........F1 client 3
F1, Tab.........F1 client 1
F1, Tab.........F1 client 2
No need for any extra software and i can type that just as fast as just hitting F1. So you can't ban that without banning multiboxing.
And well a large chunk of eve multibox. So if the CSM is something that is suppose to represent the players..........
Man, and you know, i was going to run for CSM but i coudlnt get my passport in time >.< XD |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
27374
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 16:32:12 -
[2963] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Rain6637 wrote:
mining is fairly noble, imo. players need miners. in contrast, no one needs incursion runners.
despite incursions being level 4 missions on steroids, it makes a difference what players do with incursion income. if it's to support activity elsewhere in the game, that makes sense to me. farming incursions to support a lossy PVP habit, for example. but those players whose mains are -all- incursion pilots, and their only goal is green, blue, and purple incursion ships? it really doesn't contribute to the pulse of this game.
when it comes to key broadcasted fleets... miners drive prices down. incursion runners... not so much.
Well, Lp is an big part of incursions as far as i know. So through that it make items etc. (with the lp store) and there is plenty of People who need that's etc implants.. Edit: Huh`?
don't kid yourself, it's not healthy. no one is dying for implants, and no one will miss incursion runners.
Battle Cube wrote:Rain6637 wrote:yeah about incursion "communities." the PVE is isolated from the rest of the game yet it affects the game economy. I don't agree with its existence. mining is different, it contributes. I'm basically saying incursion communities can die too. one can wish. and i could just as easily say that nullsec is isolated from the rest of the game and yet it affects the economy. I dont agree with its existence. Incursions are different, they contribute. Im basically saying nullsec communities can die too. one can wish. :D
you can type what you want, but it doesn't make it true. between the two of us, one is more or less getting their wish.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
330
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 17:25:33 -
[2964] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:So if the CSM is something that is suppose to represent the players..........
Hahahahahaha. Good one, mate. Haven't had quite a laugh in a long time.
Rain6637 wrote:don't kid yourself, it's not healthy. no one is dying for implants, and no one will miss incursion runners.
And nobody's "dying" for deadspace modules either, so who's gonna miss the null anom runners, amiright?
The biggest difference between null anom runners and highsec incursion runners is that HS incursion runners are subject to more interaction with the rest of the playerbase than the average nullsec farmer. |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
150
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 17:53:51 -
[2965] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:If you think there was an arms race to have the most accounts, you are wrong. Really put up or shut up. Show us these fleets of 50+ ships roaming around winning eve? Hell even 20+. I see the odd 3-5 ships (including scout+links), and when i see they are probably multiboxing, I deliberately PvP in a way to make it hard to deal with (spread points/webs/ewar).
If you think these changes will reduce multiboxing or isboxing much at all your also wrong. Maybe, but we'll have the right to report broadcasters when we detect them. Hopefully many guys will take the chance to do it. For a more fair game. Cheers Nico How would YOU detect a broadcaster? Can you tell the difference between someone broadcasting and someone using round robin key sets? Can you tell the difference between someone running 9 or 10 accounts, who has a highend machine with good internet and someone who is broadcasting to multiple clients via software? Are you going to report and possibly get someone banned because YOU think he is broadcasting? I have 9 accounts that can all do the same task very efficiently OR they can do many different tasks nearly as efficiently. Am I multicasting or do I play my accounts as single entities, just very quickly? Would you report me as a broadcaster / multicaster. The simple idea CCP is accepting reports of breaches from players is going to see lots of multiboxers come under scrutiny for no other reason than - his characters all have similar names (mine don't). Like any EULA breach, it falls on the player to prove his or her innocence, how does one go about proving he or she did not break the rules if CCP get it wrong? EG; CCP got it wrong, they believe I am multicasting and gave me a 30 day ban but I am not - How do I prove it is due to the amount I spent on my computer and the strength of my internet that allows me to play multiple accounts so efficiently?
Detection is fairly straightforward. Here is a prime example:
1) You spot a fleet of fourteen ships - one freighter, one Orca, a cruiser, eleven Skiffs, & an MTU.
2) You add them all to your contacts and watchlist and make notes that they all fleet together.
3) All the fleet members have random/generic/boring/similar names.
4) Another common signifier is that all accounts may have been started on the same day or very close together.
5) The next day they all log in within a few seconds of each other.
6) All their mining lasers turn on virtually at the same time.
7) All the ships are grouped very close together.
8) They all jettison their ore holds at the same time.
The above isn't playing the game - it's farming ISK at best and verges on RMTing. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4557
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 18:01:39 -
[2966] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:Detection is fairly straightforward. Here is a prime example:
1) You spot a fleet of fourteen ships - one freighter, one Orca, a cruiser, eleven Skiffs, & an MTU.
2) You add them all to your contacts and watchlist and make notes that they all fleet together.
3) All the fleet members have random/generic/boring/similar names.
4) Another common signifier is that all accounts may have been started on the same day or very close together.
5) The next day they all log in within a few seconds of each other.
6) All their mining lasers turn on virtually at the same time.
7) All the ships are grouped very close together.
8) They all jettison their ore holds at the same time.
The above isn't playing the game - it's farming ISK at best and verges on RMTing. Only 6 and 8 would even qualify as detecting a broadcaster, all of the others are entirely irrelevant. Even 6 and 8 though, because of server timings they might all get turned on or jetissoned individually within a couple of server ticks quite legitimately, but would appear to you to be turning on in 2 sequential blocks.
So basically, you can guess.
Edit: Oh, and no. Unless they are selling isk for money it's not RMT. Even if they have 500 miners, it's still not RMT unless they trade isk for money. That's what RMT means.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
330
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 18:05:40 -
[2967] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:Detection is fairly straightforward. Here is a prime example:
1) You spot a fleet of fourteen ships - one freighter, one Orca, a cruiser, eleven Skiffs, & an MTU.
2) You add them all to your contacts and watchlist and make notes that they all fleet together.
3) All the fleet members have random/generic/boring/similar names.
4) Another common signifier is that all accounts may have been started on the same day or very close together.
5) The next day they all log in within a few seconds of each other.
6) All their mining lasers turn on virtually at the same time.
7) All the ships are grouped very close together.
8) They all jettison their ore holds at the same time.
The above isn't playing the game - it's farming ISK at best and verges on RMTing.
1) Random mining fleet, woopty-do.
2) Perfectly within your right, and indeed with the latest patch it makes it easier to keep track and target people.
3) I know one group of friends who specifically made an alt group following a naming scheme just to mess with people. Not saying that's whats happening, but leap of logic fallacy.
4) Again, leap of logic fallacy. Many people make an alt when CCP has their power-of-two promotion. If one of those alts proceeds to RMT, that does not mean all of them are RMTers.
5) This is explicitly allowed by CCP.
6) What is Round Robin Broadcasting and binding F1 to Wheel Down/Up for 500 please, Alex?
7) What is Regroup command via fleet window for squad/wing/fleet commanders for 200 please, Alex?
8) Again, what is RRB for 500 Alex?
I'll admit it's farming isk to a degree, but it falls apart when you remember that he still has to pay for the accounts, whether it be ISK or $$$. As for RMTing, bull. Acquiring vast amounts of ISK for any reason other than directly selling it is perfectly fine. If it wasn't, we'd see every station trader get banned. ISBoxing for ISK is only RMT if a player explicitly sells it for RL cash. Just because one idiot nullsec ISBoxing miner was RMTing does not mean every ISBoxer is a RMTer, even using CCP's recent logic of guilt by association, as that player may have never come into contact with other ISBoxers in any way, shape, or form.
2/10, work on your trolling. |
Opertone
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
315
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 21:06:07 -
[2968] - Quote
people who macro all day long - deprive me of player driven environment (they create min max bot driven spam world)
I have less motivation to play the game, because I need to rely on macroes to stay competitive.
Macro players ruin my fun in EVE.
lim (marcro rage -> +8) (eve universe diversity/macro rage) -> Singularity -> const.
(static frozen world, no player driven deviation)
where macro rage is exponential
This post sums up why the 'best' work with DCM inc.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
330
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 21:18:02 -
[2969] - Quote
Opertone wrote:people who macro all day long - deprive me of player driven environment (they create min max bot driven spam world)
I have less motivation to play the game, because I need to rely on macroes to stay competitive.
Macro players ruin my fun in EVE.
lim (marcro rage -> +8) (eve universe diversity/macro rage) -> Singularity -> const.
(static frozen world, no player driven deviation)
where macro rage is exponential
By your absolutely awful logic and definitions, station trader moguls should also be banned because some of them min/max to an extreme degree and process billions of ISK a day/week compared to those less invested in trading. Similarly, we should ban industrial players who crank out massive amounts of modules or ships far greater than a less skilled pilot can. Shall we also ban titan production, something which requires a not-insignificant amount of time to setup and Excel-warrioring to properly calculate needed materials and time spent?
From what I can tell, you're confused about what macros are and are simply repeating the "hurr it's a bot" propaganda. A macro can be a simple string of keypresses (F1-F8), and that is not against the EULA. When a macro or program continue to do something like mine, jettison, and mine again without player input, that's breaking the EULA. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1775
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 22:16:15 -
[2970] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
From what I can tell, you're confused about what macros are and are simply repeating the "hurr it's a bot" propaganda. A macro can be a simple string of keypresses (F1-F8), and that is not against the EULA. When a macro or program continue to do something like mine, jettison, and mine again without player input, that's breaking the EULA.
Actually even the simple string of keypresses is against the EULA Nolak, the EULA is very clear.
What CCP have said is that they won't prosecute the very simple ones that simply press F1-F8 in a row under normal circumstances.
But they are against the EULA so CCP could decide to change that at any time without having to change the EULA. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
330
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 23:06:43 -
[2971] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Actually even the simple string of keypresses is against the EULA Nolak, the EULA is very clear.
What CCP have said is that they won't prosecute the very simple ones that simply press F1-F8 in a row under normal circumstances.
But they are against the EULA so CCP could decide to change that at any time without having to change the EULA.
Please show me where simple non-automation macros are breaking the EULA. I've read it multiple times and all I see is the blanket ban on macros that automate gameplay. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4558
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 23:30:04 -
[2972] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Actually even the simple string of keypresses is against the EULA Nolak, the EULA is very clear.
What CCP have said is that they won't prosecute the very simple ones that simply press F1-F8 in a row under normal circumstances.
But they are against the EULA so CCP could decide to change that at any time without having to change the EULA. What is with people repeating this dumbass argument. CCP don't need to keep things in the EULA to ban you. They can literally ban you for liking the colour purple and not have to change the EULA to do it.
That said, simple key combination binds are not against the EULA regardless.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lady Areola Fappington
2371
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 01:04:50 -
[2973] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Round robin is a type of keybind, which when pressed performs the same task on the next client, moving on each time. So say you set up one for F1 on 3 clients, each press would be like this:
Press 1 - F1 on Client A
Press 2 - F1 on Client B
Press 3 - F1 on Client C
Press 4 - F1 on Client A
Press 5 - F1 on Client B
It means that instead of broadcasting, you just set these up then hammer the bound key (or bind it to your scrollwheel and scroll down quickly). Between that and VideoFX (the ability to chop up multiple clients and put key UI elements on a single screen), this entire change is pointless.
There's one small flaw in this idea, that I can see. If you make yourself "just as fast" as input multiplication with a round robin setup, you're likely going to bounce off of CCPs detection system for input multiplication. It'd be up to CCP at this point to either say "Yah, good" or "you're functionally input multiplying"
My next part of this is very much admitted speculation. If CCP is doing what we all think they are, they're looking for a set number of module activations within one server tick, on interconnected accounts. This could be two, it could be 10, who knows.
CCP is known for, lets say, "interpreting" rules for us before we get them. They could be running under the assumption that any trigger of their input multiplication detector is proof of broadcasting. Basically "A normal mulitplexer couldn't do it this fast, so they must be broadcasting". The actual rule broken is "you triggered the detector", the CCP interpretation for us is "Don't input broadcast."
There's actually some similar case history on just such an event. I remember the EUni guy who got busted for market botting. It wasn't botting by standard definition because he was manually doing each input, but he'd set up custom scripts and such to give himself the "speed" of a botter. CCP let that one stand.
It isn't really hard, but I think there are customers that you can lose in a good way and there's customers that you can lose in a bad way. If people come in and fundamentally don't like EVE Online, then I think that might be a good way of losing customers. . -á--CCP Soundwave
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
27392
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 01:44:16 -
[2974] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rain6637 wrote:don't kid yourself, it's not healthy. no one is dying for implants, and no one will miss incursion runners. And nobody's "dying" for deadspace modules either, so who's gonna miss the null anom runners, amiright? The biggest difference between null anom runners and highsec incursion runners is that HS incursion runners are subject to more interaction with the rest of the playerbase than the average nullsec farmer.
okay.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
264
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 07:26:20 -
[2975] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Actually even the simple string of keypresses is against the EULA Nolak, the EULA is very clear.
What CCP have said is that they won't prosecute the very simple ones that simply press F1-F8 in a row under normal circumstances.
But they are against the EULA so CCP could decide to change that at any time without having to change the EULA. Please show me where simple non-automation macros are breaking the EULA. I've read it multiple times and all I see is the blanket ban on macros that automate gameplay.
It's in section 6, A-3:
CCP wrote: You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play.
Their policy expands on this section and clearly says it is prohibited, but they will tolerated it if it "maintains fair gameplay".
A simple "rapid keystroke" macro that presses F1-F8 in sequence is against the EULA as written, but is apparently tolerated (although you probably should petition it to be sure for your use case as they suggested). However, if CCP decides in the future it gives too much of an advantage, they could change their enforcement policies and ban it like they just did with input broadcasting.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4559
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 07:40:47 -
[2976] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:There's one small flaw in this idea, that I can see. If you make yourself "just as fast" as input multiplication with a round robin setup, you're likely going to bounce off of CCPs detection system for input multiplication. It'd be up to CCP at this point to either say "Yah, good" or "you're functionally input multiplying"
My next part of this is very much admitted speculation. If CCP is doing what we all think they are, they're looking for a set number of module activations within one server tick, on interconnected accounts. This could be two, it could be 10, who knows.
CCP is known for, lets say, "interpreting" rules for us before we get them. They could be running under the assumption that any trigger of their input multiplication detector is proof of broadcasting. Basically "A normal mulitplexer couldn't do it this fast, so they must be broadcasting". The actual rule broken is "you triggered the detector", the CCP interpretation for us is "Don't input broadcast."
There's actually some similar case history on just such an event. I remember the EUni guy who got busted for market botting. It wasn't botting by standard definition because he was manually doing each input, but he'd set up custom scripts and such to give himself the "speed" of a botter. CCP let that one stand. True, but with how fast manual multiboxers can be, the threashold will be pretty low. And for a broadcasters it's not about speed, it's simply about effort. They will still be able to pace their keypresses leaving the accounts staggered, but without needing to manually switch between clients to do so. Other than being slightly staggered, there will be no difference.
EDIT: And I will truly laugh my ass off if they start banning manual multiboxers. It's CCP so it's likely to happen.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
330
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 08:27:47 -
[2977] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Actually even the simple string of keypresses is against the EULA Nolak, the EULA is very clear.
What CCP have said is that they won't prosecute the very simple ones that simply press F1-F8 in a row under normal circumstances.
But they are against the EULA so CCP could decide to change that at any time without having to change the EULA. Please show me where simple non-automation macros are breaking the EULA. I've read it multiple times and all I see is the blanket ban on macros that automate gameplay. It's in section 6, A-3: CCP wrote: You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. Their policy expands on this section and clearly says it is prohibited, but they will tolerated it if it "maintains fair gameplay". A simple "rapid keystroke" macro that presses F1-F8 in sequence is against the EULA as written, but is apparently tolerated (although you probably should petition it to be sure for your use case as they suggested). However, if CCP decides in the future it gives too much of an advantage, they could change their enforcement policies and ban it like they just did with input broadcasting.
For the millionth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is for per-client, not per-human, and refers to modifying the client or introducing automation that does not require human input. The "rapid keystroke" most likely refers to spamming a single command through a client to do something that is not humanly possible, much like the XBox modified controller hardware hack.
1/10. |
Rawthorm
D.M.T inc
Circle-Of-Two
33
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 08:32:49 -
[2978] - Quote
Opertone wrote:people who macro all day long - deprive me of player driven environment (they create min max bot driven spam world)
I have less motivation to play the game, because I need to rely on macroes to stay competitive.
Macro players ruin my fun in EVE.
lim (marcro rage -> +8) (eve universe diversity/macro rage) -> Singularity -> const.
(static frozen world, no player driven deviation)
where macro rage is exponential
Can you honestly say that just because there may be 30 toons sitting next to you, that the mind numbing task of mining is suddenly less fun? And why should the level to which someone can get obsessive with EvE be capped at wherever you feel your effort to reward ratio sits and no further? Eve has always been about squeezing out that last half a % to get an edge over the other guy and if you can't bothered then don't complain when others are more competitive than you.
It's bad enough as it is that the once glorious EvE sandbox now comes with an assembly guide and a pre-aproved list of what you can and can't do. The last thing we need to do is remove the last few rewards for taking the effort to be ahead of the curve. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
264
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 08:40:13 -
[2979] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
For the millionth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is for per-client, not per-human, and refers to modifying the client or introducing automation that does not require human input. The "rapid keystroke" most likely refers to spamming a single command through a client to do something that is not humanly possible, much like the XBox modified controller hardware hack.
1/10.
I am not sure why you think this. The EULA is clearly written and applies regardless of "modifying the client". It clearly says that third-party software is not allowed to input "patterns of play" that facilitate your playing of the game.
That would include macros that enter F1-F8 with the single press of the button.
I am not sure how it could be written more clearly.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
330
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 09:03:07 -
[2980] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:I am not sure why you think this. The EULA is clearly written and applies regardless of "modifying the client". It clearly says that third-party software is not allowed to input "patterns of play" that facilitate your playing of the game.
That would include macros that enter F1-F8 with the single press of the button.
I am not sure how it could be written more clearly.
Except CCP is not going to attempt to police and ban every relatively new keyboard, mouse, and software that allows a player to create quick macros, so they have stated that their interpretation of the macro clause is anti-automation and anti-client-modification, not "softcore" stuff like F1-F8. If we're going to interpret the EULA that strictly, we'd have to ban ISBoxer and any sort of window management software, as well as multiple monitors, KVM switches, gaming keyboards and mice, and limit each player to using a Commodore 64, because people with better hardware can receive a statistically significant advantage over someone with subpar hardware.
Easy way to make it written clearly: "Players are not allowed to use any sort of macros, including macros that send multiple keystrokes for a single key pressed, including any sort of software (example: AutoHotKey) or hardware (Logitech G600) or any combination of the two (G600 with Logitech Gaming Software [which allows macro binding]).
But since simple macros are allowed and have always been, it doesn't really matter how they phrase it. |
|
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
264
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 09:30:03 -
[2981] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Except CCP is not going to attempt to police and ban every relatively new keyboard, mouse, and software that allows a player to create quick macros, so they have stated that their interpretation of the macro clause is anti-automation and anti-client-modification, not "softcore" stuff like F1-F8. If we're going to interpret the EULA that strictly, we'd have to ban ISBoxer and any sort of window management software, as well as multiple monitors, KVM switches, gaming keyboards and mice, and limit each player to using a Commodore 64, because people with better hardware can receive a statistically significant advantage over someone with subpar hardware.
Easy way to make it written clearly: "Players are not allowed to use any sort of macros, including macros that send multiple keystrokes for a single key pressed, including any sort of software (example: AutoHotKey) or hardware (Logitech G600) or any combination of the two (G600 with Logitech Gaming Software [which allows macro binding]).
But since simple macros are allowed and have always been, it doesn't really matter how they phrase it.
Ok, but the EULA specifically bans all software and hardware based macros, including everything you described (except for the silliness with the keyboard and mice). That EULA is broadly written and clearly prohibits all macro-generating software that affects your gameplay - including "simple macros".
That is what you asked for and I provided it. How they choose enforce it, and the practicalities of detecting macro use are a different and more complex matter. But the fact remains that any system that generates "patterns of play" and/or "rapid keystrokes" is against the EULA even if tolerated for now, and CCP could change their enforcement policy at any time (like they just did for input broadcasting) and ban them completely from use.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
388
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 09:36:38 -
[2982] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:]
Ok, but the EULA specifically bans all software and hardware based macros, including everything you described (except for the silliness with the keyboard and mice). That EULA is broadly written and clearly prohibits all macro-generating software that affects your gameplay - including "simple macros".
That is what you asked for and I provided it. How they choose enforce it, and the practicalities of detecting macro use are a different and more complex matter. But the fact remains that any system that generates "patterns of play" and/or "rapid keystrokes" is against the EULA even if tolerated for now, and CCP could change their enforcement policy at any time (like they just did for input broadcasting) and ban them completely from use.
It depends on if you use the gamer definition of a macro, which will include combination keybinds without repetition or timers, the programmer's definition of macros, which require repetition or timers or something in between. English is not a precise language in this instance, so the problem ends up stemming from the fact that different subsets of the population define the non-concrete noun "macro" differently.
The problem gets even worse if you look at it as a legal document translated into different languages, as the implication of the translations as posted on alternative language versions of the EULA differ greatly.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
264
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 09:54:51 -
[2983] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:
It depends on if you use the gamer definition of a macro, which will include combination keybinds without repetition or timers, the programmer's definition of macros, which require repetition or timers or something in between. English is not a precise language in this instance, so the problem ends up stemming from the fact that different subsets of the population define the non-concrete noun "macro" differently.
The problem gets even worse if you look at it as a legal document translated into different languages, as the implication of the translations as posted on alternative language versions of the EULA differ greatly.
I'm not a lawyer, but the clause I quoted is very broadly worded and doesn't just ban "macros" but also actually bans "your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play" that influence your gameplay. Notice all the use of "or" in there.
I am pretty sure that covers all eventualities.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
388
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 10:01:18 -
[2984] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:James Baboli wrote:
It depends on if you use the gamer definition of a macro, which will include combination keybinds without repetition or timers, the programmer's definition of macros, which require repetition or timers or something in between. English is not a precise language in this instance, so the problem ends up stemming from the fact that different subsets of the population define the non-concrete noun "macro" differently.
The problem gets even worse if you look at it as a legal document translated into different languages, as the implication of the translations as posted on alternative language versions of the EULA differ greatly.
I'm not a lawyer, but the clause I quoted is very broadly worded and doesn't just ban "macros" but also actually bans "your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play" that influence your gameplay. Notice all the use of "or" in there. I am pretty sure that covers all eventualities.
And the strictest interpretation of that clause is that killboards, teamspeak and any third party tool to co-ordinate players is bannable. It again, comes down to enforcement and which interpretation of a programming technical term, which is frequently misused in a gaming context, as used in a legal document, is correct.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4559
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 10:02:36 -
[2985] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:I am not sure why you think this. The EULA is clearly written and applies regardless of "modifying the client". It clearly says that third-party software is not allowed to input "patterns of play" that facilitate your playing of the game.
That would include macros that enter F1-F8 with the single press of the button.
I am not sure how it could be written more clearly. Whoa whoa whoa, slow down buddy. Sure, if you miss off the key part of the EULA section you are quoting then you can argue that, but read the rest:
"... patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play". Simple control activation macros, like activating sets of your defensive modules, launch and engage drones, etc. these don't allow you to gain anything at an accelerated rate to normal gameplay. That EULA segment is there to prevent people controlling characters in ways which would be impossible to replicate using normal gameplay.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
27397
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 10:12:38 -
[2986] - Quote
sorry all, I forget. If I make a G-key bind that is F1 through F8 for a rack of smartbombs, is that a ban after January?
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
264
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 10:21:49 -
[2987] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Whoa whoa whoa, slow down buddy. Sure, if you miss off the key part of the EULA section you are quoting then you can argue that, but read the rest:
"... patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play". Simple control activation macros, like activating sets of your defensive modules, launch and engage drones, etc. these don't allow you to gain anything at an accelerated rate to normal gameplay. That EULA segment is there to prevent people controlling characters in ways which would be impossible to replicate using normal gameplay.
Now I agree that is open to some interpretation. The strictest interpretation would suggest that activating all your modules at once would allow you to finish a mission (slightly) faster thus is accelerating your gameplay.
Practically though, this isn't really the case and this is probably the main reason CCP hasn't enforced this part of the EULA against simple macros.
Still, if a game situation arose where activating multiple key-presses with a single binding provided a significant advantage, this clause would apply. And if there is no advantage, there is no point worrying about it as CCP will continue to tolerate it as is the present case now.
However, the standard for tolerance isn't "impossible to replicate" as you suggest in your post, but rather "an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play".
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
390
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 10:24:21 -
[2988] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
However, the standard for tolerance isn't "impossible to replicate" as you suggest in your post, but rather "an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play".
The issue is do we define normal gameplay as the limits of what is possible in normal game play, or as the average player, who, propaganda aside, is generally pretty terrible at eve?
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
264
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 10:34:23 -
[2989] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
However, the standard for tolerance isn't "impossible to replicate" as you suggest in your post, but rather "an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play".
The issue is do we define normal gameplay as the limits of what is possible in normal game play, or as the average player, who, propaganda aside, is generally pretty terrible at eve?
Again I am no lawyer, but it would seem to be apply to each player's "ordinary Game play". Obviously hardware, skill, biology and internet connection impact on the speed of game play, so the only reasonable standard is does it allow you to significantly accelerate your game play over what you are capable of without the software/macro. Using that definition many things become banned though but I think that is the intent of this clause to be as broadly written and all-encompassing as possible.
By doing this CCP retains the discretion to make case-by-case decisions on each situation and that power is obviously in their interest. Clearly it is not in their interest (or perhaps capability) to detect and ban all types of input modification so in practice much is tolerated.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Zerberus Valheru
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 10:48:16 -
[2990] - Quote
A very welcome and much needed change.
Ethically there is very little difference between macro multi-boxing and good old fashioned aimbots.
EDIT: It can't be hard for them to detect, regardless of how you are doing it. (ie. 10ppl in a system querying the server for the same thing instantaneously) |
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4559
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 11:58:18 -
[2991] - Quote
Zerberus Valheru wrote:Ethically there is very little difference between macro multi-boxing and good old fashioned aimbots. Well, no. One is a generally accepted method of multiboxing with reduced effort (when by macro you don't mean automated botting), the other is a well established method of cheating. The only thing they have in common is that you dislike them because you think other people should be forced to play in the same way you do, and think it's unfair when someone has more than you.
Zerberus Valheru wrote:It can't be hard for them to detect, regardless of how you are doing it. (ie. 10ppl in a system querying the server for the same thing instantaneously) I'm sure broadcasting isn't hard to detect at all. But considering the removal of broadcasting will only remove the laziest minority of multiboxers, it's pretty much irrelevant. The difference will be so small that January will probably be record breaker for false reports as people report every multiboxer they see, not realising they aren't broadcasting.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
wonneman
Meltem Down Mining Corp.
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 12:42:21 -
[2992] - Quote
Fiberton wrote:Hrm so Mining goods are about to sky rocket. Ok so I have never used one of these things you speak of but even I after over 10 years in the game know that this is a terrible idea. So when you are making decisions did you consult an accountant? You realize that you are prob going to reduce CCP income about 3M a year just from logins who will drop accounts that are used for that sort of thing ? Ok not to tell you guys how to run a company but just flying around for so many years and knowing persons who use that.. At least 5% of eve is just miners on isboxer. Good luck on driving into a brick wall or whatever you dudes do.. Phobe great idea. this.. I would consult an accountant.
I don't think they will lose as much as your saying cause a lot of that multiboxing is being used to mine rocks and ice that is then made into a product or ice that is sold on the market to buy plex for all the accounts. I just came from an ice field that one guy was controlling 40 miners an orca and a freighter and the ice field was gone in about 30 minutes. And he's been doing it every time the field respawns ...... everyday. Then sells the ice on the market to buy plex for his accounts therefore playing for free...... So how is CCP losing money to let this continue???
They will be losing money by allowing it to continue.
Good for you CCP |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4559
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 12:51:18 -
[2993] - Quote
wonneman wrote:I don't think they will lose as much as your saying cause a lot of that multiboxing is being used to mine rocks and ice that is then made into a product or ice that is sold on the market to buy plex for all the accounts. I just came from an ice field that one guy was controlling 40 miners an orca and a freighter and the ice field was gone in about 30 minutes. And he's been doing it every time the field respawns ...... everyday. Then sells the ice on the market to buy plex for his accounts therefore playing for free...... So how is CCP losing money to let this continue??? They will be losing money by allowing it to continue. Good for you CCP So tl;dr, you have no idea how PLEX works...
Paying for an account with PLEX potentially gets CCP slightly more cash than paying with a credit card as a PLEX is worth more than a sub. Losing subs is losing money, no matter how they are paid.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
62
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 12:54:35 -
[2994] - Quote
wonneman wrote:Fiberton wrote:Hrm so Mining goods are about to sky rocket. Ok so I have never used one of these things you speak of but even I after over 10 years in the game know that this is a terrible idea. So when you are making decisions did you consult an accountant? You realize that you are prob going to reduce CCP income about 3M a year just from logins who will drop accounts that are used for that sort of thing ? Ok not to tell you guys how to run a company but just flying around for so many years and knowing persons who use that.. At least 5% of eve is just miners on isboxer. Good luck on driving into a brick wall or whatever you dudes do.. Phobe great idea. this.. I would consult an accountant. I don't think they will lose as much as your saying cause a lot of that multiboxing is being used to mine rocks and ice that is then made into a product or ice that is sold on the market to buy plex for all the accounts. I just came from an ice field that one guy was controlling 40 miners an orca and a freighter and the ice field was gone in about 30 minutes. And he's been doing it every time the field respawns ...... everyday. Then sells the ice on the market to buy plex for his accounts therefore playing for free...... So how is CCP losing money to let this continue??? They will be losing money by allowing it to continue. Good for you CCP
Hmmmm....Someone actually bought those plexes with CASH MONEY before that 40+ multiboxer ever got the chance to consider buying them to sub his accounts......Think on.
|
Zerberus Valheru
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 12:56:41 -
[2995] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:[quote=Zerberus Valheru]Ethically there is very little difference between macro multi-boxing and good old fashioned aimbots.Well, no. One is a generally accepted method of multiboxing with reduced effort (when by macro you don't mean automated botting), the other is a well established method of cheating. The only thing they have in common is that you dislike them because you think other people should be forced to play in the same way you do, and think it's unfair when someone has more than you.
Nah mate I just make the point that they're both download skill.
Take it as you will. |
wonneman
Meltem Down Mining Corp.
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 13:07:16 -
[2996] - Quote
Rawthorm wrote:Opertone wrote:people who macro all day long - deprive me of player driven environment (they create min max bot driven spam world)
I have less motivation to play the game, because I need to rely on macroes to stay competitive.
Macro players ruin my fun in EVE.
lim (marcro rage -> +8) (eve universe diversity/macro rage) -> Singularity -> const.
(static frozen world, no player driven deviation)
where macro rage is exponential Can you honestly say that just because there may be 30 toons sitting next to you, that the mind numbing task of mining is suddenly less fun? And why should the level to which someone can get obsessive with EvE be capped at wherever you feel your effort to reward ratio sits and no further? Eve has always been about squeezing out that last half a % to get an edge over the other guy and if you can't bothered then don't complain when others are more competitive than you. It's bad enough as it is that the once glorious EvE sandbox now comes with an assembly guide and a pre-aproved list of what you can and can't do. The last thing we need to do is remove the last few rewards for taking the effort to be ahead of the curve.
Ahead of the curve huh. Is the curve ur talking about taking 50 toons to an ice field and mining it everyday and every time it spawns to buy plex to play for free.... seems you are depriving ccp of some funds. Ahead of the curve in your eyes is being able to use a third party software or hardware to automate one click of the mouse across multiple toons. hahahahahahahahahahaha You have a funny way of thinking your ahead of the curve. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4559
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 13:12:05 -
[2997] - Quote
Zerberus Valheru wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Zerberus Valheru wrote:Ethically there is very little difference between macro multi-boxing and good old fashioned aimbots. Well, no. One is a generally accepted method of multiboxing with reduced effort (when by macro you don't mean automated botting), the other is a well established method of cheating. The only thing they have in common is that you dislike them because you think other people should be forced to play in the same way you do, and think it's unfair when someone has more than you. Nah mate I just make the point that they're both download skill. Take it as you will. I take it you'll be campaigning against marketing tools like elinor and eve-mentat, fitting calculation tools like EFT and pyfa, and a whole host of other third party tools too then? Because all of those things are as much download skill as any other. No way would I be able to make as much trading if I didn't have a whole host of tools, databases and spreadsheets pulling data and running calculations for me.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
Cube Alliance
73
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 13:25:49 -
[2998] - Quote
Rawthorm wrote:Opertone wrote:people who macro all day long - deprive me of player driven environment (they create min max bot driven spam world)
I have less motivation to play the game, because I need to rely on macroes to stay competitive.
Macro players ruin my fun in EVE.
lim (marcro rage -> +8) (eve universe diversity/macro rage) -> Singularity -> const.
(static frozen world, no player driven deviation)
where macro rage is exponential Can you honestly say that just because there may be 30 toons sitting next to you, that the mind numbing task of mining is suddenly less fun? And why should the level to which someone can get obsessive with EvE be capped at wherever you feel your effort to reward ratio sits and no further? Eve has always been about squeezing out that last half a % to get an edge over the other guy and if you can't bothered then don't complain when others are more competitive than you. It's bad enough as it is that the once glorious EvE sandbox now comes with an assembly guide and a pre-aproved list of what you can and can't do. The last thing we need to do is remove the last few rewards for taking the effort to be ahead of the curve.
Being a multiboxer, i started a second character because playing 1 alone began to get boring, and i knew the support would help a lot (i was running missions). And that was all fine and good, but later i saw actual multiboxers - running a dozen or more ships at various activities, and personally that excited me, and i had a new goal in EvE.
The people who just get butthurt because multiboxers exist in any form, i dont know how to respond to that kind of attitude.
and besides all of that, the main argument is that multiboxers can somehow gain more than an ordinary player (and you can argue whether it matters if its per character or per player, etc) but the thing is.... everyone has the same opportunity to multibox if they want to. I built the computer i currently use in ORDER to multibox. |
Lady Areola Fappington
2384
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 17:01:23 -
[2999] - Quote
[quote=Lucas KellTrue, but with how fast manual multiboxers can be, the threashold will be pretty low. And for a broadcasters it's not about speed, it's simply about effort. They will still be able to pace their keypresses leaving the accounts staggered, but without needing to manually switch between clients to do so. Other than being slightly staggered, there will be no difference.
EDIT: And I will truly laugh my ass off if they start banning manual multiboxers. It's CCP so it's likely to happen.[/quote]
It really does depend on CCP interpretation, and that's the scary part of it all. Personally, I don't see an issue with a staggered round-robin. The pause between effective keystrokes, that'll be deciding point, I think.
A reasonable delay to fit into the "no faster than the typical manual multiboxer" would likely be the safest bet. Maybe something like a .5 second delay between key commands. I see it becoming iffy when, as the example given, someone binds change focus-f1 to, say, a scroll wheel on a mouse. Flick of the finger, you've popped off 15 commands in the space of a server tick, and in comes CCP with something along the lines of "might as well have been broadcasting".
Knowing CCP though, it will be some silly low number, and a few purely manual multiboxers will get snapped up.
It isn't really hard, but I think there are customers that you can lose in a good way and there's customers that you can lose in a bad way. If people come in and fundamentally don't like EVE Online, then I think that might be a good way of losing customers. . -á--CCP Soundwave
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
332
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 17:05:44 -
[3000] - Quote
wonneman wrote:seems you are depriving ccp of some funds.
Implying there's a button for multiboxers that magically makes subs cost nothing.
Implying someone didn't buy the PLEX to sell on the market
Implying increased PLEX value means lesser incentive to buy PLEX with cash and sell it on the market.
Implying 3rd party software means nothing in EVE.
Are you even trying to troll anymore?
I started playing EVE with my dad. When he got a job transfer, he couldn't play as often (if at all) so he handed me the account. I found it very fun and challenging to alt-tab between the two running two separate missions, or running them both in an incursion fleet.
I've never been good at market trading or industry, yet you don't see me running around demanding their heads because I can't handle the spreadsheets or time spent sorting through the market. I'm not running around telling the null theory-crafters what to do . Why are you attempting to dictate to us how we should play the game? |
|
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
193
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 17:27:57 -
[3001] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:wonneman wrote:seems you are depriving ccp of some funds. Implying there's a button for multiboxers that magically makes subs cost nothing. Implying someone didn't buy the PLEX to sell on the market Implying increased PLEX value means lesser incentive to buy PLEX with cash and sell it on the market. Implying 3rd party software means nothing in EVE. Are you even trying to troll anymore? I started playing EVE with my dad. When he got a job transfer, he couldn't play as often (if at all) so he handed me the account. I found it very fun and challenging to alt-tab between the two running two separate missions, or running them both in an incursion fleet. I've never been good at market trading or industry, yet you don't see me running around demanding their heads because I can't handle the spreadsheets or time spent sorting through the market. I'm not running around telling the null theory-crafters what to do . Why are you attempting to dictate to us how we should play the game?
So your account sharing? |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
333
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 18:20:31 -
[3002] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:wonneman wrote:seems you are depriving ccp of some funds. Implying there's a button for multiboxers that magically makes subs cost nothing. Implying someone didn't buy the PLEX to sell on the market Implying increased PLEX value means lesser incentive to buy PLEX with cash and sell it on the market. Implying 3rd party software means nothing in EVE. Are you even trying to troll anymore? I started playing EVE with my dad. When he got a job transfer, he couldn't play as often (if at all) so he handed me the account. I found it very fun and challenging to alt-tab between the two running two separate missions, or running them both in an incursion fleet. I've never been good at market trading or industry, yet you don't see me running around demanding their heads because I can't handle the spreadsheets or time spent sorting through the market. I'm not running around telling the null theory-crafters what to do . Why are you attempting to dictate to us how we should play the game? So your account sharing?
In the sense that my father quit EVE, I picked up paying for the account, and he hasn't touched it since, I guess?
BTW, in case you didn't know, the "no account sharing" clause was mostly made to combat people saying "he logged into my account and stole my isk, please help" people. |
Opertone
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
315
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 20:04:54 -
[3003] - Quote
It is very hard to fight the capital gathered by bots, you simply can not make as much as they can.
Challenge is something desirable, based on the assumption that everyone has equal approach. Money and assets in game depend on the man hours played multiplied by efficiency. In this scenario you face real people, who have weaknesses and the challenge is hard but enjoyable.
When somebody has access to automation, they create frustration for other players, which forces other players to employ automation. It turns into a battle without variables, without the input of free will vs human limitations. Bots max out everything, the game turns even more predictable than a linear progression.
Finally multiple accounts take away human to human interaction. You think that you busted an entire corporation, ruining the assets of different people, when in fact you only damaged one man's fleet of ice miners. His reaction is not very exciting and his response will be repeatable mining. If that were real people, their response could be far more intriguing - tears, hate mail, war dec, hiring mercs, forum attention that gets more people involved into the conflict.
Finally, if you only had one character in game, your action would be more authentic. Real risk taking, accepting consequences, no effortless spying and much more to corporate theft and eternal fate.
People who control 10 characters at once - make the game extremely plain, deprived of variety human interaction for those who don't.
This post sums up why the 'best' work with DCM inc.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
334
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 20:19:33 -
[3004] - Quote
Opertone wrote:It is very hard to fight the capital gathered by bots, you simply can not make as much as they can.
Challenge is something desirable, based on the assumption that everyone has equal approach. Money and assets in game depend on the man hours played multiplied by efficiency. In this scenario you face real people, who have weaknesses and the challenge is hard but enjoyable.
When somebody has access to automation, they create frustration for other players, which forces other players to employ automation. It turns into a battle without variables, without the input of free will vs human limitations. Bots max out everything, the game turns even more predictable than a linear progression.
Finally multiple accounts take away human to human interaction. You think that you busted an entire corporation, ruining the assets of different people, when in fact you only damaged one man's fleet of ice miners. His reaction is not very exciting and his response will be repeatable mining. If that were real people, their response could be far more intriguing - tears, hate mail, war dec, hiring mercs, forum attention that gets more people involved into the conflict.
Finally, if you only had one character in game, your action would be more authentic. Real risk taking, accepting consequences, no effortless spying and much more to corporate theft and eternal fate.
People who control 10 characters at once - make the game extremely plain, deprived of variety human interaction for those who don't.
This post makes no sense. You completely ignore the fact that the boxer must pay for each account, ships, and modules when you argue about income.
You ignore the fact that boxing is inherently less efficient at PVP or changes in the battlefield than a fleet of players.
You somehow believe that because player X subbed multiple accounts, player Y is not allowed to sub his account, or that player Y somehow cannot play while player X is online.
Whether a player is a boxer or not has no relevant effect on whether or not he'll rage in local, hire mercs, or pack up and move. A player's reaction is not affected by the fact he has one account or multiple. Stop pretending otherwise.
If everyone was limited to one character online at once, you'd see a lot more people protesting and bringing up most if not all of the same reasons that I and others have in this thread.
Players with multiple accounts are not somehow immune from risks when they play. EVE is one of the rare games where your shiny mod won't show up on your ship when you die and respawn.
If you find the game plain, that's your fault and you should change what you're doing instead of trying to blame everyone but yourself. There are hundreds of things to do in this game. If you can't find something that you like, stop blaming others for your failures. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4559
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 22:11:07 -
[3005] - Quote
Opertone wrote:It is very hard to fight the capital gathered by bots, you simply can not make as much as they can.
Challenge is something desirable, based on the assumption that everyone has equal approach. Money and assets in game depend on the man hours played multiplied by efficiency. In this scenario you face real people, who have weaknesses and the challenge is hard but enjoyable.
When somebody has access to automation, they create frustration for other players, which forces other players to employ automation. It turns into a battle without variables, without the input of free will vs human limitations. Bots max out everything, the game turns even more predictable than a linear progression.
Finally multiple accounts take away human to human interaction. You think that you busted an entire corporation, ruining the assets of different people, when in fact you only damaged one man's fleet of ice miners. His reaction is not very exciting and his response will be repeatable mining. If that were real people, their response could be far more intriguing - tears, hate mail, war dec, hiring mercs, forum attention that gets more people involved into the conflict.
Finally, if you only had one character in game, your action would be more authentic. Real risk taking, accepting consequences, no effortless spying and much more to corporate theft and eternal fate.
People who control 10 characters at once - make the game extremely plain, deprived of variety human interaction for those who don't. They aren't bots. It's not automation. And why does it matter even remotely if someone can make more than you? I guarantee that there are several thousand people so far out of your league it's unimaginable, and most of them would have achieved that through trading, not multiboxing. As for combat, multiboxing is generally a hindrance.
And no, having one character doesn't make people interact more or be more "authentic". They still do the exact same thing they would be doing, we just don't get to see videos of 40 miners get smartbomb ganked.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Carmen Electra
The Scope
Gallente Federation
15985
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 22:51:04 -
[3006] - Quote
Opertone wrote:People who control 10 characters at once - make the game extremely plain, deprived of variety human interaction for those who don't.
By "human interaction" is this really what you mean?
Opertone wrote:tears, hate mail, war dec, hiring mercs, forum attention that gets more people involved into the conflict.
Bacon makes us stronger
|
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
Cube Alliance
74
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 00:05:31 -
[3007] - Quote
Opertone wrote:It is very hard to fight the capital gathered by bots, you simply can not make as much as they can.
Challenge is something desirable, based on the assumption that everyone has equal approach. Money and assets in game depend on the man hours played multiplied by efficiency. In this scenario you face real people, who have weaknesses and the challenge is hard but enjoyable.
When somebody has access to automation, they create frustration for other players, which forces other players to employ automation. It turns into a battle without variables, without the input of free will vs human limitations. Bots max out everything, the game turns even more predictable than a linear progression.
Finally multiple accounts take away human to human interaction. You think that you busted an entire corporation, ruining the assets of different people, when in fact you only damaged one man's fleet of ice miners. His reaction is not very exciting and his response will be repeatable mining. If that were real people, their response could be far more intriguing - tears, hate mail, war dec, hiring mercs, forum attention that gets more people involved into the conflict.
Finally, if you only had one character in game, your action would be more authentic. Real risk taking, accepting consequences, no effortless spying and much more to corporate theft and eternal fate.
People who control 10 characters at once - make the game extremely plain, deprived of variety human interaction for those who don't.
1. we arent talking about bots, we are talking asbout legitimate multiboxing that uses input broadcasting.
2. as a multiboxer, i have had a TON of player interaction, more than if i was a singleboxer. I mean, you do know that player interaction also includes "pleasant" interactions, right?
3. you cry because you cant get enough tears? |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
185
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 13:46:29 -
[3008] - Quote
Well I tried the single account thing for a bit, just to give CCP the benefit of the doubt. Conclusion, this game is boring with a single account. Since this is a feedback thread here is my feedback:
1.) I don't like this change.
2.) I'm leaving.
3.) No you can't have my stuff (it is safely stored away in the unlikely event CCP comes to their senses someday).
P.S. Yes video FX, round robin, blah blah blah blah, I could continue to multibox with other methods, but that is like going to the store and waiting in line, I just go to another store that doesn't make me wait in line for arbitrary reasons.
Well this game was a fun MMO-RTS while it lasted. Anyway so long and thanks for all the fish.
Fly safe o/ |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
198
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 17:25:41 -
[3009] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:Well I tried the single account thing for a bit, just to give CCP the benefit of the doubt. Conclusion, this game is boring with a single account. Since this is a feedback thread here is my feedback:
1.) I don't like this change.
2.) I'm leaving.
3.) No you can't have my stuff (it is safely stored away in the unlikely event CCP comes to their senses someday).
P.S. Yes video FX, round robin, blah blah blah blah, I could continue to multibox with other methods, but that is like going to the store and waiting in line, I just go to another store that doesn't make me wait in line for arbitrary reasons.
Well this game was a fun MMO-RTS while it lasted. Anyway so long and thanks for all the fish.
Fly safe o/
Exactly how many accounts do you have that makes it no longer possible for you to control them manually?
Nobody has said you must only have a single account, I have 3 and have no problem at all controlling them in 3 separate clients...manually, with no outside help.
If thats beyond you...well then cya.
|
Runaway WarpDrive
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 17:57:41 -
[3010] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Playing with multiple accounts at the same time has a long history within EVE Online, and has always been permitted. There are various ways to do it, and since thereGÇÖs been a lot of discussion surrounding what is and isnGÇÖt allowed, weGÇÖd like to clarify a few terms and exactly how the EULA and our Policies must be interpreted and how some things are shifting. Over the last few weeks we have gone through an internal review process to clarify what exactly the EULA and ToS require in terms of input automation, input multiplexing and input broadcasting. This is the result of that review process and an outline of how we will interpret things going forward. Firstly weGÇÖd like to go over a few terms. MultiboxingMultiboxing refers to playing as multiple separate characters, simultaneously, across a number of accounts, either by using multiple computers to run the game, or by using a number of instances of EVE on a single computer. Uses for multiboxing range from scouts in PvP to gang boosting, support and ECM alts, as well as extra characters for hauling, mining and many other applications. Based on our EULA and Policies we would like to clarify that multiboxing is allowed.Input AutomationInput 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 Broadcasting & Input MultiplexingInput Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game. Going ForwardAs of 15th of March 2013 we have been policing input automation based on a two-strike policy GÇó1st strike for input automation is a 30 day ban GÇó2nd strike for input automation is a permanent ban Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy. Based on the discussion in this area and our will to be more clear and concise with the community regarding this part of our rules, we have decided to also apply this two-strike policy to prohibited forms of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing as of January 1st 2015.We would like to add, however, that we will not be taking action retroactively and will only be policing this policy as of January 1st, 2015.Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation. This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to: GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe GÇóInteraction with other characters Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience: GÇóEVE Online client settings GÇóWindow positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment) GÇóThe login process NOTE: Please keep in mind that using the same password for multiple accounts as well as storing your password in a third party tool or script which helps you to automate the login process can increase the risk of account theft and hacking drastically. It is strongly recommended that you do not engage in this type of activity.We are closely monitoring all game events for suspicious activity suggesting illicit behaviors, including Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing. We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe. If you are uncertain about your Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing use-case, please get in contact with us, as we would prefer to work with members of the community to come to an amicable resolution. We will also follow up this statement with further clarifications if needed, based on questions and concerns from the community. TL:DR : Starting from 01.01.2015 the use of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing is limited to activities which do not impact the Eve universe. For more details please refer to the entirety of this announcement.
|
|
|
Runaway WarpDrive
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 18:44:28 -
[3011] - Quote
Have been playing EVE online for the past 16 months, started out with one account, and finally, after a long period of unemployment, managed to find a job, and got back on my feet, moved to a house, baught a pc, (which i have to short circuit it's on/off button, every time.) submitted to an internet provider, waited for almost a month, got it last friday javascript:insertsmiley('','/Images/Emoticons/ccp_smile-big.png') And since i alredy checked, BEFORE i start a second account if player assisting software, such as is box are allowed, and there was no problem, the first thing i asked about, in the npc corp, in which i am in, is what programm to download, to control both of my toons at the same time, and that is when i got thje news.
I don't want to start searching for no new mmo to play. but, i lost two ships trying to do it manualy,alredy, one in the internet cafe i had become such a good castumer, and an other yesterday, because the music playing site i had on, was the next window after one of the toons, and no matter how many times, i tried to alt+tab between the two accounts, it was still getting in the way.
And to the past year i have been playing Eve, i only once show, one fleet of more than 30 procurers in an ice bilt.
I was impressed.
if it would happen frequently, if the universe of eve was so small, stuff like that would get too often in the way, then yes, multyboxing, sould be banned!
but i had a training programm in my head, based on my abilitty to use the command ship i finnaly managed to fly, as a buffer for the other ship, and gradually advance, learning ships from all four races with both of my accounts, taking turns in the command ship, or the fight ship... You know.... a very long term plan.
I can't go on with it in just one ship, and i like playing solo, at least untill i feel ready to get to the next lvl, and join a player corp... Couldn't have done, that one so far.
tryed to use ingame audio communications once, or, twice, didn't work with the internet cafe pc's, and just wouln't bother trying to find a selution to a problem i would have to deal with, every time i log in. I like PvE... Didn't have a pc of my own back then, some times the place would get so full, i was hardly even listening to me.
now what do i do? |
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
Cube Alliance
75
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 18:45:54 -
[3012] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:Well I tried the single account thing for a bit, just to give CCP the benefit of the doubt. Conclusion, this game is boring with a single account. Since this is a feedback thread here is my feedback:
1.) I don't like this change.
2.) I'm leaving.
3.) No you can't have my stuff (it is safely stored away in the unlikely event CCP comes to their senses someday).
P.S. Yes video FX, round robin, blah blah blah blah, I could continue to multibox with other methods, but that is like going to the store and waiting in line, I just go to another store that doesn't make me wait in line for arbitrary reasons.
Well this game was a fun MMO-RTS while it lasted. Anyway so long and thanks for all the fish.
Fly safe o/
while the inconvenience of trying to multibox the way we want to is one thing, its also just kind of a slap in the face to loyal gamers. |
Runaway WarpDrive
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 19:05:46 -
[3013] - Quote
Runaway WarpDrive wrote:Have been playing EVE online for the past 16 months, started out with one account, and finally, after a long period of unemployment, managed to find a job, and got back on my feet, moved to a house, baught a pc, (which i have to short circuit it's on/off button, every time.) submitted to an internet provider, waited for almost a month, got it last friday javascript:insertsmiley(' ','/Images/Emoticons/ccp_smile-big.png') And since i alredy checked, BEFORE i start a second account if player assisting software, such as is box are allowed, and there was no problem, the first thing i asked about, in the npc corp, in which i am in, is what programm to download, to control both of my toons at the same time, and that is when i got thje news. I don't want to start searching for no new mmo to play. but, i lost two ships trying to do it manualy,alredy, one in the internet cafe i had become such a good castumer, and an other yesterday, because the music playing site i had on, was the next window after one of the toons, and no matter how many times, i tried to alt+tab between the two accounts, it was still getting in the way. And to the past year i have been playing Eve, i only once show, one fleet of more than 30 procurers in an ice bilt. I was impressed. if it would happen frequently, if the universe of eve was so small, stuff like that would get too often in the way, then yes, multyboxing, sould be banned! but i had a training programm in my head, based on my abilitty to use the command ship i finnaly managed to fly, as a buffer for the other ship, and gradually advance, learning ships from all four races with both of my accounts, taking turns in the command ship, or the fight ship... You know.... a very long term plan. I can't go on with it in just one ship, and i like playing solo, at least untill i feel ready to get to the next lvl, and join a player corp... Couldn't have done, that one so far. tryed to use ingame audio communications once, or, twice, didn't work with the internet cafe pc's, and just wouln't bother trying to find a selution to a problem i would have to deal with, every time i log in. I like PvE... Didn't have a pc of my own back then, some times the place would get so full, i was hardly even listening to me. now what do i do? what i am trying to say, is that i do not like the new changes of my game. i payed for this game, i have spent a lot of effort to this game.
But now i feel like a kick boxer, in a figfht i got in to, with the hope, i would get my own p.c. and finally use my full abilities, and now the fight is a boxing game... I'll keep on trying to find my pace for a little whle longer.
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
198
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 20:57:19 -
[3014] - Quote
Runaway WarpDrive wrote:Runaway WarpDrive wrote:Have been playing EVE online for the past 16 months, started out with one account, and finally, after a long period of unemployment, managed to find a job, and got back on my feet, moved to a house, baught a pc, (which i have to short circuit it's on/off button, every time.) submitted to an internet provider, waited for almost a month, got it last friday javascript:insertsmiley(' ','/Images/Emoticons/ccp_smile-big.png') And since i alredy checked, BEFORE i start a second account if player assisting software, such as is box are allowed, and there was no problem, the first thing i asked about, in the npc corp, in which i am in, is what programm to download, to control both of my toons at the same time, and that is when i got thje news. I don't want to start searching for no new mmo to play. but, i lost two ships trying to do it manualy,alredy, one in the internet cafe i had become such a good castumer, and an other yesterday, because the music playing site i had on, was the next window after one of the toons, and no matter how many times, i tried to alt+tab between the two accounts, it was still getting in the way. And to the past year i have been playing Eve, i only once show, one fleet of more than 30 procurers in an ice bilt. I was impressed. if it would happen frequently, if the universe of eve was so small, stuff like that would get too often in the way, then yes, multyboxing, sould be banned! but i had a training programm in my head, based on my abilitty to use the command ship i finnaly managed to fly, as a buffer for the other ship, and gradually advance, learning ships from all four races with both of my accounts, taking turns in the command ship, or the fight ship... You know.... a very long term plan. I can't go on with it in just one ship, and i like playing solo, at least untill i feel ready to get to the next lvl, and join a player corp... Couldn't have done, that one so far. tryed to use ingame audio communications once, or, twice, didn't work with the internet cafe pc's, and just wouln't bother trying to find a selution to a problem i would have to deal with, every time i log in. I like PvE... Didn't have a pc of my own back then, some times the place would get so full, i was hardly even listening to me. now what do i do? what i am trying to say, is that i do not like the new changes of my game. i payed for this game, i have spent a lot of effort to this game. But now i feel like a kick boxer, in a figfht i got in to, with the hope, i would get my own p.c. and finally use my full abilities, and now the fight is a boxing game... I'll keep on trying to find my pace for a little whle longer.
You can't control 2 clients at once...seriously?
So we now have players coming in and instantly looking for ways to control multiple accounts at the same time?
Before they even tried to learn how to do it manually.....oh god I give in...
CCP, just ban every outside programme that can interact in any way with the client and end this farce. This is a perfect example of why it should happen.
And it will only get worse.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
339
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 21:37:09 -
[3015] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:CCP, just ban every outside programme that can interact in any way with the client and end this farce. This is a perfect example of why it should happen.
And there goes EVEMon, EFT, EHQ, eve-central, siggy, PYFA, fuzzworks.....
Shall I continue?
Taking one post and immediately attributing it to every boxer out there requires a serious lack of either common sense, or intelligence. |
Hallvardr
49
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 23:18:32 -
[3016] - Quote
I was going to stay out of this because .. well I could care less about isboxer .. I'm not a user.
But I felt that I needed to toss my comment into the fray.
I've been in since 2009 with one character (primary) and ~6 months later a second (secondary) and did so to supplement my primaries activities. Although it has since taken on a life of its own.
I've done mining for myself when I need to make something. I've done missioning with the secondary as a RR or supporting fire for the primary and have switched those roles from time to time. Hell, I've even carried on two way conversations between the two in the presence of others because 1) I thought it was funny especially given some of the topics and arguments, 2) to further the illusion that they were not both me.
I've done this all manually, alt tabbing between two clients. I would never do a dual PVP encounter because I realize that there is a limit to human task switching like this. And I'd have serious concerns of a fleet op with both toons where others were relying on one or the other's full focus.
Do isboxers affect me? .. it has and can still. As a professional (RL) I have limited time to play ~ 1-3 hrs max per night.. 3-4 nights per week. If I'm in a position where I need to mine or mine "X" ore to produce something, a 30 man robocrew can **** all the belts in a given system(s) with little effort. That would not happen normally without the ability to multibox. I can say that because for the most part it doesn't and I don't encounter boxers. And if I did and it hampered my progress, I'd adapt. I'd move my FBO or wait a week(s) and sign in again and try again. Or a host of other activities. My point is, you can humanly multi-client with limits and multiboxing does give you a inhuman ability and therefore advantage.
And if you say there is nothing preventing me from getting that same "inhuman ability", my response is, then why "play"? Why set the number of players to zero and sit back and watch the game play itself ? Turn your boxer off and see if you can still control that 30 man robocrew with your fingers and do it for more than an hour. Then I'll believe the rhetoric of it just makes a repetitive task I could do with my hands, easier.
[steps off soapbox and walks away] |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
339
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 00:11:47 -
[3017] - Quote
Hallvardr wrote:a 30 man robocrew can **** all the belts in a given system(s) with little effort. That would not happen normally without the ability to multibox. I can say that because for the most part it doesn't and I don't encounter boxers. And if I did and it hampered my progress, I'd adapt. I'd move my FBO or wait a week(s) and sign in again and try again. Or a host of other activities. My point is, you can humanly multi-client with limits and multiboxing does give you a inhuman ability and therefore advantage.
And if you say there is nothing preventing me from getting that same "inhuman ability", my response is, then why "play"? Why set the number of players to zero and sit back and watch the game play itself ? Turn your boxer off and see if you can still control that 30 man robocrew with your fingers and do it for more than an hour. Then I'll believe the rhetoric of it just makes a repetitive task I could do with my hands, easier.
Boxxed miners have been running massive numbers even without the use of ISBoxer or similar programs.
Even if we did ban ISBoxer and similar programs, you'd still have the mining fleets, the gatecamp fleets (though the new meta would be domis or snakes with an inty), and my friend would still be doing solo C5 escalations.
I'm reminded of this comic especially. People will not be satisfied until CCP restricts everyone to mining in 1.0 systems with a single account limited to a certain number of hours a day per human being. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4565
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 07:41:44 -
[3018] - Quote
Hallvardr wrote:a 30 man robocrew can **** all the belts in a given system(s) with little effort. That would not happen normally without the ability to multibox. You realise that 20 characters can be controlled for mining manually with ease, because there's so few clicks that mining requires, right. I've not seen 30 done manually, but honestly I doubt it would be too tough.
And the thing is, the belts get stripped because they are tiny in highsec. There's like 600-800m total in a whole ice belt. Even if multiboxing were completely banished, they would still get stripped down in no time, you'd just be complaining about the corporation full of boosted miners that did it instead.
At the end of the day, what it boils down to is you don't do it therefore nobody else should be allowed.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
198
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 13:21:28 -
[3019] - Quote
Rubbish...
The only reason these stupid sized fleets exist is because of outside programmes in the first place.
Take those programmes away and I honestly can't see anyone in their right mind spending half their game time logging every single one on manually, resizing and organizing every individual client manually then undocking, warping to a belt, scanning with every single ship and then targeting 20 or 30 individual rocks.
As for those that can only seem to rely on outside programmes....happy new year.
May the bans commence. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
395
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 13:33:21 -
[3020] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Rubbish...
The only reason these stupid sized fleets exist is because of outside programmes in the first place.
Take those programmes away and I honestly can't see anyone in their right mind spending half their game time logging every single one on manually, resizing and organizing every individual client manually then undocking, warping to a belt, scanning with every single ship and then targeting 20 or 30 individual rocks.
As for those that can only seem to rely on outside programmes....happy new year.
May the bans commence.
At the outside:
copypasta a standard password: 10s per character, tops.
Pre-setup overview: 0s/ character
Lock rocks using a keybind for alt tab and ctrl click (normal hardware support and in-game shortcut): 7+.5s per character
f1+ bound single key for alt tab: 2s+.2s per character.
Means you can no almost completely AFK it, and lose slightly more efficiency compared to a broadcasting boxer.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4566
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 13:53:41 -
[3021] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Rubbish...
The only reason these stupid sized fleets exist is because of outside programmes in the first place.
Take those programmes away and I honestly can't see anyone in their right mind spending half their game time logging every single one on manually, resizing and organizing every individual client manually then undocking, warping to a belt, scanning with every single ship and then targeting 20 or 30 individual rocks.
As for those that can only seem to rely on outside programmes....happy new year.
May the bans commence. Well then you are obviously quite new. Before ISBoxer was as popular as it is, people used to run 20+ man fleets manually. And generally you didn't need to alter the client layout much and certainly not more than once (and it was possible to change one, then copy paste the setup to the others without a tool). It definitely takes longer to set up a decent ISBoxer with VFX setup than setting up your client window layouts.
On top of that, ISBoxer isn't being banned. You can still even broadcast to log in at the same time (seriously, check the OP).
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Giribaldi
PH0ENIX COMPANY
Phoenix Company Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:59:44 -
[3022] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Input Broadcasting & Input MultiplexingInput Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game. Going ForwardAs of 15th of March 2013 we have been policing input automation based on a two-strike policy GÇó1st strike for input automation is a 30 day ban GÇó2nd strike for input automation is a permanent ban Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy. Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation. This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to: GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe GÇóInteraction with other characters
R.I.P ISBoxing HQ, AS, and VG fleets. I for see a great deal of skilled incursions alts going on sale. Aswell as plex prices going down i.e. supply and demand. Demand going down supply thus goino up. I honestly would rather CCP focus on the more important things like fixing cloaky camping. Make cloak scanner probes that can find cloaked ships. And make a bomb like discovery probe that travels X amount of distance and declines anything within 10 to 15 km of the discovery probe. Thus a fix to cloak camping. Also it's Essie to probe cloaked ships versus non cloakies, when using the cloakies probe scanner. |
Giribaldi
PH0ENIX COMPANY
Phoenix Company Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:07:33 -
[3023] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Hallvardr wrote:a 30 man robocrew can **** all the belts in a given system(s) with little effort. That would not happen normally without the ability to multibox. I can say that because for the most part it doesn't and I don't encounter boxers. And if I did and it hampered my progress, I'd adapt. I'd move my FBO or wait a week(s) and sign in again and try again. Or a host of other activities. My point is, you can humanly multi-client with limits and multiboxing does give you a inhuman ability and therefore advantage.
And if you say there is nothing preventing me from getting that same "inhuman ability", my response is, then why "play"? Why set the number of players to zero and sit back and watch the game play itself ? Turn your boxer off and see if you can still control that 30 man robocrew with your fingers and do it for more than an hour. Then I'll believe the rhetoric of it just makes a repetitive task I could do with my hands, easier. Boxxed miners have been running massive numbers even without the use of ISBoxer or similar programs. Even if we did ban ISBoxer and similar programs, you'd still have the mining fleets, the gatecamp fleets (though the new meta would be domis or snakes with an inty), and my friend would still be doing solo C5 escalations. I'm reminded of this comic especially. People will not be satisfied until CCP restricts everyone to mining in 1.0 systems with a single account limited to a certain number of hours a day per human being.
Sir, bragging about your friend soloing C5 escalations is no great feet. 2 dreads 2 triage carriers and 2 loris or bhaalghorns. And I do that by myself and I assure you its a ******* easy feet to achieve. I'd like to see your friend solo 20 to 30 man fleets with 6 guys like I do. Put 6 manually controlled accounts into a chaotic and ever changing fight = incredibly difficult my friend. |
Khao Tulin
OneSociety
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:16:53 -
[3024] - Quote
Just to clarify does this mean taking to another window on an alt to salvage is fine? Or is that a bannable just want to check |
Neo Kathura
New Order of Highsec
30
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:23:10 -
[3025] - Quote
No alts allowed. |
MrBowers
PH0ENIX COMPANY HOLDINGS
Phoenix Company Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:24:04 -
[3026] - Quote
Khao Tulin wrote:Just to clarify does this mean taking to another window on an alt to salvage is fine? Or is that a bannable just want to check
You can't broadcast your mouse over all your screens at once. Other functions of isboxer are ok. |
Loki's Curse
nicaz rocks
15
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:49:18 -
[3027] - Quote
to ccp
why not tack on the side of 1 of your up and coming patches that we get plenty of now, in game multi boxing options like mass char loading positionable fixed window mode and so on, it would make sense as you heavily promote multi accounts it only seems natural that you would then supply and support the ability to use them |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
486
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:09:09 -
[3028] - Quote
Giribaldi wrote:Sir, bragging about your friend soloing C5 escalations is no great feet. 2 dreads 2 triage carriers and 2 loris or bhaalghorns. And I do that by myself and I assure you its a ******* easy feet to achieve. I'd like to see your friend solo 20 to 30 man fleets with 6 guys like I do. Put 6 manually controlled accounts into a chaotic and ever changing fight = incredibly difficult my friend.
I was merely attempting to point out other ways to make ISK with relatively few accounts for the butthurt people going "hurr need 50 accounts to make money". For those who complain because someone put the time, effort, and in some cases, real life cash, for multiple accounts, multiple accounts is encouraged by CCP and is practically required in order to be competitive in certain industries in EVE. Stop complaining because you didn't want to put effort into your game. Also, I only know of two VG boxers who are giving up boxing VGs, not including myself, out of a group of 10 VG boxers or so. The multibox-heavy community of DIN isn't worried about this, so that should tell you something.
As for your ridiculous statement regarding PLEX, it dipped to, what, 950, maybe 920, right after the announcement? If ISBoxing was the main cause of inflation, it should have theoretically dropped to the 6-700 levels. Don't come crying to the forums when it breaks 1b again, because you can't blame ISBoxers. You got the market speculators and hoarders to thank for that. |
ashley Eoner
378
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 21:24:51 -
[3029] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Giribaldi wrote:Sir, bragging about your friend soloing C5 escalations is no great feet. 2 dreads 2 triage carriers and 2 loris or bhaalghorns. And I do that by myself and I assure you its a ******* easy feet to achieve. I'd like to see your friend solo 20 to 30 man fleets with 6 guys like I do. Put 6 manually controlled accounts into a chaotic and ever changing fight = incredibly difficult my friend. I was merely attempting to point out other ways to make ISK with relatively few accounts for the butthurt people going "hurr need 50 accounts to make money". For those who complain because someone put the time, effort, and in some cases, real life cash, for multiple accounts, multiple accounts is encouraged by CCP and is practically required in order to be competitive in certain industries in EVE. Stop complaining because you didn't want to put effort into your game. Also, I only know of two VG boxers who are giving up boxing VGs, not including myself, out of a group of 10 VG boxers or so. The multibox-heavy community of DIN isn't worried about this, so that should tell you something. As for your ridiculous statement regarding PLEX, it dipped to, what, 950, maybe 920, right after the announcement? If ISBoxing was the main cause of inflation, it should have theoretically dropped to the 6-700 levels. Don't come crying to the forums when it breaks 1b again, because you can't blame ISBoxers. You got the market speculators and hoarders to thank for that.
My post jan 1st VG fleet is already set to go. I don't even need to run isboxer or any program to make it happen now.
I also know that this won't effect most of the mid sized ice/roid farmers. The guys with like 50 accounts MIGHT stop running so many but I wouldn't bet on it.
So what's going to happen next is the rabble is going to move on to multiboxing in general. I can't wait till we're limited to number of accounts per IP or something similarly stupid because people can't handle the fact that someone somewhere might be earning isk slightly faster/easier then them.. |
ashley Eoner
378
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 22:10:57 -
[3030] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:CCP, just ban every outside programme that can interact in any way with the client and end this farce. This is a perfect example of why it should happen. And there goes EVEMon, EFT, EHQ, eve-central, siggy, PYFA, fuzzworks..... Shall I continue? Taking one post and immediately attributing it to every boxer out there requires a serious lack of either common sense, or intelligence.
Even worse he'd be banning whole operating systems. It would be completely impossible to play the game. |
|
|
Mara Gus
Egg separator cooperative
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 22:22:13 -
[3031] - Quote
this post is not real on any Ice belt can see 999 retriver to dig one ice block and this noting new he will be no ban this is dust in eeye for ccp ca nsay to game is real no rulet be bots |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6489
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 22:58:15 -
[3032] - Quote
But it isn't even 1 Jan 2015 yet
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 23:45:40 -
[3033] - Quote
Hahaha oh the tears of all the angry ISBoxers LOL
Mad that now they have to actually Mine and PvP like they're supposed to. Mad cuz now they'll get their ass whooped flying solo. Mad because now they actually have to make friends and get into a corp that isn't made up of all their own accounts.
Keep bringing on the complaints and the tears guys, I'm loving it lol |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
494
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 23:57:21 -
[3034] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Hahaha oh the tears of all the angry ISBoxers LOL
Mad that now they have to actually Mine and PvP like they're supposed to. Mad cuz now they'll get their ass whooped flying solo. Mad because now they actually have to make friends and get into a corp that isn't made up of all their own accounts.
Keep bringing on the complaints and the tears guys, I'm loving it lol
If you loved that, wait till you hear that ISBoxing will continue to happe. We'll still be running VGs, still run HQs, stilll mine ice, still mine ore.
A lot of us actually do have friends in the game who don't ISBox. We didn't start up EVE and instantly multibox. Nobody that I've encountered started EVE and ISBoxing at the same time. We have communities and groups that we hang out with, and we laugh and swap stories and have a good time while doing our thing.
Only tears I see are (to paraphrase from an old Tom Sawyer play) from the rabble who's coming after the scientist because they don't understand his work, and because he's different from them. Stop projecting your tears and rage onto us. 90% of us have already found a way to continue multiboxing.
Also, multiboxing does not make one unbeatable at PVP. I point you towards the video of the multiboxing Harbingers getting smacked down by a group of experienced, skilled, and well trained pilots using their heads and EWAR to turn the ISBoxer into nothing more than a nuisance at best. |
Alkeli Dallocort
Black Water Oasis
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 00:13:30 -
[3035] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Trakow wrote:Hahaha oh the tears of all the angry ISBoxers LOL
Mad that now they have to actually Mine and PvP like they're supposed to. Mad cuz now they'll get their ass whooped flying solo. Mad because now they actually have to make friends and get into a corp that isn't made up of all their own accounts.
Keep bringing on the complaints and the tears guys, I'm loving it lol If you loved that, wait till you hear that ISBoxing will continue to happe. We'll still be running VGs, still run HQs, stilll mine ice, still mine ore. A lot of us actually do have friends in the game who don't ISBox. We didn't start up EVE and instantly multibox. Nobody that I've encountered started EVE and ISBoxing at the same time. We have communities and groups that we hang out with, and we laugh and swap stories and have a good time while doing our thing. Only tears I see are (to paraphrase from an old Tom Sawyer play) from the rabble who's coming after the scientist because they don't understand his work, and because he's different from them. Stop projecting your tears and rage onto us. 90% of us have already found a way to continue multiboxing. Also, multiboxing does not make one unbeatable at PVP. I point you towards the video of the multiboxing Harbingers getting smacked down by a group of experienced, skilled, and well trained pilots using their heads and EWAR to turn the ISBoxer into nothing more than a nuisance at best.
Need a tissue bud? Love the part about the scientist like as if isboxers are all smart and wizardry compared to everyone else. Which is so false and deluded, but you probably believe that. The fact is, anyone can ISBox, you're not special, nor are the other ISBoxers. It's just lazy and cowardly, and now it's cheating hahaha. And yes, the way to multibox is to have multiple inputs, which is fine by me. At least now someone can't control 12+ toons at once. But input broadcasting will still be discovered by CCP. It's really not that hard to figure it out. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
494
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 00:56:03 -
[3036] - Quote
Alkeli Dallocort wrote:Need a tissue bud? Love the part about the scientist like as if isboxers are all smart and wizardry compared to everyone else. Which is so false and deluded, but you probably believe that. The fact is, anyone can ISBox, you're not special, nor are the other ISBoxers. It's just lazy and cowardly, and now it's cheating hahaha. And yes, the way to multibox is to have multiple inputs, which is fine by me. At least now someone can't control 12+ toons at once. But input broadcasting will still be discovered by CCP. It's really not that hard to figure it out.
Oh and please do continue to ISBox so you get banned. More fun for the rest of us.
I was attempting to draw a parallel between the townspeople's xenophobia and techno-phobia and the EVE population's boxer-phobia. I'm sorry if it went over your head. I'm not attempting to insult the playerbase or raise ISBoxers on a pedestal for all to adore. I'm pointing out the simple truth that the general player sees multiple accounts online at the same time and immediately screams "It's a bot! Save meh, CCP!" without bothering to check.
You clearly are one of the whiners since you didn't bother to read the OP where CCP stated in no uncertain terms that ISBoxing is still allowed, and as such your statements are irrelevant at best.
You also didn't bother to read any of the other posts in thread that stated that multibox mining / ice mining didn't really change much thanks to Round Robin Broadcasting. I shall look forward to your tears come Jan 1 when you see the same fleets in the belt. |
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
4033
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 02:14:11 -
[3037] - Quote
The tears of unfathomable sadness.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
494
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 02:48:09 -
[3038] - Quote
Keep projecting buddy. |
Alkeli Dallocort
Black Water Oasis
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 03:19:30 -
[3039] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Alkeli Dallocort wrote:Need a tissue bud? Love the part about the scientist like as if isboxers are all smart and wizardry compared to everyone else. Which is so false and deluded, but you probably believe that. The fact is, anyone can ISBox, you're not special, nor are the other ISBoxers. It's just lazy and cowardly, and now it's cheating hahaha. And yes, the way to multibox is to have multiple inputs, which is fine by me. At least now someone can't control 12+ toons at once. But input broadcasting will still be discovered by CCP. It's really not that hard to figure it out.
Oh and please do continue to ISBox so you get banned. More fun for the rest of us. I was attempting to draw a parallel between the townspeople's xenophobia and techno-phobia and the EVE population's boxer-phobia. I'm sorry if it went over your head. I'm not attempting to insult the playerbase or raise ISBoxers on a pedestal for all to adore. I'm pointing out the simple truth that the general player sees multiple accounts online at the same time and immediately screams "It's a bot! Save meh, CCP!" without bothering to check. You clearly are one of the whiners since you didn't bother to read the OP where CCP stated in no uncertain terms that ISBoxing is still allowed, and as such your statements are irrelevant at best. You also didn't bother to read any of the other posts in thread that stated that multibox mining / ice mining didn't really change much thanks to Round Robin Broadcasting. I shall look forward to your tears come Jan 1 when you see the same fleets in the belt.
So do show me exactly where they said ISBoxer was allowed other than logging in and client settings... The basic fact is that input broadcasting isn't allowed, which is really the problem.
You're obviously uneducated in these things, because you think round robin broadcasting will save you, which brings me to the second fact... If you knew anything, you would know that CCP already considers round robin against the EULA because then this is considered automation. Since the first button press counts as a user action, but the following "simulated button presses" are automated by the software. This goes way back to bots. So you're going to resort to an old violation method to circumvent the newest rules? LOL Ok.... So good luck with that and enjoy your ban. Worst rhetoric ever! Buy some kleenex dude. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
494
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 04:05:18 -
[3040] - Quote
Alkeli Dallocort wrote:So do show me exactly where they said ISBoxer was allowed other than logging in and client settings... The basic fact is that input broadcasting isn't allowed, which is really the problem.
You're obviously uneducated in these things, because you think round robin broadcasting will save you, which brings me to the second fact... If you knew anything, you would know that CCP already considers round robin against the EULA because then this is considered automation. Since the first button press counts as a user action, but the following "simulated button presses" are automated by the software. This goes way back to bots. So you're going to resort to an old violation method to circumvent the newest rules? LOL Ok.... So good luck with that and enjoy your ban. Worst rhetoric ever! Buy some kleenex dude.
CCP Falcon wrote:Going Forward
Based on the discussion in this area and our will to be more clear and concise with the community regarding this part of our rules, we have decided to also apply this two-strike policy to prohibited forms of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing as of January 1st 2015.
If you are uncertain about your Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing use-case, please get in contact with us, as we would prefer to work with members of the community to come to an amicable resolution. We will also follow up this statement with further clarifications if needed, based on questions and concerns from the community.
Nowhere does he say that ISBoxer and other software is banned. They have been allowed since they existed as long as botting was not occurring (botting being defined separate from boxing as the automation of actions without requiring player input), and was re-affirmed as allowed circa April 2010.
What is being changed is usage of the Straight Broadcasting function of ISBoxer that allows a player to issue commands to multiple accounts at once.
Round Robin Broadcasting is still allowed under the new rules. One key press issues one command (or string of commands) to one client. Please research what you're crying over before making stupid statements. You MUST input a command for each client via Round Robin. Failure to input a command in Round Robin mode means it does not move to the next client.
*Passes the Kleenex over* Here, you're gonna need this. |
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4770
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 04:29:08 -
[3041] - Quote
Alkeli Dallocort wrote:So do show me exactly where they said ISBoxer was allowed other than logging in and client settings... The basic fact is that input broadcasting isn't allowed, which is really the problem.
You're obviously uneducated in these things, because you think round robin broadcasting will save you, which brings me to the second fact... If you knew anything, you would know that CCP already considers round robin against the EULA because then this is considered automation. Since the first button press counts as a user action, but the following "simulated button presses" are automated by the software. This goes way back to bots. So you're going to resort to an old violation method to circumvent the newest rules? LOL Ok.... So good luck with that and enjoy your ban. Worst rhetoric ever! Buy some kleenex dude. Lol. I never get tired of people who use the phrase "You're obviously uneducated" while simultaneously getting it all wrong.
Round robin, and VFX (with VFX being the one more likely to be used) isn't broadcasting and isn't a macro and as such is not banned. ISBoxer itself is not banned, only one feature - broadcasting. I mean on a technical level, nothing that ISBoxer does is banned, since ISBoxer is a configuration tool for the software Inner Space. It's the broadcasting function of Inner Space which is banned. All other methods of control which were not previously banned and can still make multiboxing take considerably less effort are still going to be allowed going forward.
All of this you can easily verify. I seriously cannot wait to see how people like you react when you realise most multiboxers have already adapted to the new methods of working.
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
4770
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 04:33:33 -
[3042] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Hahaha oh the tears of all the angry ISBoxers LOL Yes yes, we've all heard the "OMG THE TEARS" meme, generally from incompetent players eager to make themselves feel better about being mediocre. To be honest, most ISBoxer users are pretty unphased, since it's going to change nearly nothing about how they play - which you'd know if you actually read the thread rather than trying to troll.
Trakow wrote:Mad that now they have to actually Mine and PvP like they're supposed to. Wrong. Round robin and VFX
Trakow wrote:Mad cuz now they'll get their ass whooped flying solo. Wrong - See above.
Trakow wrote:Mad because now they actually have to make friends and get into a corp that isn't made up of all their own accounts. Wrong, because multiboxing itself isn't banned (and beside that most of them live in NPC corps. Seriously, do you actually play EVE?)
I'll give that a 1/10, purely because I bothered replying.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6490
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 04:44:42 -
[3043] - Quote
It was a pretty ... hmm I'll say medium-rate troll. If you improve it might be able to reach medium-high next time.
But don't spam it in local multiple times by using local chat broadcasting
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
499
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 04:47:33 -
[3044] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I'll give that a 1/10, purely because I bothered replying.
I have to give him 3/10 tops for dedication. |
Shalrath Kirben
The Scope
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 04:58:23 -
[3045] - Quote
A few years ago, there was a new MMO called Fallen Earth. Post apocalyptic hell would have been another good title. It was released with only the barest of tutorials and your toon was sent out into the wild with not much. God it was hard, but the challenge also made it fun. Fast forward and most of that game now has an easy mode, haven't played it in two years as a result.
My point? CCP just removed an easy mode from the game. Outstanding! |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
499
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 05:34:19 -
[3046] - Quote
Shalrath Kirben wrote:A few years ago, there was a new MMO called Fallen Earth. Post apocalyptic hell would have been another good title. It was released with only the barest of tutorials and your toon was sent out into the wild with not much. God it was hard, but the challenge also made it fun. Fast forward and most of that game now has an easy mode, haven't played it in two years as a result.
My point? CCP just removed an easy mode from the game. Outstanding!
ISBoxing was never "easy mode". If you're judging the ease of use / ease of setup of ISBoxer from the end-result videos of boxxed fleets running sites, you're saying that welding is easy after seeing a video of a 30-year pro make a perfect weld upside-down on two different metal compositions on a pipe. You're just seeing the end result (and maybe part of the process) and judging the entirety off of that. You aren't seeing the time put into learning the basics, fixing overviews and windows, getting everyone's skills and implants the exact same, fitting ships correctly to account for the difference in skill from your 100m sp god-toon to your 5m sp boxed fleet, getting fleet comp sorted, modules sorted, VFX sorted, broadcast keys sorted, global and local hotkeys sorted, emergency VFX in case SHTF and your primary dies, and any of the other thousand-and-one things that is involved when a player logs in or attempts to move a fleet to a certain location.
Source: I just graduated from a beginner-level welding program, and I've seen said 30-year vet work his magic.
3/10 I had fun. |
Alkeli Dallocort
Black Water Oasis
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 07:14:42 -
[3047] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Nowhere does he say that ISBoxer and other software is banned. They have been allowed since they existed as long as botting was not occurring (botting being defined separate from boxing as the automation of actions without requiring player input), and was re-affirmed as allowed circa April 2010. What is being changed is usage of the Straight Broadcasting function of ISBoxer that allows a player to issue commands to multiple accounts at once. Round Robin Broadcasting is still allowed under the new rules. One key press issues one command (or string of commands) to one client. Please research what you're crying over before making stupid statements. You MUST input a command for each client via Round Robin. Failure to input a command in Round Robin mode means it does not move to the next client. *Passes the Kleenex over* Here, you're gonna need this.
Lucas Kell wrote:Lol. I never get tired of people who use the phrase "You're obviously uneducated" while simultaneously getting it all wrong.
Round robin, and VFX (with VFX being the one more likely to be used) isn't broadcasting and isn't a macro and as such is not banned. ISBoxer itself is not banned, only one feature - broadcasting. I mean on a technical level, nothing that ISBoxer does is banned, since ISBoxer is a configuration tool for the software Inner Space. It's the broadcasting function of Inner Space which is banned. All other methods of control which were not previously banned and can still make multiboxing take considerably less effort are still going to be allowed going forward.
All of this you can easily verify. I seriously cannot wait to see how people like you react when you realise most multiboxers have already adapted to the new methods of working.
I don't know what you guys are on about... Round robin still automatically switches from client to client, hence "automation". They've even said that complex macros from certain keyboards are also considered automation.
In any case, this argument is stupid, and I'll be glad to see all the accounts get banned one by one. Even if CCP lets round robin slip through the cracks, they won't for long. It's just a matter of time and that will be against the rules as well, so enjoy while you can I guess lol |
Alkeli Dallocort
Black Water Oasis
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 07:17:11 -
[3048] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Shalrath Kirben wrote:A few years ago, there was a new MMO called Fallen Earth. Post apocalyptic hell would have been another good title. It was released with only the barest of tutorials and your toon was sent out into the wild with not much. God it was hard, but the challenge also made it fun. Fast forward and most of that game now has an easy mode, haven't played it in two years as a result.
My point? CCP just removed an easy mode from the game. Outstanding! ISBoxing was never "easy mode". If you're judging the ease of use / ease of setup of ISBoxer from the end-result videos of boxxed fleets running sites, you're saying that welding is easy after seeing a video of a 30-year pro make a perfect weld upside-down on two different metal compositions on a pipe. You're just seeing the end result (and maybe part of the process) and judging the entirety off of that. You aren't seeing the time put into learning the basics, fixing overviews and windows, getting everyone's skills and implants the exact same, fitting ships correctly to account for the difference in skill from your 100m sp god-toon to your 5m sp boxed fleet, getting fleet comp sorted, modules sorted, VFX sorted, broadcast keys sorted, global and local hotkeys sorted, emergency VFX in case SHTF and your primary dies, and any of the other thousand-and-one things that is involved when a player logs in or attempts to move a fleet to a certain location. Source: I just graduated from a beginner-level welding program, and I've seen said 30-year vet work his magic. 3/10 I had fun.
Hahaha, you compare setting up ISBoxer to welding? LMAO Wow.... Just admit that it's "easy/lazy mode" already, otherwise, why would anyone do it? |
Giribaldi
PH0ENIX COMPANY
Phoenix Company Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 07:20:58 -
[3049] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Giribaldi wrote:Sir, bragging about your friend soloing C5 escalations is no great feet. 2 dreads 2 triage carriers and 2 loris or bhaalghorns. And I do that by myself and I assure you its a ******* easy feet to achieve. I'd like to see your friend solo 20 to 30 man fleets with 6 guys like I do. Put 6 manually controlled accounts into a chaotic and ever changing fight = incredibly difficult my friend. I was merely attempting to point out other ways to make ISK with relatively few accounts for the butthurt people going "hurr need 50 accounts to make money". For those who complain because someone put the time, effort, and in some cases, real life cash, for multiple accounts, multiple accounts is encouraged by CCP and is practically required in order to be competitive in certain industries in EVE. Stop complaining because you didn't want to put effort into your game. Also, I only know of two VG boxers who are giving up boxing VGs, not including myself, out of a group of 10 VG boxers or so. The multibox-heavy community of DIN isn't worried about this, so that should tell you something. As for your ridiculous statement regarding PLEX, it dipped to, what, 950, maybe 920, right after the announcement? If ISBoxing was the main cause of inflation, it should have theoretically dropped to the 6-700 levels. Don't come crying to the forums when it breaks 1b again, because you can't blame ISBoxers. You got the market speculators and hoarders to thank for that.
Sir I'm speaking after the change hits. It's already been speculated that over 2000 accounts used for is boxing mining fleets and HQ fleets and bomber fleets, ect ect will be dismantled and characters sold. 2,000. That's a huggggge hit on demand granted that is a very low estimate and will likely be in the 10 range. I'm not crying btw, in fact I'm out raged by them changing this, I supported people using is boxer as it made certain thinks more obtainable to a single person. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
500
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 07:28:02 -
[3050] - Quote
Alkeli Dallocort wrote:I don't know what you guys are on about... Round robin still automatically switches from client to client, hence "automation". They've even said that complex macros from certain keyboards are also considered automation.
In any case, this argument is stupid, and I'll be glad to see all the accounts get banned one by one. Even if CCP lets round robin slip through the cracks, they won't for long. It's just a matter of time and that will be against the rules as well, so enjoy while you can I guess lol
Well, yes. Complex macros that don't require human input to continue to function are indeed against the EULA and can be considered automation because they do not require human input.
You just used an ad hominem fallacy, not to mention a (possible) tu quoque fallacy, a composition fallacy, and a personal incredulity fallacy in two paragraphs.
If you had any real argument as to why ISBoxer and/or broadcasting should be banned, let's hear it instead of continuing to attack me. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
500
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 07:33:59 -
[3051] - Quote
Alkeli Dallocort wrote:Hahaha, you compare setting up ISBoxer to welding? LMAO Wow.... Just admit that it's "easy/lazy mode" already, otherwise, why would anyone do it?
Ad hominem again. I compared ISBoxer to welding because it was relevant to my experiences in life. I saw a video of a pro welding underwater (met Sweaty Bears in-game), I did my homework and figured out what I'd have to do to pursue said career (researched ISBoxer and it's possible violation of the EULA, including GM Lelouch's statement, without interference), and started classes (did the tutorials, started making basic configs, basic settings, etc). After a lot of practice (trial and error that cost me a lot of ISK and time) I graduated the basic class (got a setup to work reliably). I still have a way to go before I'm earning the big bucks in underwater construction (running at max efficiency), but practice makes perfect, and I was practicing.
If you want, I can probably make a similar setup with whatever career you're pursuing to make it easy to understand. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
500
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 07:39:19 -
[3052] - Quote
Giribaldi wrote:Sir I'm speaking after the change hits. It's already been speculated that over 2000 accounts used for is boxing mining fleets and HQ fleets and bomber fleets, ect ect will be dismantled and characters sold. 2,000. That's a huggggge hit on demand granted that is a very low estimate and will likely be in the 10 range. I'm not crying btw, in fact I'm out raged by them changing this, I supported people using is boxer as it made certain thinks more obtainable to a single person.
[Citation Needed]. Until CCP states how many accounts they lost, I'm taking anything I read with a grain of salt given the hateboner the forum has for ISBoxer.
Mining is relatively unchanged. Round Robin undock, fleet warp, round robin lock roids, round-robin F1. Empty cargo as needed.
HQ fleets (not counting bikkus) are relatively unchanged. Round robin enter site, lock, F1, use regroup command so you don't go everywhere, rinse and repeat. Ask in the DIN-Flotten channel if you don't believe me.
VG fleets are switching to drone assisted RR Nestors, Domis, or Snakes, or (in one rare instance) FoF Tengus. Not too much broadcasting needed there, everything can pretty much be done with Round Robin and a complex-enough VFX screen.
Bomber fleets, bombs: Probably going to be limited to 7 bombers in terms of practicality, but I can't comment 100% since I have had no interaction with any of the bomber boxers.
Bomber fleets, torps: Again, round robin broadcasting saves the day. |
ashley Eoner
380
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 08:55:01 -
[3053] - Quote
Alkeli Dallocort wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Trakow wrote:Hahaha oh the tears of all the angry ISBoxers LOL
Mad that now they have to actually Mine and PvP like they're supposed to. Mad cuz now they'll get their ass whooped flying solo. Mad because now they actually have to make friends and get into a corp that isn't made up of all their own accounts.
Keep bringing on the complaints and the tears guys, I'm loving it lol If you loved that, wait till you hear that ISBoxing will continue to happe. We'll still be running VGs, still run HQs, stilll mine ice, still mine ore. A lot of us actually do have friends in the game who don't ISBox. We didn't start up EVE and instantly multibox. Nobody that I've encountered started EVE and ISBoxing at the same time. We have communities and groups that we hang out with, and we laugh and swap stories and have a good time while doing our thing. Only tears I see are (to paraphrase from an old Tom Sawyer play) from the rabble who's coming after the scientist because they don't understand his work, and because he's different from them. Stop projecting your tears and rage onto us. 90% of us have already found a way to continue multiboxing. Also, multiboxing does not make one unbeatable at PVP. I point you towards the video of the multiboxing Harbingers getting smacked down by a group of experienced, skilled, and well trained pilots using their heads and EWAR to turn the ISBoxer into nothing more than a nuisance at best. Need a tissue bud? Love the part about the scientist like as if isboxers are all smart and wizardry compared to everyone else. Which is so false and deluded, but you probably believe that. The fact is, anyone can ISBox, you're not special, nor are the other ISBoxers. It's just lazy and cowardly, and now it's cheating hahaha. And yes, the way to multibox is to have multiple inputs, which is fine by me. At least now someone can't control 12+ toons at once. But input broadcasting will still be discovered by CCP. It's really not that hard to figure it out. Oh and please do continue to ISBox so you get banned. More fun for the rest of us. My VG fleet involves me controlling 12 accounts at the same time. Just because you're unable to multitask doesn't mean everyone else is as limited as you in their capabilities..
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:04:36 -
[3054] - Quote
Alkeli Dallocort wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Nowhere does he say that ISBoxer and other software is banned. They have been allowed since they existed as long as botting was not occurring (botting being defined separate from boxing as the automation of actions without requiring player input), and was re-affirmed as allowed circa April 2010. What is being changed is usage of the Straight Broadcasting function of ISBoxer that allows a player to issue commands to multiple accounts at once. Round Robin Broadcasting is still allowed under the new rules. One key press issues one command (or string of commands) to one client. Please research what you're crying over before making stupid statements. You MUST input a command for each client via Round Robin. Failure to input a command in Round Robin mode means it does not move to the next client. *Passes the Kleenex over* Here, you're gonna need this. Lucas Kell wrote:Lol. I never get tired of people who use the phrase "You're obviously uneducated" while simultaneously getting it all wrong.
Round robin, and VFX (with VFX being the one more likely to be used) isn't broadcasting and isn't a macro and as such is not banned. ISBoxer itself is not banned, only one feature - broadcasting. I mean on a technical level, nothing that ISBoxer does is banned, since ISBoxer is a configuration tool for the software Inner Space. It's the broadcasting function of Inner Space which is banned. All other methods of control which were not previously banned and can still make multiboxing take considerably less effort are still going to be allowed going forward.
All of this you can easily verify. I seriously cannot wait to see how people like you react when you realise most multiboxers have already adapted to the new methods of working. I don't know what you guys are on about... Round robin still automatically switches from client to client, hence "automation". They've even said that complex macros from certain keyboards are also considered automation. In any case, this argument is stupid, and I'll be glad to see all the accounts get banned one by one. Even if CCP lets round robin slip through the cracks, they won't for long. It's just a matter of time and that will be against the rules as well, so enjoy while you can I guess lol
Round Robin is by no means automation, no matter which dictionary definition you choose to use.
1 key press 1 action, where is the automation?
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
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2811
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:11:12 -
[3055] - Quote
Tis thread now reminds me of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TobFGg7jTmg
Time to move on folks
This is not a signature.
|
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
1231
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:40:44 -
[3056] - Quote
You realize that's a gross misuse of the term multiplexing right? Multiplexing refers to combining multiple inputs into one output. Breaking that output back down into the original multiple streams is demultiplexing.
It's one of the things I hate about the computer science world. The inability to use a dictionary or find out what a new word means. I don't know what they do to people in college these days to make their egos dictate they assume they know the meaning of every new term they encounter instead of actually finding out. It's like comp sci departments educate people into being dumbasses. :(
Take the word bandwidth for example...
Do not run. We are your friends.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4776
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:42:36 -
[3057] - Quote
Alkeli Dallocort wrote:I don't know what you guys are on about... Round robin still automatically switches from client to client, hence "automation". They've even said that complex macros from certain keyboards are also considered automation.
In any case, this argument is stupid, and I'll be glad to see all the accounts get banned one by one. Even if CCP lets round robin slip through the cracks, they won't for long. It's just a matter of time and that will be against the rules as well, so enjoy while you can I guess lol You can call it whatever you want, that doesn't make it so. When you use it, only 1 command goes to only 1 client, which means it's not broadcasting. Look at CCP Randoms legality flowchart and you'll see.
And they'll "let it slip through the cracks" because it's impossible to tell if someone is using round robin vs manual multiboxing as only 1 commands is sent at a time.
Giribaldi wrote:[quote=Nolak Ataru]Sir I'm speaking after the change hits. It's already been speculated that over 2000 accounts used for is boxing mining fleets and HQ fleets and bomber fleets, ect ect will be dismantled and characters sold. 2,000. That's a huggggge hit on demand granted that is a very low estimate and will likely be in the 10 range. I'm not crying btw, in fact I'm out raged by them changing this, I supported people using is boxer as it made certain thinks more obtainable to a single person. That is a figure pulled out of someone's ass, not based in fact. Not to mention that if you think they are being sold, that's 2 more PLEX used for the sale + a PLEx for the new destination account for that character (which is likely to be a separate account as it's an active alt, not a passive one). So according to you, we'll use 4000 extra PLEX then continue consuming them at the same rate?
The truth is very few people will quit, PLEX will still be highly sought after, PLEX price will continue to rise once the current speculations clears, and next year we will pass 1b/PLEX. To be honest I've seen it argued that the current drop we have is the main one, since most people who quit over the change will have already quit or at least already stopped subbing, since if they sub now they will have at least 20 days per account in January they won''t even use.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
1231
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:44:15 -
[3058] - Quote
On a more positive note, thank god for the change!
ISBoxer is great for some things, but I can't imagine ever using it for a game like Eve. It will be good to see those particular mining fleets take a hit.
Do not run. We are your friends.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6491
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 15:48:07 -
[3059] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:That is a figure pulled out of someone's ass, not based in fact.
Haha, expecting something better from eveo general discussion?
I think not.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
514
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 18:48:43 -
[3060] - Quote
Tyranis Marcus wrote:It will be good to see those particular mining fleets take a hit.
It may slow down their fleets a tiny bit, but for the most part Round Robin and repeater regions will allow them to keep running. |
|
|
Hallvardr
53
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 00:20:41 -
[3061] - Quote
Nolak Ataru: Quote:Boxed miners have been running massive numbers even without the use of ISBoxer or similar programs. Correct. However, my point is that 20-30 (hu)man mining (or "the gate people") fleet ops while they do happen, are not the norm. In general, when there is a 20-30 man mining group, its a "isboxer" fleet. isboxer fleets at any activity that they are used in, are far more prevalent than discrete human control.
Lucas Kell: Quote:20 characters can be controlled for mining manually with ease -> perhaps ... but video longer than 30 minutes ore it didn't happen. (see what I did there)
Quote:...you don't do it therefore nobody else should be allowed. I hope you were saying this as a generalization and not to me specifically. I've already established my stance,
"I could care less about isboxer .. I'm not a user."
"if I did and it hampered my progress, I'd adapt."
So for me .. i don't care either way which is also why I'd held off my opinion as long as I had. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
516
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 00:43:03 -
[3062] - Quote
Hallvardr wrote:Nolak Ataru: Quote:Boxed miners have been running massive numbers even without the use of ISBoxer or similar programs. Correct. However, my point is that 20-30 (hu)man mining (or "the gate people") fleet ops while they do happen, are not the norm. In general, when there is a 20-30 man mining group, its a "isboxer" fleet. isboxer fleets at any activity that they are used in, are far more prevalent than discrete human control.
We're gonna have to disagree here as I'm pretty sure most corps who do run mining ops sure as heck aren't going to do it in unprofitable highsec. I was in TEST and I remember some of the massive mining ops that occurred in nullsec.
Hallvardr wrote:Lucas Kell: Quote:20 characters can be controlled for mining manually with ease -> perhaps ... but video longer than 30 minutes ore it didn't happen. ( see what I did there) Quote:...you don't do it therefore nobody else should be allowed. I hope you were saying this as a generalization and not to me specifically. I've already established my stance, "I could care less about isboxer .. I'm not a user." "if I did and it hampered my progress, I'd adapt." So for me .. i don't care either way which is also why I'd held off my opinion as long as I had.
Nobody's going to watch a fleet of miners mine for 30 minutes no matter how much isk/h you get. Liberal application of Alt+Tab can get it done easily.
It's "couldn't care less".
As for the other quote, he was relaying the sentiments of some other posters both in this thread and in GD in general. The "I don't do it therefore nobody should be allowed to ISBox" argument was quite common among those who wanted CCP to bend to their will. To those, I would like to quote a CCP Dev: "HTFU". |
Gabriel Elarik
Celestiel Rams
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 03:42:02 -
[3063] - Quote
i think most isboxer users will switch to dxnothing windows or simply switch between windows
that means mining will stay the same incursions are tricky but i think possible without broadcasting
and ratting will stay mostly the same multiboxers will find ways to adapt to the changes
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
517
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 04:02:31 -
[3064] - Quote
Gabriel Elarik wrote: i think most isboxer users will switch to dxnothing windows or simply switch between windows
that means mining will stay the same incursions are tricky but i think possible without broadcasting
and ratting will stay mostly the same multiboxers will find ways to adapt to the changes
For VGs, people are heading towards Domis / Rattlesnakes and a Loki (with one enterprising person planning on Nestors).
For HQs, round-robin broadcasting is the key. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
223
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 10:12:21 -
[3065] - Quote
Nobody seems to have linked this in here yet, so here goes.
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/holiday-greetings-team-security/?_ga=1.56703274.1259077967.1406127097 |
Jadzia-Dax
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 10:49:31 -
[3066] - Quote
ShadowNeo29 wrote:Yeah finally. ISBoxer would never have been allowed according to the EULA. But ! We know some people will get a free ban because the dectection is not perfect. And sadly GMs don't care about what they do, fair or not. After investigations, we can say they also ban players who play normally and they don't care about the 2 strike policy: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/begun-the-bot-war-has/ and allow themselves to ban for life. But like in real life, justice allow some collateral damages. Nothing personal. Just FYI, ISBoxer is not banned. One single feature (not even the most important feature) is banned. Seems like you missed that.[/quote]
"You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play"
ISBoxer is a third-party software used for facilitate stuff's acquisition. It's not a normal gameplay than "just an human" multiboxer without any program (switching windows or using several computers, all manually).[/quote]
ShadowNeo29 - You have no clue what you are talking about!! You have no idea how ISBoxer or other boxing programs work!! You also have no clue what part of the EULA applies to boxing! You should educate yourself before you post!! The only part of the the EULA that applies to ISBoxer of other types of boxing programs is the "Broadcasting and Multiplexing". The part of the EULA you posted does not apply to boxing but to botting. WOW just another cryer giving out tears due to not knowing what they are posting about!!
FYI, I could box 2-30 accounts and never use the "Broadcasting or Multiplexing" feature ISBoxer has and still remain within the EULA and never, I repeat Never get banned.
Please, get educated on the topic, the EULA and what applies, and the software before you post and make yourself look foolish!!
Cry on Multi boxing haters! lol @ your tears!! |
Hexxas kozak
Invicta Est
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 13:18:43 -
[3067] - Quote
So basically what CCP is saying people that have 2 accounts gets a ban for using both accounts the same time ?
Thats pretty lame and you will be shooting you self in the foot with this , so you no longer allowed to make window mode running the game and have an account on each of your screens , so no more orca and mining barge combo , honestly that a big mistake , considdering there soon will be a release of another space game where you can upgrade and mine as well, mabee you guys havent thought this one completely thrue?.
You will be loosing so many players if this effect 2 accounts on 1 computer with 2 screens , so you basically punsih players with more than 1 screen.
Are you trying to kill the game ?
If so then there is as faster way to do it , just shut down the servers and be done with it .
Punishing people that have 2 monitors on the same computer is not some thing you do , i can understand botting and macro scriting , but banning people for running 2 accounts on the same time , thats bulls....
people that crys about multi account is normaly the ones that cant affort to have 2 accounts, but hey i take my money some where else if cant run my orca and mining barge. thats around 200 dkr a month you loose just by doing this and if others that have 2 accounts do this as well then game will die. So good luck with that !
I would like a dev to respond to this please and fast so if needed i can cancel my 2 accounts faster ! |
Navigation Boy
Decadent Behavior
17
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 14:00:19 -
[3068] - Quote
Hexxas kozak wrote:So basically what CCP is saying people that have 2 accounts gets a ban for using both accounts the same time ?
If you are running multiple clients on multiple screens, and issue commands to each screen separately, you'll be fine.
I dual-box all the time, and this won't effect me either.
|
Hexxas kozak
Invicta Est
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 14:23:21 -
[3069] - Quote
okay thank you ,
but i really want to hear this from a CCP Dev team member or high ranking GM |
Stouman
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 16:28:26 -
[3070] - Quote
Thanks CCP! Good riddance!
You kill the jackal!
You see here a jackal corpse.
This jackal corpse tastes terrible!
You finish eating the jackal corpse.
|
|
|
Hallvardr
54
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 16:30:57 -
[3071] - Quote
Hexxas kozak: "want to hear this from a CCP" <- you already have .. read the numerous posts ad infinitum.
just as Navigation Boy just said and has been stated repeatedly. |
Demolishar
United Aggression
1028
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 16:32:13 -
[3072] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:
If you are uncertain about your Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing use-case, please get in contact with us, as we would prefer to work with members of the community to come to an amicable resolution. We will also follow up this statement with further clarifications if needed, based on questions and concerns from the community.
How may I get in contact with you about my input broadcasting use-case?
I have already tried a support ticket - the reply was not helpful.
The reply consisted of a canned statement stating that GM will not advise me on any use-case outside of the ones expressly stated in CCP Falcon's post.
|
Nyx Tamer
Nyx Tamer Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 19:23:27 -
[3073] - Quote
well, following the very helpful and supportive petition, I gotta ask it here:
I use ISBoxer cause I only have one 1366*768 screen on my laptop, so I can't see the other characters (2) , and EVE in windowed mode is NOT able to fit properly on the whole screen as there is a minimal resolution the client has.
So I use ISBoxer to run 3 clients in Fullscreen (taskbar excluded), 2 scouts and 1 I actually use.
Long story short: Am I allowed to use the VideoFX feature to show me parts of the scouts as overlay on the mainscreen?
As much as I know and asked so far it is ok, I do not use any input broadcasting or whatever some people are extremly energetic discussing here, but I'd like to know if this is ok as I had a **** ton of a discussion this afternoon about it.
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 20:06:21 -
[3074] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Tyranis Marcus wrote:It will be good to see those particular mining fleets take a hit. It may slow down their fleets a tiny bit, but for the most part Round Robin and repeater regions will allow them to keep running.
You do realize that the mouse is also an input device right? So one click to select an object either from the overview or from the screen for multiple clients is also considered input broadcasting. But if you're going to individually click on each window or overview one at a time then have at it. But I'm sure most people don't realize the mouse is also considered input. This will still get many ppl the 30-day ban, and will make ISBoxing that much less useful.
And also, round robin can still be considered automation because isboxer automatically changed the input focus after each button press without user input to do so. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
526
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 20:20:36 -
[3075] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Tyranis Marcus wrote:It will be good to see those particular mining fleets take a hit. It may slow down their fleets a tiny bit, but for the most part Round Robin and repeater regions will allow them to keep running. You do realize that the mouse is also an input device right? So one click to select an object either from the overview or from the screen for multiple clients is also considered input broadcasting. But if you're going to individually click on each window or overview one at a time then have at it. But I'm sure most people don't realize the mouse is also considered input. This will still get many ppl the 30-day ban, and will make ISBoxing that much less useful. And also, round robin can still be considered automation because isboxer automatically changed the input focus after each button press without user input to do so.
Except according to the very childish flowchart, it's still only issuing one command per client and that's what counts. Which is exactly why we need CCP to release a statement regarding Round Robin, as well as their reasoning of why ISBoxer is the big bad demon in the room and not any of the other dozen or so in-game problems that are legitimately causing players to leave. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4779
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 21:49:21 -
[3076] - Quote
Hallvardr wrote:perhaps ... but video longer than 30 minutes ore it didn't happen. ( see what I did there) Eve noobs these days. Multiboxing mass fleets has been around a lot longer that ISBoxer has been popular kiddo.
Hallvardr wrote:I hope you were saying this as a generalization and not to me specifically. I've already established my stance,
"I could care less about isboxer .. I'm not a user."
"if I did and it hampered my progress, I'd adapt."
So for me .. i don't care either way which is also why I'd held off my opinion as long as I had. Strange, because it really does seem like you do care.
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
4779
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 21:56:35 -
[3077] - Quote
Trakow wrote:You do realize that the mouse is also an input device right? So one click to select an object either from the overview or from the screen for multiple clients is also considered input broadcasting. But if you're going to individually click on each window or overview one at a time then have at it. But I'm sure most people don't realize the mouse is also considered input. This will still get many ppl the 30-day ban, and will make ISBoxing that much less useful.
And also, round robin can still be considered automation because isboxer automatically changed the input focus after each button press without user input to do so. It seems that like many many many others, you don't know how ISBoxer works or what round robin/ VideoFX entails. It's been explained probably hundreds of times in this very thread, so if you haven't figured it out yet, you probably never will. The only thing you really need to know is that it won't be banned as it's not input broadcasting and is near impossible to reliably separate from manual multiboxers, so is unlikely to be banned on it's own. Most multiboxers have already adapted the new methods they will be able to continue using beyond January.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 22:23:18 -
[3078] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Trakow wrote:You do realize that the mouse is also an input device right? So one click to select an object either from the overview or from the screen for multiple clients is also considered input broadcasting. But if you're going to individually click on each window or overview one at a time then have at it. But I'm sure most people don't realize the mouse is also considered input. This will still get many ppl the 30-day ban, and will make ISBoxing that much less useful.
And also, round robin can still be considered automation because isboxer automatically changed the input focus after each button press without user input to do so. It seems that like many many many others, you don't know how ISBoxer works or what round robin/ VideoFX entails. It's been explained probably hundreds of times in this very thread, so if you haven't figured it out yet, you probably never will. The only thing you really need to know is that it won't be banned as it's not input broadcasting and is near impossible to reliably separate from manual multiboxers, so is unlikely to be banned on it's own. Most multiboxers have already adapted the new methods they will be able to continue using beyond January.
So are you saying that when you click on an object to lock onto it, that you do it individually for each client? If so then that's fine. But if you click once and all your clients select/lock the same target, then this is still input broadcasting... |
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
55
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 22:35:36 -
[3079] - Quote
I cant believe this is still going on.... |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
527
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 22:41:51 -
[3080] - Quote
Trakow wrote:So are you saying that when you click on an object to lock onto it, that you do it individually for each client? If so then that's fine. But if you click once and all your clients select/lock the same target, then this is still input broadcasting...
He must click once for each client to lock / target / activate button.
This was stated ages ago.
Please learn to read, or do some research before jumping on the bandwagon. |
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4785
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 23:58:12 -
[3081] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Trakow wrote:You do realize that the mouse is also an input device right? So one click to select an object either from the overview or from the screen for multiple clients is also considered input broadcasting. But if you're going to individually click on each window or overview one at a time then have at it. But I'm sure most people don't realize the mouse is also considered input. This will still get many ppl the 30-day ban, and will make ISBoxing that much less useful.
And also, round robin can still be considered automation because isboxer automatically changed the input focus after each button press without user input to do so. It seems that like many many many others, you don't know how ISBoxer works or what round robin/ VideoFX entails. It's been explained probably hundreds of times in this very thread, so if you haven't figured it out yet, you probably never will. The only thing you really need to know is that it won't be banned as it's not input broadcasting and is near impossible to reliably separate from manual multiboxers, so is unlikely to be banned on it's own. Most multiboxers have already adapted the new methods they will be able to continue using beyond January. So are you saying that when you click on an object to lock onto it, that you do it individually for each client? If so then that's fine. But if you click once and all your clients select/lock the same target, then this is still input broadcasting... Yes, however you are able to spam press 1 key without alt tabbing, rather than switching and key pressing, or in the case of VFX make merge multiple clients controls into a single window. The result of which is that this change doesn't prevent mass multiboxing in any way, it simply removes one of the many methods of control. This change is a pointless waste of time which avoids the real issue which is crappy gameplay mechanics.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
ESN Seeker
The Scope
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 02:45:52 -
[3082] - Quote
I don't use software that provides "round robin" service, so I don't know what any such software, that exists currently, does.
Suppose, though, that "round robin" means that there is an automatically generated alt-tab after the first keystroke, then two auto-alt-tabs after the second keystroke, etc., so that successive keystrokes go to different EVE-sessions.
Although this might not fall afoul of the Prohibition Against Broadcasting, might it not violate the Prohibition Against Generating Keystroke Sequences?
But how about an intermediate case? What if one had a foot-pedal that generated alt-tab for every pump of the pedal? One could pump once after the first keystroke, twice after the second, etc., to switch round-robin amongst multiple sessions.
Would using such a foot-pedal violate the Prohibition Against Generating Keystroke Sequences?
Argument in the Affirmative: Yes, because alt-tab is a two-keystroke sequence.
Argument in the Negative: No, because alt is just a shift that modifies other keys; only the tab-keystroke is a keystroke.
I tried to file a Support Ticket asking this question, but it has been several hours since I submitted it and the ticket not -- or at least not yet -- appeared under "My Tickets". Since I have not filed a support ticket since 2006, I don't remember how long it's supposed to take for a ticket to appear after filing. |
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
302
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 02:47:23 -
[3083] - Quote
As far as I know there has been no response from CCP to answer numerous questions we've had about this new policy. A rumored sit down meeting has also not happened and app
I'm really disappointed in this decision to not have an open discussion about this with CCP, I hope they change their mind and talk to "advanced" multiboxing community.
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
65
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 03:02:05 -
[3084] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:As far as I know there has been no response from CCP to answer numerous questions we've had about this new policy. A rumored sit down meeting has also not happened and app
I'm really disappointed in this decision to not have an open discussion about this with CCP, I hope they change their mind and talk to "advanced" multiboxing community.
Its pretty clear to me that this CCP policy is not subject to negotiation.
Here CCP did some research using player input first. But I don't think CCP ever said players had a vote on this issue.
CCP does a very good job of working letting players in on deciding many issues.-- maybe most. But CCP has to claim exclusive ownership of a few decisions to keep the game wide open to all players....rather than letting the loudest or strongest cliche drive everyone else out through rule management. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
65
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 03:25:09 -
[3085] - Quote
The input multiplexing issue is also very simple.
Do the inputs get acted on by the desktop OS (including the start up EVE client)? Allowed
(Round robin window switching therefore allowed. No EVE server involvement.)
Or does the input get acted upon by the EVE server via the client? this is an in game effect
If a single user input action (keystroke or click) produces multiple player commands on the server -- not allowed.
A single input movement producing multiple commands in 1 client or 1 command in multiple clients - either way CCP is gonna slap you.
Nope it does not sound like CCP wants to debate the game lawyers or complicate their tasks by allowing you to send commands to change overview settings on multiple clients. From a practical point it makes CCP's job easier to treat all commands to the EVE server the same - and that is how they are gonna do it. In this case the convenience of CCP enforcement overrides your personal convenience for something 99% of EVE does manually.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
530
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 03:59:16 -
[3086] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:The input multiplexing issue is also very simple.
Do the inputs get acted on by the desktop OS (including the start up EVE client)? Allowed
(Round robin window switching therefore allowed. No EVE server involvement.)
Or does the input get acted upon by the EVE server via the client? this is an in game effect
If a single user input action (keystroke or click) produces multiple player commands on the server -- not allowed.
A single input movement producing multiple commands in 1 client or 1 command in multiple clients - either way CCP is gonna slap you.
Nope it does not sound like CCP wants to debate the game lawyers or complicate their tasks by allowing you to send commands to change overview settings on multiple clients. From a practical point it makes CCP's job easier to treat all commands to the EVE server the same - and that is how they are gonna do it. In this case the convenience of CCP enforcement overrides your personal convenience for something 99% of EVE does manually.
Jesus christ the irony is burning. You claim that the game should be wide open to all players and not let "the loudest or strongest cliche drive everyone out" yet you don't see that this change was brought about by a loud minority of players who's arguments consist of "I don't do it so he shouldn't", "hurrdurr it's a bot even though I know nothing about the software", and, my favorite, "he's cheating because he has multiple accounts open" which is similar to "I know nothing about 6A3 and how it works, so I'll claim he's gaining an unfair advantage because I'm under the impression that he doesn't have to pay for his accounts." CCP did the exact same research that Target did after presented with the Change.org petition that was so full of lies, the North Korean propaganda team stood in awe of it. Listening to the whiners in the minority may change something in the short term, and may indeed cause a short-term improvement, but in the long term will cause more harm as players remember that they bent to the will of the equivalent of SJWs, or if they continue to bend over for said lunatic few.
Round Robin sends 1 command to 1 client per input. It then sends 1 command to the next client on the next input. It uses similar concepts on window focusing that VideoFX does.
If any issue warranted, no, NEEDED player input and discussion before a go-ahead, it would be this. Instead, we're treated like third-class citizens thanks to, in part, the public's lack of knowledge as to what ISBoxer lets a player do, the unwillingness to differentiate between an ISBoxer with a human behind the keyboard that stops doing things when the player goes for a smoke break, and a botter that continues to operate while the person went down to the corner store for a pack of smokes and a 40. Not to mention that CCP absolutely refused to sit down with multiple ISBoxer reps until after Jan 1, after lying to EVERYONE at Fanfest and EVE Vegas, where CCP Seagull and other CCP devs were seen by dozens if not hundreds of witnesses going around telling people "Multiboxers have nothing to fear" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing."
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
50
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 04:45:39 -
[3087] - Quote
Round robin sends one command to the focus window and one command to your window management software (to change to the next focus window) per click.
Macro.
(Also to preempt your next attempt at having alternate presses do the same dirty, you're then sending each click to the mouse software to control the switching of functions, so still a macro.) |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
530
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 06:12:00 -
[3088] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Round robin sends one command to the focus window and one command to your window management software (to change to the next focus window) per click.
Macro.
(Also to preempt your next attempt at having alternate presses do the same dirty, you're then sending each click to the mouse software to control the switching of functions, so still a macro.)
Technically no. It sends command A to window 1 on button press #1. It then sends command A to window 2 without changing windows on button press #2. If it sent the command and then alt-tabbed, or something similar, then yes, it would be a macro.
Since it doesn't, it isn't, and you don't know what you're talking about.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Orchid Fury
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 07:16:44 -
[3089] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Round robin sends one command to the focus window and one command to your window management software (to change to the next focus window) per click.
Macro.
(Also to preempt your next attempt at having alternate presses do the same dirty, you're then sending each click to the mouse software to control the switching of functions, so still a macro.) Technically no. It sends command A to window 1 on button press #1. It then sends command A to window 2 without changing windows on button press #2. If it sent the command and then alt-tabbed, or something similar, then yes, it would be a macro. Since it doesn't, it isn't, and you don't know what you're talking about.
since only one window can have focus to accept keyboard input, it has to fall under the policy. even if it doesn't send an alt+tab, it sends your command + a switch of window focus. as here is even logic included as to which window to switch next, it clearly is a macro. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
533
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 07:59:31 -
[3090] - Quote
Orchid Fury wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Round robin sends one command to the focus window and one command to your window management software (to change to the next focus window) per click.
Macro.
(Also to preempt your next attempt at having alternate presses do the same dirty, you're then sending each click to the mouse software to control the switching of functions, so still a macro.) Technically no. It sends command A to window 1 on button press #1. It then sends command A to window 2 without changing windows on button press #2. If it sent the command and then alt-tabbed, or something similar, then yes, it would be a macro. Since it doesn't, it isn't, and you don't know what you're talking about. since only one window can have focus to accept keyboard input, it has to fall under the policy. even if it doesn't send an alt+tab, it sends your command + a switch of window focus. as here is even logic included as to which window to switch next, it clearly is a macro.
VideoFX allows a player to have multiple window's focus on a single screen. Doesn't break EULA. Neither does RR no matter how loud you cry.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4791
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 08:05:15 -
[3091] - Quote
ESN Seeker wrote:Suppose, though, that "round robin" means that there is an automatically generated alt-tab after the first keystroke, then two auto-alt-tabs after the second keystroke, etc., so that successive keystrokes go to different EVE-sessions.
Although this might not fall afoul of the Prohibition Against Broadcasting, might it not violate the Prohibition Against Generating Keystroke Sequences? No, because keyboard sequences cover game actions. f you want to set up a key that presses F1, then opens 6 web browsers, 4 notepads and a calculator, that's within the rules. As long as it performs only 1 game action.
Proddy Scun wrote:Its pretty clear to me that this CCP policy is not subject to negotiation.
Here CCP did some research using player input first. But I don't think CCP ever said players had a vote on this issue.
CCP does a very good job of working letting players in on deciding many issues.-- maybe most. But CCP has to claim exclusive ownership of a few decisions to keep the game wide open to all players....rather than letting the loudest or strongest cliche drive everyone else out through rule management. It's not about negotiation, it's about clarification. At the moment there's so many edge cases left unanswered. It's a common CCP thing to start up a "discussion" then completely ignore it, leave things as clear as mud and wait until it explodes around them before trying to deal with it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Orchid Fury
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 10:49:23 -
[3092] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
VideoFX allows a player to have multiple window's focus on a single screen. Doesn't break EULA. Neither does RR no matter how loud you cry.
it does break the eula. you may look in the section under conduct, section 3. it already does.
ccp only stated that they will from now on activly police the overusage of input broadcasting, which was against the eula as well. wether you can get away with your "workaround" remains to be seen. since you clearly can not see the writing on the wall.
the only one crying is you at all. "whawhaa why don't ccp listen to isboxers. we're humans to. :((" |
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
51
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 11:06:16 -
[3093] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Technically no. It sends command A to window 1 on button press #1. It then sends command A to window 2 without changing windows on button press #2. If it sent the command and then alt-tabbed, or something similar, then yes, it would be a macro.
Since it doesn't, it isn't, and you don't know what you're talking about.
So ISboxer *knows* to change the window focus to the next window in line without seeing the input to the first window? Wow you have a prescient bit of software there. I'm afraid it's a macro - cry "No, it can't be" all you like. But it's a macro. One might even say 'Technically so.'
Lucas Kell wrote:No, because keyboard sequences cover game actions. If you want to set up a key that presses F1, then opens 6 web browsers, 4 notepads and a calculator, that's within the rules. As long as it performs only 1 game action.
I believe you're falling into the mistake of only referring to the new ruling from the Multiplexing post. The quote from Team Security's devblog says "Any use of macros to interact with the game world is prohibited by EULA now, and has always been"
That, to me at least, implies that any external macro that interacts with the game in even one place, is breaking the EULA.
SO yeah, I'd definitely petition that before you start giving suggestions on how this will be enforced.
As I said many pages ago - they won't let people idly sidestep their intended rulings on multiplexing with a simple implementation like round robin. (And as you mostly successfully argued, I agree they'll probably struggle to differentiate from *some* legitimate 120 APM players who should be playing Starcraft or something.)
Given enough time to monitor someone though, I suspect that it'll become fairly clear who's using macros and who's spamming the F-keys nice and fast - although people who *want* to bend the rules (or break them rather) could decide to code in delays etc to make themselves less catchable - at that stage you've pretty much stepped over the line and are just trying to evade detection, so I would no longer call those actions 'legal' |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4793
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 11:48:41 -
[3094] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:I believe you're falling into the mistake of only referring to the new ruling from the Multiplexing post. The quote from Team Security's devblog says "Any use of macros to interact with the game world is prohibited by EULA now, and has always been"
That, to me at least, implies that any external macro that interacts with the game in even one place, is breaking the EULA.
SO yeah, I'd definitely petition that before you start giving suggestions on how this will be enforced. Aside from the fact that the negative press they would receive if they banned this would be unbelievable (many gaming keyboards and mice perform other tasks directly while you are interacting with your game) it would be impossible to detect without a massive amount of false positives. So there's no way they'll enforce it beyond multiple simultaneous game affecting actions (multiplexing). CCP are pretty dumb, but not that dumb.
Eli Apol wrote:As I said many pages ago - they won't let people idly sidestep their intended rulings on multiplexing with a simple implementation like round robin. (And as you mostly successfully argued, I agree they'll probably struggle to differentiate from *some* legitimate 120 APM players who should be playing Starcraft or something.)
Given enough time to monitor someone though, I suspect that it'll become fairly clear who's using macros and who's spamming the F-keys nice and fast - although people who *want* to bend the rules (or break them rather) could decide to code in delays etc to make themselves less catchable - at that stage you've pretty much stepped over the line and are just trying to evade detection, so I would no longer call those actions 'legal' Their ruling is pretty clear. 1 press = 1 action on 1 client. What else it does outside that is irrelevant. Using round robin or VFX isn't side stepping that, it's simply not included in that ruling. I'm sure people using static timed delays will get caught, as that's actually macroing and turning 1 press into multiple actions, but someone sitting there manually pressing one button for a round robin bind isn't. I'm sure if they could find a reliable way to differentiate between that and a legit multiboxer that they would ban it but they won't, so...
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Mister Holder
Faceless Men
12
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 12:15:16 -
[3095] - Quote
Mierin Arthie wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe. How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard? for those that dont know what a kvm switch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch
I think CCP is specifically targeting the use of ISBox and people who run 20 accounts to do various tasks. I.e. the guy who uses 20 ishtar accounts to run WH sites, people who run a ton of mining accounts with it, etc, etc.
Seems like it boils down to if you have one computer you shouldn't be running an excessive amount of client at the same time to do mind numbing tasks.
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
51
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 12:43:20 -
[3096] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:...snip... I'm not saying they will chase down every macro user. I'm saying that they *could* use their rules to ban anyone using them.
In the case of using macros to sidestep a new ruling prohibiting a certain playstyle - I'd guess their sympathy would be fairly sparse.
Also I don't actually think the false positives of someone using round robin against legitimate 120APM multiboxers will actually be that high - UNLESS the round robin is able to fake the kinda of small mistakes that a 120APM multiboxer will make over extended periods of time - a misclick here, a misclick there, a doubleclick on that module - being human in other words.
But if you're so certain that people won't get bans for it, then sure, recommend they just go full-steam ahead without petitioning their specifics. |
Miomeifeng Alduin
Lithonauts Inc.
46
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 13:12:43 -
[3097] - Quote
The main problem is that petitions dont matter. GM's direct people who file a petition to the forum, and here the persons in charge say that you need to file a petition to learn specifics. In the meantime nothing gets answered which is a serious problem in CCP's communication. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4793
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 14:13:14 -
[3098] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:I'm not saying they will chase down every macro user. I'm saying that they *could* use their rules to ban anyone using them. They don't need to use their rules. They can ban you for whatever reason they want without having to change anything.
Eli Apol wrote:In the case of using macros to sidestep a new ruling prohibiting a certain playstyle - I'd guess their sympathy would be fairly sparse. Indeed and I would hope this is the case.
Eli Apol wrote:Also I don't actually think the false positives of someone using round robin against legitimate 120APM multiboxers will actually be that high - UNLESS the round robin is able to fake the kinda of small mistakes that a 120APM multiboxer will make over extended periods of time - a misclick here, a misclick there, a doubleclick on that module - being human in other words. You underestimate how much manual control is used when using ISBoxer. Just as many mistakes would be made by an ISBoxer as a manual multiboxer. Not everything is broadcast controlled, only the most simple elements of control. That's why you can toggle broadcast with a keypress.
Eli Apol wrote:But if you're so certain that people won't get bans for it, then sure, recommend they just go full-steam ahead without petitioning their specifics. People have petitioned, and as is usual for CCP they've completely ignored it. Multiboxers would like nothing more than to know where they stand regardless of what that outcome is, but the subject appears to be closed. So the options are unsub and stop playing the game the way they enjoy, or risk playing in a way which appears to be within the rules but is unconfirmed. Honestly, between bad financials, employees jumping ship, awesome games like Elite:Dangerous coming out and CCPs complete inability to respond to legitimate concerns, I doubt it really matters long term.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
51
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 14:35:40 -
[3099] - Quote
I guess the reasons people aren't hearing more from their petitions is probably because they're saying "Can you clarify the exact boundaries (so that I can cosy up as close as possible to the edge)" instead of saying "This is my setup, is it legit?" |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4793
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 14:41:48 -
[3100] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:I guess the reasons people aren't hearing more from their petitions is probably because they're saying "Can you clarify the exact boundaries (so that I can cosy up as close as possible to the edge)" instead of saying "This is my setup, is it legit?" Those are the exact same question if you just make up a setup which is close to the perceived boundaries.
All of this "oh they'll rules lawyer!" is beyond stupid. CCP can ban you for no reason if they want to, there is no such thing as rules lawyering and their word is final. So what's the problem with being straight with people and telling them where those boundaries lie? No other MMO seems to have such a huge issue with clarifying their rules. Blurring rules doesn't make push less boundaries, it simply guarantee that more people will quit because they can't be bothered with the hassle of maybe getting banned for something nobody will clarify while other people able to do basically the same thing aren't, because it depends which GM you happen to get hit by.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Eli Apol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
52
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 16:22:29 -
[3101] - Quote
Because Eve isn't like any other MMOs and Eve players aren't like those from other MMOs...
If they made a clear distinction, there'd be people immediately trying to wriggle around those distinctions to beat the system. Mentioning no-names.
Use your common sense.
If you think it's taking the ****, it probably is.
If you think you're being clever and finding a loophole, you're taking the ****.
If you're taking the ****, you'll get a ban...
...is how I read their ruling |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4801
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 17:04:21 -
[3102] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Because Eve isn't like any other MMOs and Eve players aren't like those from other MMOs... It's exactly like other MMOs, and aside from being considerably more arrogant, the players are the same.
Eli Apol wrote:If they made a clear distinction, there'd be people immediately trying to wriggle around those distinctions to beat the system. Mentioning no-names. As there are even without a clear distinction. Having no clear distinction doesn't stop people pushing the boundaries, it simply means those players who want to conform to the rules don't know how to.
Eli Apol wrote:Use your common sense.
If you think it's taking the ****, it probably is.
If you think you're being clever and finding a loophole, you're taking the ****.
If you're taking the ****, you'll get a ban...
...is how I read their ruling Except as this thread proves, opinions differ. Some don't think broadcasting was taking the ****, some don't think round robin is, some think round robin is but VFX isn't and some think both are. Then you have some who think that 20 characters is taking the **** but 10 is fine, some think 10 is too much, and some think playing more than one character at all is taking the ****.
All of it is irrelevant though, because the only people who's opinion matters is CCP, and they actively refuse to let people know what that is, so you're left in a position of having to guess what is OK, and hope that when a crying idiot reports you because you had 5 miners, the GM you get stuck with isn't as in the dark on the rules as you are.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
535
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 17:59:15 -
[3103] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Because Eve isn't like any other MMOs and Eve players aren't like those from other MMOs...
If they made a clear distinction, there'd be people immediately trying to wriggle around those distinctions to beat the system. Mentioning no-names.
Use your common sense.
If you think it's taking the ****, it probably is.
If you think you're being clever and finding a loophole, you're taking the ****.
If you're taking the ****, you'll get a ban...
...is how I read their ruling
As much as I hate to agree with the bugger, James 315 was right when he decried CCP's unwillingness to draw a visible line in the sand. CCP doesn't want us to cross a line, but is unwilling to draw said line in the sand. That's why CCP makes said line. Unfortunately, if the line's invisible (and is known to have moved on several occasions), then people's trust in the company will be, justifiably, shaken or non-existent, and it makes 100% sense that people want stuff clarified so the line doesn't move when we turn our backs and do what we were planning on doing to stay in the current margin of what is kosher and what is not.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Lady Areola Fappington
2399
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 19:26:58 -
[3104] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Because Eve isn't like any other MMOs and Eve players aren't like those from other MMOs...
If they made a clear distinction, there'd be people immediately trying to wriggle around those distinctions to beat the system. Mentioning no-names.
Use your common sense.
If you think it's taking the ****, it probably is.
If you think you're being clever and finding a loophole, you're taking the ****.
If you're taking the ****, you'll get a ban...
...is how I read their ruling As much as I hate to agree with the bugger, James 315 was right when he decried CCP's unwillingness to draw a visible line in the sand. CCP doesn't want us to cross a line, but is unwilling to draw said line in the sand. That's why CCP makes said line. Unfortunately, if the line's invisible (and is known to have moved on several occasions), then people's trust in the company will be, justifiably, shaken or non-existent, and it makes 100% sense that people want stuff clarified so the line doesn't move when we turn our backs and do what we were planning on doing to stay in the current margin of what is kosher and what is not.
A big part of that is CCPs reliance on technical means to discover stuff like input duplication. They don't want to tell people what is or isn't kosher, because at that point EVE players will dance right up to the line. Define input duplication as X commands within 2 seconds, the typical Eve player will just set it up as X commands in 2.2 seconds.
That, combined with a penchant for doublespeak, causes CCP trouble. They say "multiboxing hasn't changed", and technically they're right. Nothing has changed about multiplexing. It's input duplication that's changed.
It isn't really hard, but I think there are customers that you can lose in a good way and there's customers that you can lose in a bad way. If people come in and fundamentally don't like EVE Online, then I think that might be a good way of losing customers. . -á--CCP Soundwave
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
535
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 20:15:41 -
[3105] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:A big part of that is CCPs reliance on technical means to discover stuff like input duplication. They don't want to tell people what is or isn't kosher, because at that point EVE players will dance right up to the line. Define input duplication as X commands within 2 seconds, the typical Eve player will just set it up as X commands in 2.2 seconds.
That, combined with a penchant for doublespeak, causes CCP trouble. They say "multiboxing hasn't changed", and technically they're right. Nothing has changed about multiplexing. It's input duplication that's changed.
Input Duplication is a strange way to phrase "macro"... I assume you mean Input Broadcasting, which was clearly defined in the OP. Input Duplication is a very broad term that can mean anything from sitting a heavy weight on your spacebar (for whatever reason), to Input Broadcasting (which is now banned), to Round Robin, which is allowed.
As James said, when anyone paints a big grey line, people start to get worried as it leaves stuff open to GM interpretation and removes any accountability the GMs and the Devs have because they can ban player X for following the new rules and say "But it's always been that way" when in a previous petition, the GM stated that he was fine.
It would be silly for them to name each and every piece of software and hardware that does the same thing (as stated in the OP), so people assumed they included ISBoxers and similar when they said 'multiboxers'. This is further supported by the fact they haven't outright banned ISBoxer (or it's other modules) and similar software in the OP.
But let's assume they only meant people with multiple clients and no software. Even assuming for a moment that they didn't mean ISBoxers, CCP's own lack of clarity and transparency has brought them trouble in the past with the C6 Magnetar EWAR issue and the POS bumping, to name a few. It isn't too much to ask for a little bit of clarification on these points, especially when the ENTIRE ISBoxer community sees this change as a direct attack on a legitimate way of playing by people who don't understand the program.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Machinn Shinn
Selinir
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 21:42:35 -
[3106] - Quote
Oh no!
Sounds like some of these "Amazing" Capsuleers will have to learn how to play all over again.
+1 |
Lady Areola Fappington
2399
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 22:00:49 -
[3107] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:[
Input Duplication is a strange way to phrase "macro"... I assume you mean Input Broadcasting, which was clearly defined in the OP. Input Duplication is a very broad term that can mean anything from sitting a heavy weight on your spacebar (for whatever reason), to Input Broadcasting (which is now banned), to Round Robin, which is allowed.
As James said, when anyone paints a big grey line, people start to get worried as it leaves stuff open to GM interpretation and removes any accountability the GMs and the Devs have because they can ban player X for following the new rules and say "But it's always been that way" when in a previous petition, the GM stated that he was fine.
It would be silly for them to name each and every piece of software and hardware that does the same thing (as stated in the OP), so people assumed they included ISBoxers and similar when they said 'multiboxers'. This is further supported by the fact they haven't outright banned ISBoxer (or it's other modules) and similar software in the OP.
But let's assume they only meant people with multiple clients and no software. Even assuming for a moment that they didn't mean ISBoxers, CCP's own lack of clarity and transparency has brought them trouble in the past with the C6 Magnetar EWAR issue and the POS bumping, to name a few. It isn't too much to ask for a little bit of clarification on these points, especially when the ENTIRE ISBoxer community sees this change as a direct attack on a legitimate way of playing by people who don't understand the program.
Yes, I meant broadcasting. It's been a very, very long day and night. My caffeine system is getting too full of blood.
And I agree totally, CCP has real issues with ambiguity when it comes to rules. Part of it stems from them trying to avoid people dancing up to the line, and part of it comes from them wanting to keep detection processes secret.
We end up with this "letter vs. spirit" of the law issue. They're trying to write the spirit of what they want into the letter of the law itself, and failing.
The spirit of it, at least to me, is that CCP is fine with multiboxing, so long as you do it "by hand" with all the inherent risks involved. Regardless of how it's pulled off, they don't like seeing 30+ accounts controlled by one person all perfectly mining, ganking, bombing, etc. If you can manage it by hand more power to you.
That's also the reason why I think some of these work-arounds like round robin might come back to bite people in the backside. If the intent is to prevent people from using external "assistance" to manage multiboxing inputs, just changing the way you push the buttons may not fly. If it looks too much like broadcasting, they may just say "Welp, it's broadcasting."
It isn't really hard, but I think there are customers that you can lose in a good way and there's customers that you can lose in a bad way. If people come in and fundamentally don't like EVE Online, then I think that might be a good way of losing customers. . -á--CCP Soundwave
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
538
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 22:26:40 -
[3108] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:And I agree totally, CCP has real issues with ambiguity when it comes to rules. Part of it stems from them trying to avoid people dancing up to the line, and part of it comes from them wanting to keep detection processes secret.
We end up with this "letter vs. spirit" of the law issue. They're trying to write the spirit of what they want into the letter of the law itself, and failing.
The spirit of it, at least to me, is that CCP is fine with multiboxing, so long as you do it "by hand" with all the inherent risks involved. Regardless of how it's pulled off, they don't like seeing 30+ accounts controlled by one person all perfectly mining, ganking, bombing, etc. If you can manage it by hand more power to you.
That's also the reason why I think some of these work-arounds like round robin might come back to bite people in the backside. If the intent is to prevent people from using external "assistance" to manage multiboxing inputs, just changing the way you push the buttons may not fly. If it looks too much like broadcasting, they may just say "Welp, it's broadcasting."
Listen, I agree that bots and autominers are bad. I even agree that it's silly for a fleet to get wiped out by a bomber boxer (though we'll disagree as to why; if you don't have defensive bubbles and anti-bomber support in your fleet, you deserve to get bombed). But we're going to have to agree to disagree here that input broadcasting is the same level of evil as bots doing the same thing over and over without a human. We're also going to have to disagree that boxing is magically risk free (as I can attest when I tried to gank someone on Jita 4-4 and lost a handful of expensive pods), or that multibox mining is easy if a player wants to minimize waste to overlapping lasers and cargoholds filling up. Even multiboxing incursion fleets waste a lot of time and wasted shots unless a player is willing to ungroup all his guns and fire them one by one.
Do I support this change? No. Do I support the lack of communication by CCP? No. But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the game, or that my lack of support somehow prohibits me from playing. Nor does my playing this game and liking CCP preclude me from pointing out valid criticisms and requesting more information from them on a recent announcement that is murky at best.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
56
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 22:31:37 -
[3109] - Quote
Mister Holder wrote:Mierin Arthie wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe. How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard? for those that dont know what a kvm switch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch I think CCP is specifically targeting the use of ISBox and people who run 20 accounts to do various tasks. I.e. the guy who uses 20 ishtar accounts to run WH sites, people who run a ton of mining accounts with it, etc, etc. Seems like it boils down to if you have one computer you shouldn't be running an excessive amount of client at the same time to do mind numbing tasks.
I cant believe people are still this cumb... 20 clients mining... 20 ishtars in wh... you have no idea how they are setup clearly
for you will do this after 1jan
- i will put 40 mining barges in any belt in highsec - i will invite code ontop of it
- i will run 40 vexors with drones on jita 4-4 and kill all suspects...
Get a clue, this change doesn't change anything you are crying about - just more tedious and maybe some will stop as it stops them enjoying the game.
in the end - the ones who do it to make you cry/isk will stay and do it the ones that love this game but dont want get ****** in the a-hole by ccp as they aren't sure what is allowed and what not RR/ vfx.
there are dumbfucks at both sides of the fence.... the guys sitting on the highchairs are just watching and laughing i guess |
Trakow
Beta Switch
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 23:52:59 -
[3110] - Quote
Everyone can argue until January 1st, but really, we won't see what happens until then. One thing is for certain, there will be a crackdown and some enforcement carried out.
As for workarounds, go for it. It will like just end up in CCP getting sick and tired of dealing with workarounds and complaints that they'll just end up banning the use of ISBoxer and similar software altogether... There, job done, much easier to deal with than splitting hairs. |
|
|
ashley Eoner
381
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 01:47:33 -
[3111] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Everyone can argue until January 1st, but really, we won't see what happens until then. One thing is for certain, there will be a crackdown and some enforcement carried out.
As for workarounds, go for it. It will like just end up in CCP getting sick and tired of dealing with workarounds and complaints that they'll just end up banning the use of ISBoxer and similar software altogether... There, job done, much easier to deal with than splitting hairs.
Won't come close to stopping the complaints. Anyone with more then one account or even groupings of friends will still be reported. Actually an outright ban would result in even more reports as anyone with more then one account becomes an isboxer in their eyes. I've seen people complain about an isboxer when in reality it was just a group of people working together. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6499
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 03:45:09 -
[3112] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Trakow wrote:Everyone can argue until January 1st, but really, we won't see what happens until then. One thing is for certain, there will be a crackdown and some enforcement carried out.
As for workarounds, go for it. It will like just end up in CCP getting sick and tired of dealing with workarounds and complaints that they'll just end up banning the use of ISBoxer and similar software altogether... There, job done, much easier to deal with than splitting hairs. Won't come close to stopping the complaints. Anyone with more then one account or even groupings of friends will still be reported. Actually an outright ban would result in even more reports as anyone with more then one account becomes an isboxer in their eyes. I've seen people complain about an isboxer when in reality it was just a group of people working together.
This is great.
So will look out for: Update 2 on Multiboxing and (insert currently accepted other use of isboxer)
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
ashley Eoner
381
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 04:38:18 -
[3113] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Trakow wrote:Everyone can argue until January 1st, but really, we won't see what happens until then. One thing is for certain, there will be a crackdown and some enforcement carried out.
As for workarounds, go for it. It will like just end up in CCP getting sick and tired of dealing with workarounds and complaints that they'll just end up banning the use of ISBoxer and similar software altogether... There, job done, much easier to deal with than splitting hairs. Won't come close to stopping the complaints. Anyone with more then one account or even groupings of friends will still be reported. Actually an outright ban would result in even more reports as anyone with more then one account becomes an isboxer in their eyes. I've seen people complain about an isboxer when in reality it was just a group of people working together. This is great. So will look out for: Update 2 on Multiboxing and (insert currently accepted other use of isboxer)
Many hours ago I was running my new setup in some VGs (no isboxer involved) and I still had a dude in local crying about how I was cheating and needed banned cause CCP banned isboxer....
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 06:29:42 -
[3114] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Everyone can argue until January 1st, but really, we won't see what happens until then. One thing is for certain, there will be a crackdown and some enforcement carried out.
As for workarounds, go for it. It will like just end up in CCP getting sick and tired of dealing with workarounds and complaints that they'll just end up banning the use of ISBoxer and similar software altogether... There, job done, much easier to deal with than splitting hairs.
So for the "job done" to be, done right and avoid "splitting hairs" CCP would need to ban every product (hardware and software) that was capable of being used as a work around for the upcoming, multiplexing/broadcasting ban.
Interesting concept; I wonder how many people still use a 3 button mouse, let alone own one?
I wonder how long the list of banned items would be ?
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
|
Anke Eyrou
Hades Sisters
50
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 06:41:31 -
[3115] - Quote
What did I miss, whats the TL,DR? Thanks
I expect to get this post deleted or locked. So much for freedom of expression.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
539
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 07:08:18 -
[3116] - Quote
Anke Eyrou wrote:What did I miss, whats the TL,DR? Thanks
TL;DR:
"muh plex! isboxing is botting! ban them all!"
"No it isn't, here's evidence. Plex has always been rising thanks for hoarders and market manipulators, can't blame on boxers"
"bu-bu-but muh effort"
"Wrong. Evidence here"
"bu-bu-but muh feelings"
"Have some logic"
"bu-bu-but muh 6A3"
"Was always per toon, not per human"
"bu-bu-but it's so easy in the videos"
"You're just seeing the end result of days and weeks of preparation and effort. Same as a sword. Any idiot can pick up the end result and say 'meh, looks easy enough', but it's a much different story once you try it yourself."
"you must be so butthurt to have beaten my feelings with logic"
Drunk ediiton, so ignore spelling mistaeks.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
231
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 08:01:09 -
[3117] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Round robin sends one command to the focus window and one command to your window management software (to change to the next focus window) per click.
Macro.
(Also to preempt your next attempt at having alternate presses do the same dirty, you're then sending each click to the mouse software to control the switching of functions, so still a macro.) Technically no. It sends command A to window 1 on button press #1. It then sends command A to window 2 without changing windows on button press #2. If it sent the command and then alt-tabbed, or something similar, then yes, it would be a macro. Since it doesn't, it isn't, and you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm not sure I believe that..
If you have say...10 clients open using the scenario above. What exactly is happening on each single button click?
You even point out that you don't even need to change windows! So what exactly are you achieving? You certainly can't use it for any mining without scanning and locking a target and activating the lasers.
Same for missioning, incursions, roams etc..it's irrelevant what it is.
So what exactly are you doing? What happens in the other clients that you don't even need to look at to control?
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4817
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 08:20:47 -
[3118] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Round robin sends one command to the focus window and one command to your window management software (to change to the next focus window) per click.
Macro.
(Also to preempt your next attempt at having alternate presses do the same dirty, you're then sending each click to the mouse software to control the switching of functions, so still a macro.) Technically no. It sends command A to window 1 on button press #1. It then sends command A to window 2 without changing windows on button press #2. If it sent the command and then alt-tabbed, or something similar, then yes, it would be a macro. Since it doesn't, it isn't, and you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not sure I believe that.. If you have say...10 clients open using the scenario above. What exactly is happening on each single button click? You even point out that you don't even need to change windows! So what exactly are you achieving? You certainly can't use it for any mining without scanning and locking a target and activating the lasers. Same for missioning, incursions, roams etc..it's irrelevant what it is. So what exactly are you doing? What happens in the other clients that you don't even need to look at to control? They simply get controlled without focus. The inability to click on an inactive window is simply an OS choice, there's no reason a window can't accept input when it's not the active one. Round robin simply sends each press to the next window, it doesn't actually send an alt tab. For clicking on things, VFX handles that in much the same way (just without rotation, just multiple overviews fro example on a single window).
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
231
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 08:59:47 -
[3119] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Round robin sends one command to the focus window and one command to your window management software (to change to the next focus window) per click.
Macro.
(Also to preempt your next attempt at having alternate presses do the same dirty, you're then sending each click to the mouse software to control the switching of functions, so still a macro.) Technically no. It sends command A to window 1 on button press #1. It then sends command A to window 2 without changing windows on button press #2. If it sent the command and then alt-tabbed, or something similar, then yes, it would be a macro. Since it doesn't, it isn't, and you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not sure I believe that.. If you have say...10 clients open using the scenario above. What exactly is happening on each single button click? You even point out that you don't even need to change windows! So what exactly are you achieving? You certainly can't use it for any mining without scanning and locking a target and activating the lasers. Same for missioning, incursions, roams etc..it's irrelevant what it is. So what exactly are you doing? What happens in the other clients that you don't even need to look at to control? They simply get controlled without focus. The inability to click on an inactive window is simply an OS choice, there's no reason a window can't accept input when it's not the active one. Round robin simply sends each press to the next window, it doesn't actually send an alt tab. For clicking on things, VFX handles that in much the same way (just without rotation, just multiple overviews fro example on a single window).
So you keep saying, but it didn't come close to answering the questions I asked.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
539
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 09:27:22 -
[3120] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:They simply get controlled without focus. The inability to click on an inactive window is simply an OS choice, there's no reason a window can't accept input when it's not the active one. Round robin simply sends each press to the next window, it doesn't actually send an alt tab. For clicking on things, VFX handles that in much the same way (just without rotation, just multiple overviews fro example on a single window). So you keep saying, but it didn't come close to answering the questions I asked.
To put it in laymans terms, ISBoxer overrides the OS's need for a window to have focus in order to receive commands, much the same way that Chrome does when you are focused on browser window A and then scroll down on window B.
For your question. I have 10 clients, and they have a MJD in slot F1. I have ISBoxer set up so that when I press a key once, it will send that command to window 1. When I press the same or another key, depending on your configuration, it will send that command to window 2. By default, it does not bring window 2 into direct focus, i.e. bring to front / alt-tab.
Effectively, I can spam left-mouse button on my overview (set to ores / asteroids via overview settings) on client 1, and, with enough clicks, all the other clients will select that same target. I can then spam F1, and my mining fleet will start mining rock #1. Very inefficient, but I just chose this as one of the simpler (sorta. As I say "simpler" my roommate hits me on the head) aspects of EVE. To be completely honest, I'd be surprised if 99% of mining boxers didn't already use RRB to target separate ores to remove overlap. It makes sense, because for miners, straight broadcasting is only used when undocking, using gates, fixing skill queue, or entering a POS pw.
Your last question is somewhat of a copy of #1. There are programs that will "trick" your computer into thinking each window of whatever you have open always has focus, eliminating the need to "click to focus" on a client if you tile your window or have multiple monitors.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
|
|
handige harrie
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
283
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 11:26:37 -
[3121] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
To put it in laymans terms, ISBoxer overrides the OS's need for a window to have focus in order to receive commands, much the same way that Chrome does when you are focused on browser window A and then scroll down on window B.
For your question. I have 10 clients, and they have a MJD in slot F1. I have ISBoxer set up so that when I press a key once, it will send that command to window 1. When I press the same or another key, depending on your configuration, it will send that command to window 2. By default, it does not bring window 2 into direct focus, i.e. bring to front / alt-tab.
Effectively, I can spam left-mouse button on my overview (set to ores / asteroids via overview settings) on client 1, and, with enough clicks, all the other clients will select that same target. I can then spam F1, and my mining fleet will start mining rock #1. Very inefficient, but I just chose this as one of the simpler (sorta. As I say "simpler" my roommate hits me on the head) aspects of EVE. To be completely honest, I'd be surprised if 99% of mining boxers didn't already use RRB to target separate ores to remove overlap. It makes sense, because for miners, straight broadcasting is only used when undocking, using gates, fixing skill queue, or entering a POS pw.
Your last question is somewhat of a copy of #1. There are programs that will "trick" your computer into thinking each window of whatever you have open always has focus, eliminating the need to "click to focus" on a client if you tile your window or have multiple monitors.
So what you are saying is that you're planning to use isboxer not to manage windows/logins but use it for imput, which stated in the OP is not allowed and binding a series of action to one mouse button (click and select next client)? Using ISBoxer to broadcast your keystrokes to 1 client is still broadcasting, i've bolded the fun part.
CCP Falcon wrote:
Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters
Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇóEVE Online client settings
GÇóWindow positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
GÇóThe login process
...
TL:DR :
Starting from 01.01.2015 the use of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing is limited to activities which do not impact the Eve universe. For more details please refer to the entirety of this announcement.
Baddest poster ever
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
542
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 12:00:56 -
[3122] - Quote
handige harrie wrote:So what you are saying is that you're planning to use isboxer not to manage windows/logins but use it for imput, which stated in the OP is not allowed and binding a series of action to one mouse button (click and select next client)? Using ISBoxer to broadcast your keystrokes to 1 client is still broadcasting, i've bolded the fun part.
Jesus christ, way to cherrypick and completely ignore everything I typed. The thing expressly banned in the OP is straight broadcasting to any number of clients greater than 1. Using the software equivalent of a KVM switch was not banned, and given the fact that just about EVERYONE knows what the heck a KVM switch is, it would be rather silly to ban it without mentioning it.
By your reading of the policy, VideoFX would be banned as well as it allows players to activate multiple modules on different clients without hitting Alt-Tab (or the ISBoxer "bring x client forward" hotkey). However, VideoFX uses Direct X / Aero (in a way that I don't understand as I didn't write it myself) to simulate focus on each little box so a player can interact with them.
Please do research on whatever you're screaming your head off against, or else you'll wind up sounding like the people on the GTA V petition; whiny, immature, and ignorant at best, and downright deceitful at worst.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
231
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 12:47:25 -
[3123] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:handige harrie wrote:So what you are saying is that you're planning to use isboxer not to manage windows/logins but use it for imput, which stated in the OP is not allowed and binding a series of action to one mouse button (click and select next client)? Using ISBoxer to broadcast your keystrokes to 1 client is still broadcasting, i've bolded the fun part. Jesus christ, way to cherrypick and completely ignore everything I typed. The thing expressly banned in the OP is straight broadcasting to any number of clients greater than 1. Using the software equivalent of a KVM switch was not banned, and given the fact that just about EVERYONE knows what the heck a KVM switch is, it would be rather silly to ban it without mentioning it. By your reading of the policy, VideoFX would be banned as well as it allows players to activate multiple modules on different clients without hitting Alt-Tab (or the ISBoxer "bring x client forward" hotkey). However, VideoFX uses Direct X / Aero (in a way that I don't understand as I didn't write it myself) to simulate focus on each little box so a player can interact with them. Please do research on whatever you're screaming your head off against, or else you'll wind up sounding like the people on the GTA V petition; whiny, immature, and ignorant at best, and downright deceitful at worst.
Sorry but myself, and lots of others are reading it exactly the same way.
You're using an outside programme to activate something in the client, regardless of whether it's one at a time or not.
Regardless of what you are using, it's now banned. Well according to how most players are reading the EULA.
Oh btw, I have no idea what a KVM switch is. This is despite gaming for 30 years +, but then again i've only ever believed in playing games with what the makers provide you within the game..( joypads wiki etc excluded ) |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
255
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 13:22:19 -
[3124] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:
Regardless of what you are using, it's now banned. Well according to how most players are reading the EULA.
Bzzzt, Wrong! No amount of faith with make it true.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
231
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 13:34:22 -
[3125] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:
Regardless of what you are using, it's now banned. Well according to how most players are reading the EULA.
Bzzzt, Wrong! No amount of faith with make it true.
Well I guess the jury is out until the New Year, so the next few weeks will show who was right or wrong :) |
Komisarzzawada
The Senate and People of Rome
Northern Associates.
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 13:41:07 -
[3126] - Quote
Quote:
Sorry but myself, and lots of others are reading it exactly the same way.
You're using an outside programme to activate something in the client, regardless of whether it's one at a time or not.
Its your and other people ways of reading it, not ccp, Only ccp opion on that issue matters and it has not been calrified.
Anyway, as it has been said, mining, ratting, or other fleets will still be around, even without the isboxer, they maybe running less efficently but they'll still be around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU1vkit7FGY&index=9&list=PL6DE8DCFCFCC0DB95
This guy was doing dualboxing, without isboxer, miners can mine in very similar way, its not very difficult, alt tabing between windows is not very hard. It may take them more time, but they are still able to mine with many accounts running.
People will adapt, those who wont, will go away, but in general, this changes nothing.
So who is gaining from this change?
|
handige harrie
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
283
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 13:50:30 -
[3127] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:handige harrie wrote:So what you are saying is that you're planning to use isboxer not to manage windows/logins but use it for imput, which stated in the OP is not allowed and binding a series of action to one mouse button (click and select next client)? Using ISBoxer to broadcast your keystrokes to 1 client is still broadcasting, i've bolded the fun part. Jesus christ, way to cherrypick and completely ignore everything I typed. The thing expressly banned in the OP is straight broadcasting to any number of clients greater than 1. Using the software equivalent of a KVM switch was not banned, and given the fact that just about EVERYONE knows what the heck a KVM switch is, it would be rather silly to ban it without mentioning it. By your reading of the policy, VideoFX would be banned as well as it allows players to activate multiple modules on different clients without hitting Alt-Tab (or the ISBoxer "bring x client forward" hotkey). However, VideoFX uses Direct X / Aero (in a way that I don't understand as I didn't write it myself) to simulate focus on each little box so a player can interact with them. Please do research on whatever you're screaming your head off against, or else you'll wind up sounding like the people on the GTA V petition; whiny, immature, and ignorant at best, and downright deceitful at worst.
Except ISBoxer isn't banned and VideoFX isn't banned either, you might want to read the rules and my post again, as I never say anything of the sort. You can use VideoFX do let your windows do anything they want, but you can't interact with them using ISBoxer.
Also,
You're the one who starts his post with "Jesus Chris" and then ends his post making some weird parralel with something I've never heard about, I'm sorry but there is no screaming on my part. The only ones screaming are the ones feeling the need to defend ISboxer and try to subvert the nature of the changes made to Policies, trying to pigeonhole their views in by using the letter of the new policy instead of the intent.
Baddest poster ever
|
Miranda Ongrard
4M-CORP
Black Legion.
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 14:53:57 -
[3128] - Quote
Miranda Ongrard wrote:I use a Logitech G15 Keybord where you have 3x6 macro keys. Do useing them counts as a "hack"?
I have i key that type my charater name and tab down and select "only excat Match" in the contract window. Is that ilegal?
I got a response from CCP now
Quote:It is regrettably not possible for EVE customer support to authorize or otherwise sanction the use of any specific third party software or hardware; we are simply unable to endorse specific pieces of software or hardware as CCP has no direct control over the development and feature-set of third party programs or tools. We may, at our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software/hardware that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair game play. However, if any third party application or other software/hardware is used to gain any unfair advantage, or is used 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 player-made or other third party software at your own risk. You may find more information regarding CCP's stance and policies on third party applications, client modification and cache scraping at the following webpage: http://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/third-party-policies/
The End User License Agreement is also clear on this subject: http://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/eve-eula/
"6. CONDUCT A. Specifically Restricted Conduct 2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played. 3. You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game." The following Dev Blog concerning client modification may also be of interest to you: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/client-modification-the-eula-and-you/
Hope that help ohers |
Vala Ancalagon
Aideron Robotics
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:40:38 -
[3129] - Quote
I honestly don't think it goes far enough. They should have banned multi-boxing clients outright, for the ultimate good of the game experience. You can argue there are many activities that "need" alts to be viable, but that's just a symptom of other issues CCP should fix also. If you need an alt to scout for you, that means that someone else playing the scout is boring/undesirable, and that mechanic should be fixed. Scouts, cynos, boosters, etc should all be viable jobs to do in-game. The premise of EvE is that you are a capsuleer, not that you are x number of capsuleers. The intention is that you play through the client, while looking at it in it's standard client configuration, and with a normal keyboard/mouse (not doing special macros, robins, etc). If multi-boxing weren't possible everyone would have a more individual, and interactive experience playing with other people. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
255
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:53:23 -
[3130] - Quote
Vala Ancalagon wrote:I honestly don't think it goes far enough. They should have banned multi-boxing clients outright, for the ultimate good of the game experience.
Most of the player base would unsub. You would no longer have a game to play.
Seriously if you feel soo cheated by players having more than one account, go play some pretend MMO like star citizen.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
|
|
Vala Ancalagon
Aideron Robotics
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:03:20 -
[3131] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Vala Ancalagon wrote:I honestly don't think it goes far enough. They should have banned multi-boxing clients outright, for the ultimate good of the game experience. Most of the player base would unsub. You would no longer have a game to play. Seriously if you feel soo cheated by players having more than one account, go play some pretend MMO like star citizen.
You made a giant leap there from what I said. I don't feel cheated. I simply think it would make a better game. I don't think it will ever happen either way. YMMV. And SC isn't a game, it's a fancy video sequence xD |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
147
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:08:11 -
[3132] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Round robin sends one command to the focus window and one command to your window management software (to change to the next focus window) per click.
Macro.
(Also to preempt your next attempt at having alternate presses do the same dirty, you're then sending each click to the mouse software to control the switching of functions, so still a macro.) Technically no. It sends command A to window 1 on button press #1. It then sends command A to window 2 without changing windows on button press #2. If it sent the command and then alt-tabbed, or something similar, then yes, it would be a macro. Since it doesn't, it isn't, and you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not sure I believe that.. If you have say...10 clients open using the scenario above. What exactly is happening on each single button click? You even point out that you don't even need to change windows! So what exactly are you achieving? You certainly can't use it for any mining without scanning and locking a target and activating the lasers. Same for missioning, incursions, roams etc..it's irrelevant what it is. So what exactly are you doing? What happens in the other clients that you don't even need to look at to control? They simply get controlled without focus. The inability to click on an inactive window is simply an OS choice, there's no reason a window can't accept input when it's not the active one. Round robin simply sends each press to the next window, it doesn't actually send an alt tab. For clicking on things, VFX handles that in much the same way (just without rotation, just multiple overviews fro example on a single window).
I'm trying to understand this myself. I've watched this video that was created by the creator of ISBoxer, Joe Thaler, a couple of times and it seems to do as you described.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX6gsNLMsVI
For those who watch the video, go to the 2 minute mark to see how ISBoxers can set up and use round robin. Also, don't freak about about the input broadcasting he describes, you can turn that off.
Now, my understanding of the EULA is that all commands must be entered using the EVE client. So what you are telling me is that round robin bypasses the EVE client and injects the commands directly into the EVE client's memory space? Isn't that type of injection a violation of the EULA? I know that people who use injection bots get a permanent ban for client modification instead of a 30 day ban for botting if caught botting using such a bot on a first offense.
Not trying to be a smart aleck here; just trying to understand how this works.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4819
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:13:01 -
[3133] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:You're using an outside programme to activate something in the client, regardless of whether it's one at a time or not. This is complete and uter rubbish. CCP have explicitly stated that the thing being banned is precisely to do with where it's one at a time or not. If it's one client and 1 commands per push, it's allowed. I really don't care if you've read the EULA and think it shouldn't be, that's the way it is.
handige harrie wrote:Except ISBoxer isn't banned and VideoFX isn't banned either, you might want to read the rules and my post again, as I never say anything of the sort. You can use VideoFX do let your windows do anything they want, but you can't interact with them using ISBoxer. VideoFX *is* ISBoxer genius. It's a feature of ISBoxer. ISBoxer itself is not banned (as you've rightly pointed out), only 1 feature (broadcasting) is. Strictly speaking, absolutely zero features of ISBoxer are banned, since ISBoxer is a configuration tool. Broadcasting is a feature of Inner Space, the multiboxing software which also contains other features such as window and CPU management, round robin keybinds, VideoFX, etc. The whole package generally gets called ISBoxer by Joe public.
So yes, you can continue to interact with VideoFX using ISBoxer. The only thing that can;t be done is broadcasting, which for most multiboxers is a "meh..." change.
Vala Ancalagon wrote:I honestly don't think it goes far enough. They should have banned multi-boxing clients outright, for the ultimate good of the game experience. You can argue there are many activities that "need" alts to be viable, but that's just a symptom of other issues CCP should fix also. If you need an alt to scout for you, that means that someone else playing the scout is boring/undesirable, and that mechanic should be fixed. Scouts, cynos, boosters, etc should all be viable jobs to do in-game. The premise of EvE is that you are a capsuleer, not that you are x number of capsuleers. The intention is that you play through the client, while looking at it in it's standard client configuration, and with a normal keyboard/mouse (not doing special macros, robins, etc). If multi-boxing weren't possible everyone would have a more individual, and interactive experience playing with other people. Except CCP pushes alts as a primary feature. Things like "power of two" show this is clearly their aim, so changing that would pretty much be kissing goodbye to EVE. Their financials aren't exactly in the healthiest of positions anyway, but nuking the vast majority of their playerbase would definitely be a bad move.
Vala Ancalagon wrote:2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
This is pretty clear that you have to have focus on the client to issue a command, and that you should be clicking it yourself. Otherwise you have just changed the way it is played. That would also make several hundred pieces of third party software, including things like TS and mumble against the rules. Anything through the IGB would definitely be against the rules.
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
4819
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:28:04 -
[3134] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:I'm trying to understand this myself. I've watched this video that was created by the creator of ISBoxer, Joe Thaler, a couple of times and it seems to do as you described. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX6gsNLMsVIFor those who watch the video, go to the 2 minute mark to see how ISBoxers can set up and use round robin. Also, don't freak about about the input broadcasting he describes, you can turn that off. Yep, ignoring the broadcasting, that war stop keybind is a round robin. Imagine that is set to "Press F1" instead, and it will tell each client in turn to fire it's mining laser for example.
Rosewalker wrote:Now, my understanding of the EULA is that all commands must be entered using the EVE client. So what you are telling me is that round robin bypasses the EVE client and injects the commands directly into the EVE client's memory space? Isn't that type of injection a violation of the EULA? I know that people who use injection bots get a permanent ban for client modification instead of a 30 day ban for botting if caught botting using such a bot on a first offense.
Not trying to be a smart aleck here; just trying to understand how this works. That's a misunderstanding of the technology. When you press a key all it does is fire an even to the active window saying "Hey man, this key got pressed". There are a multitude of ways to do the same thing to an inactive window (global keybinds for example). The windows key is a prime example of this. While the program that intercepts that command is just a program running on the machine, you can have any window active and explorer will receive that command.
A round robin does exactly that, it simply fires the command to the inactive EVE client next on it's list. No memory interactions with the client occur, it simply sends off the command as if you've pressed that key and the EVE client responds as it normally would.
Another example of interacting with EVE from a third party controller is VoiceAttack. You can turn speech into commands, so you say "Fire lasers!" and it can fire your lasers, or "damage control" and it toggles your damage control. It does this in exactly the same way, by firing off the set keybind to the client.
Botting is a completely different thing. Botting uses various methods from DLL injection or memory reads to screen scrapes and OCR to automate gameplay. It has the ability to not just control a client but make it's own decisions based on circumstance. In contrast, a multiboxed character can only do exactly what a player tells it to. If you decide to go off for an hour, it will just sit there idly waiting for your return just like if you left a single client sitting there.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Vala Ancalagon
Aideron Robotics
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:37:08 -
[3135] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Vala Ancalagon wrote:I honestly don't think it goes far enough. They should have banned multi-boxing clients outright, for the ultimate good of the game experience. You can argue there are many activities that "need" alts to be viable, but that's just a symptom of other issues CCP should fix also. If you need an alt to scout for you, that means that someone else playing the scout is boring/undesirable, and that mechanic should be fixed. Scouts, cynos, boosters, etc should all be viable jobs to do in-game. The premise of EvE is that you are a capsuleer, not that you are x number of capsuleers. The intention is that you play through the client, while looking at it in it's standard client configuration, and with a normal keyboard/mouse (not doing special macros, robins, etc). If multi-boxing weren't possible everyone would have a more individual, and interactive experience playing with other people. Except CCP pushes alts as a primary feature. Things like "power of two" show this is clearly their aim, so changing that would pretty much be kissing goodbye to EVE. Their financials aren't exactly in the healthiest of positions anyway, but nuking the vast majority of their playerbase would definitely be a bad move. Vala Ancalagon wrote:2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
This is pretty clear that you have to have focus on the client to issue a command, and that you should be clicking it yourself. Otherwise you have just changed the way it is played. That would also make several hundred pieces of third party software, including things like TS and mumble against the rules. Anything through the IGB would definitely be against the rules.
I agree, they've pushed multiboxing and it will have to stay because of it. I just personally think that was a mistake gameplay-wise, but probably a good one for them financially.
I don't agree that TS violates the rules, it's talking about changing the way the game is played THROUGH the client. TS doesn't have anything to do with the client or how buttons are pushed in it. The IGB itself can't alter or input anything to the client for gameplay so that isn't relevant either. And it's functionality CCP provides themselves. |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
147
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 17:11:46 -
[3136] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Rosewalker wrote:Now, my understanding of the EULA is that all commands must be entered using the EVE client. So what you are telling me is that round robin bypasses the EVE client and injects the commands directly into the EVE client's memory space? Isn't that type of injection a violation of the EULA? I know that people who use injection bots get a permanent ban for client modification instead of a 30 day ban for botting if caught botting using such a bot on a first offense.
Not trying to be a smart aleck here; just trying to understand how this works. That's a misunderstanding of the technology. When you press a key all it does is fire an even to the active window saying "Hey man, this key got pressed". There are a multitude of ways to do the same thing to an inactive window (global keybinds for example). The windows key is a prime example of this. While the program that intercepts that command is just a program running on the machine, you can have any window active and explorer will receive that command. A round robin does exactly that, it simply fires the command to the inactive EVE client next on it's list. No memory interactions with the client occur, it simply sends off the command as if you've pressed that key and the EVE client responds as it normally would. Another example of interacting with EVE from a third party controller is VoiceAttack. You can turn speech into commands, so you say "Fire lasers!" and it can fire your lasers, or "damage control" and it toggles your damage control. It does this in exactly the same way, by firing off the set keybind to the client. Botting is a completely different thing. Botting uses various methods from DLL injection or memory reads to screen scrapes and OCR to automate gameplay. It has the ability to not just control a client but make it's own decisions based on circumstance. In contrast, a multiboxed character can only do exactly what a player tells it to. If you decide to go off for an hour, it will just sit there idly waiting for your return just like if you left a single client sitting there.
Okay, that makes a lot of sense. I also like the idea we just have to worry about what the software does and not how it does its magic in order to comply with the EULA.
One more question I got, and it comes from reading the security dev blog on Friday. The way you describe how the round robin works is what I took from the video. That is, think of the WoW spell as F1 and it just cycles through the clients. Before the dev blog, I would have thought it was okay. The round robin performs 2 actions: one action (pressing F1) in the EVE client and one action (selecting and storing the next EVE client to interact with) in ISBoxer. But in the dev blog, CCP Grimmi wrote:
CCP Grimmi wrote:
Any use of macros to interact with the game world is prohibited by EULA now, and has always been.
Is that going to mean that because the round robin performs multiple actions, thus qualifying as a macro, that just because one of those actions interacts with the EVE game world, that the entire round robin is a EULA-violating macro?
Okay, that's kind of a rhetorical question, because I don't think we really know. Being really cautious, that's how I'd read it, anyway. At least for the first few days until I saw if other people were getting banned or not.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4819
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 17:27:40 -
[3137] - Quote
Vala Ancalagon wrote:I agree, they've pushed multiboxing and it will have to stay because of it. I just personally think that was a mistake gameplay-wise, but probably a good one for them financially. Indeed. It's a bit late to stop it now, so IMHO they should embrace it. Make gameplay benefit a solo player more (which is relatively easy as multiboxers, even broadcast ones have divided attention) than a multiboxer and encourage people to choose to play with less character rather than banning them from doing so.
Vala Ancalagon wrote:I don't agree that TS violates the rules, it's talking about changing the way the game is played THROUGH the client. TS doesn't have anything to do with the client or how buttons are pushed in it. The IGB itself can't alter or input anything to the client for gameplay so that isn't relevant either. And it's functionality CCP provides themselves. This has been covered before. TS, vent and mumble have overlay features so you can have you game window display info from them. This is technically a EULA violation (and I believe CCP state the themselves in their third party policy).
As for IGB, you certainly can interact with the game. Eve-market data for example allows you to automatically open up the market window to a new product every 3 seconds so a cache scraper can get new data. Several sites also offer the ability to open fittings. Route calculation sites allow you to click on system and it adds them to your autopilot, etc.
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
4819
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 17:34:53 -
[3138] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:One more question I got, and it comes from reading the security dev blog on Friday. The way you describe how the round robin works is what I took from the video. That is, think of the WoW spell as F1 and it just cycles through the clients. Before the dev blog, I would have thought it was okay. The round robin performs 2 actions: one action (pressing F1) in the EVE client and one action (selecting and storing the next EVE client to interact with) in ISBoxer. But in the dev blog, CCP Grimmi wrote: CCP Grimmi wrote:Any use of macros to interact with the game world is prohibited by EULA now, and has always been. Is that going to mean that because the round robin performs multiple actions, thus qualifying as a macro, that just because one of those actions interacts with the EVE game world, that the entire round robin is a EULA-violating macro? Okay, that's kind of a rhetorical question, because I don't think we really know. Being really cautious, that's how I'd read it, anyway. At least for the first few days until I saw if other people were getting banned or not. Round robin doesn't really send a command to ISBoxer like that. ISBoxer can see that you've pressed a key, but it's still just one action that key is producing.
If it were a violation, it would also mean other things are too. Think about if you have Teamspeak in the background, and you have CTRL set to the talk key. You press CTRL, and Teamspeak in the background opens up the mic, but whatever CTRL is bound to in EVE also happens. 1 key, 2 actions. What Grimmi means by macros is using more complex keybinds which allow you to automate gameplay. Where it's a really thin line is for people doing things like binding all smartbombs to one key, or all defensive modules to one key. Historically that's always been allowed, and supposedly nothing in that regard has changed. But is it really still allowed now?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Opertone
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
322
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 18:27:48 -
[3139] - Quote
RMT, automation, isboxer...
it is so near to milking the cash of the CCP games, where some pan asian bad guys try to manipulate in game assets of a hard cash subscription game.
Tons of other games have been violated before, player base gouged of their money, with the game world becoming a rotting bot, macro, rmt reality. This process of violating online experience has grown into an industry.
Eve is a temptation for them. The long going universe can be farmed a lot longer. Loyal player base can not run off to a generic ELF-DRESSING game. Lots of stolen gameplay to be had.
This post sums up why the 'best' work with DCM inc.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4819
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 18:55:50 -
[3140] - Quote
Opertone wrote:RMT, automation, isboxer...
it is so near to milking the cash of the CCP games, where some pan asian bad guys try to manipulate in game assets of a hard cash subscription game.
Tons of other games have been violated before, player base gouged of their money, with the game world becoming a rotting bot, macro, rmt reality. This process of violating online experience has grown into an industry.
Eve is a temptation for them. The long going universe can be farmed a lot longer. Loyal player base can not run off to a generic ELF-DRESSING game. Lots of stolen gameplay to be had. This thread has nothing to do with automation or RMT. As for "milking the cash of CCP games", CCP benefits cash wise from players who multibox. A consumed PLEX is great for them. If the fact that a multiboxeing player can make a moderate amount of isk is such a problem, then how come you aren't having a whine about traders, scammers and gambling site operatros (subset of scammers) who use significantly less accounts (and thus consume less PLEX netting CCP less money) and yet have trillions of isk.
tl;dr, you're an idiot.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Ki-Tarn Zilkia
EVE University
Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 19:23:09 -
[3141] - Quote
Pandora Myuki wrote:Okay it's pretty simple, if you have 2 or more accounts logged INTO EVE and you PRESS ONE KEY OR MAKE ONE CLICK to make all the accounts do the same thing such as warping all your accounts to a station at the same time or launching 20 bombs at a target you will be banned.t IT IS A VERY SIMPLE RULE.
Um you can already do that in game with the command warp fleet weither it's multiple accounts or multiple players, won't launch weapons at once but can move multiple ships at the same time if they are aligned. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4600
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 19:34:24 -
[3142] - Quote
Ki-Tarn Zilkia wrote:Pandora Myuki wrote:Okay it's pretty simple, if you have 2 or more accounts logged INTO EVE and you PRESS ONE KEY OR MAKE ONE CLICK to make all the accounts do the same thing such as warping all your accounts to a station at the same time or launching 20 bombs at a target you will be banned.t IT IS A VERY SIMPLE RULE. Um you can already do that in game with the command warp fleet weither it's multiple accounts or multiple players, won't launch weapons at once but can move multiple ships at the same time if they are aligned.
If you can't see the difference between fleet warp, and using third party software to make multiple accounts do something, then I think you don't have anything useful to contribute to the discussion.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
147
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 19:46:38 -
[3143] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Rosewalker wrote:One more question I got, and it comes from reading the security dev blog on Friday. The way you describe how the round robin works is what I took from the video. That is, think of the WoW spell as F1 and it just cycles through the clients. Before the dev blog, I would have thought it was okay. The round robin performs 2 actions: one action (pressing F1) in the EVE client and one action (selecting and storing the next EVE client to interact with) in ISBoxer. But in the dev blog, CCP Grimmi wrote: CCP Grimmi wrote:Any use of macros to interact with the game world is prohibited by EULA now, and has always been. Is that going to mean that because the round robin performs multiple actions, thus qualifying as a macro, that just because one of those actions interacts with the EVE game world, that the entire round robin is a EULA-violating macro? Okay, that's kind of a rhetorical question, because I don't think we really know. Being really cautious, that's how I'd read it, anyway. At least for the first few days until I saw if other people were getting banned or not. Round robin doesn't really send a command to ISBoxer like that. ISBoxer can see that you've pressed a key, but it's still just one action that key is producing. If it were a violation, it would also mean other things are too. Think about if you have Teamspeak in the background, and you have CTRL set to the talk key. You press CTRL, and Teamspeak in the background opens up the mic, but whatever CTRL is bound to in EVE also happens. 1 key, 2 actions. What Grimmi means by macros is using more complex keybinds which allow you to automate gameplay. Where it's a really thin line is for people doing things like binding all smartbombs to one key, or all defensive modules to one key. Historically that's always been allowed, and supposedly nothing in that regard has changed. But is it really still allowed now?
Your using Teamspeak as the example is interesting. If you look in the Third Party Policies, Teamspeak is specifically mentioned as an app that technically violates the EULA, but CCP doesn't really care about. Or at least they won't enforce the EULA against its use.
Also, you might want to look at what CCP is saying about the more complex keybinds. CCP Random of Team Security was asked on Twitter by CSM member Steve Ronuken about turning all your hardeners with one hotkey on a mouse. He said that was the definition of a macro. And on Sunday, Mike Azariah said on EVE Radio that he was going to have to stop using his macro that turns on all his hardeners at the same time. So I don't think it's allowed anymore. I personally think that means we have to look at the wording in the EULA, ToS, etc, and forget about any rulings that are currently posted on the forums. CCP Random on Twitter basically stated that, and I think CCP Grimmi said it clearer than you can in a tweet that limits you to 140 characters max.
This actually isn't just a multiboxing question. I originally started asking around about this because someone asked me about a market application called Evernus. I've asked around and the fast copy option really looks sketchy and does just about the same as the ISBoxer round robin feature. I think the only difference is that Evernus performs multiple actions in the EVE client, while the ISBoxer round robin only does one, with all the other magic happening in ISBoxer. I don't know the final answer because CCP Foxfour is on vacation.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
ashley Eoner
384
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 20:37:07 -
[3144] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:handige harrie wrote:So what you are saying is that you're planning to use isboxer not to manage windows/logins but use it for imput, which stated in the OP is not allowed and binding a series of action to one mouse button (click and select next client)? Using ISBoxer to broadcast your keystrokes to 1 client is still broadcasting, i've bolded the fun part. Jesus christ, way to cherrypick and completely ignore everything I typed. The thing expressly banned in the OP is straight broadcasting to any number of clients greater than 1. Using the software equivalent of a KVM switch was not banned, and given the fact that just about EVERYONE knows what the heck a KVM switch is, it would be rather silly to ban it without mentioning it. By your reading of the policy, VideoFX would be banned as well as it allows players to activate multiple modules on different clients without hitting Alt-Tab (or the ISBoxer "bring x client forward" hotkey). However, VideoFX uses Direct X / Aero (in a way that I don't understand as I didn't write it myself) to simulate focus on each little box so a player can interact with them. Please do research on whatever you're screaming your head off against, or else you'll wind up sounding like the people on the GTA V petition; whiny, immature, and ignorant at best, and downright deceitful at worst.
Even worse this fellow wants to ban mice and keyboards..
Every click of the mouse or keyboard is a broadcast according to his definition.
Vala Ancalagon wrote:I honestly don't think it goes far enough. They should have banned multi-boxing clients outright, for the ultimate good of the game experience. You can argue there are many activities that "need" alts to be viable, but that's just a symptom of other issues CCP should fix also. If you need an alt to scout for you, that means that someone else playing the scout is boring/undesirable, and that mechanic should be fixed. Scouts, cynos, boosters, etc should all be viable jobs to do in-game. The premise of EvE is that you are a capsuleer, not that you are x number of capsuleers. The intention is that you play through the client, while looking at it in it's standard client configuration, and with a normal keyboard/mouse (not doing special macros, robins, etc). If multi-boxing weren't possible everyone would have a more individual, and interactive experience playing with other people.
Also, this portion of the EULA:
6. CONDUCT
A. Specifically Restricted Conduct
2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
This is pretty clear that you have to have focus on the client to issue a command, and that you should be clicking it yourself. Otherwise you have just changed the way it is played. So now according to you my OS is illegal to use with EVE. Fantastic...
God I saw this miles away. People were going to scramble to make arguments for making every aspect of multiboxing illegal while in the process making non multiboxer gameplay also illegal. lol
CCP this is where this is heading. You try to appease the ignorant masses and they just keep pushing for more ridiculousness. They won't be happy ever because they're too busy obsessing over the possibility of someone somewhere possibly having a slight advantage over them. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
546
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 20:44:08 -
[3145] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Your using Teamspeak as the example is interesting. If you look in the Third Party Policies, Teamspeak is specifically mentioned as an app that technically violates the EULA, but CCP doesn't really care about. Or at least they won't enforce the EULA against its use. Also, you might want to look at what CCP is saying about the more complex keybinds. CCP Random of Team Security was asked on Twitter by CSM member Steve Ronuken about turning all your hardeners with one hotkey on a mouse. He said that was the definition of a macro. And on Sunday, Mike Azariah said on EVE Radio that he was going to have to stop using his macro that turns on all his hardeners at the same time. So I don't think it's allowed anymore. I personally think that means we have to look at the wording in the EULA, ToS, etc, and forget about any rulings that are currently posted on the forums. CCP Random on Twitter basically stated that, and I think CCP Grimmi said it clearer than you can in a tweet that limits you to 140 characters max. This actually isn't just a multiboxing question. I originally started asking around about this because someone asked me about a market application called Evernus. I've asked around and the fast copy option really looks sketchy and does just about the same as the ISBoxer round robin feature. I think the only difference is that Evernus performs multiple actions in the EVE client, while the ISBoxer round robin only does one, with all the other magic happening in ISBoxer. I don't know the final answer because CCP Foxfour is on vacation.
Yes, Teamspeak and other programs violate the EULA. This has been known for some time. Speaking of history repeating itself, CCP ran into the same language issue / clarity issue when they said "Cache scraping is bannable, but we don't ban you, but if you bot and scrape, we will ban you" leaving many to wonder why mention cache scraping to begin with, and caused a lot of players who were trying to play by the rules (same as multiboxers) to wonder what CCP was doing, and wonder at the MASSIVE grey line they created. As before, any grey line is bad for CCP and the players. It's bad for players trying to stick in the line as they now don't dare get anywhere near the Russia-sized line, and it's bad for CCP as players will either get banned for trying to follow the new rules but inadvertently cross over, and by people who don't want to go through the massive effort it now takes to stay Kosher, so they'll leave and tell their friends to not play.
As we've (and you too) have mentioned before, Twitter is not an official platform and any announcement on Twitter is "meh" until they post it on a dev blog or the forum. Steve used specifically vague language that could have been interpreted as not sending straight F1-F8, but using the same mechanics that bots use as Lucas mentioned via DLL scripting and screen scrapes. Until CCP comes out and says "Yeah, no F1-F8" I'd take anything Twitter says with a grain of salt, especially since Seagull and Fozzie lied to us on Twitter. Macros can mean anything from "F1-F8" to "when I get damaged, turn on stuff". I think we're going to have to have CCP split the definition of "macro" here into "straight input macro", i.e. "F1-F8", and "non-straight input macro", i.e. "Turn on stuff when I get damaged" or "When player presses MJD, also turn on ECM". I know that wasn't the best examples, but they were the best I could come up with in a short amount of time.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
58
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 20:55:08 -
[3146] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:
God I saw this miles away. People were going to scramble to make arguments for making every aspect of multiboxing illegal while in the process making non multiboxer gameplay also illegal. lol
CCP this is where this is heading. You try to appease the ignorant masses and they just keep pushing for more ridiculousness. They won't be happy ever because they're too busy obsessing over the possibility of someone somewhere possibly having a slight advantage over them.
the truth.... |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
546
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 20:55:43 -
[3147] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Even worse this fellow wants to ban mice and keyboards..
Every click of the mouse or keyboard is a broadcast according to his definition.
Even more cherry-picking but with a side of straw-man. Using a simple keyboard and mouse with no other program attached is not broadcasting. I don't want to ban mice and keyboards, but I want CCP to expand on G510s and G600's macro keys that cannot automate gameplay and simply send a single string of keys. A single click that does a single action is an "input". Nothing more.
ashley Eoner wrote:So now according to you my OS is illegal to use with EVE. Fantastic...
God I saw this miles away. People were going to scramble to make arguments for making every aspect of multiboxing illegal while in the process making non multiboxer gameplay also illegal. lol
CCP this is where this is heading. You try to appease the ignorant masses and they just keep pushing for more ridiculousness. They won't be happy ever because they're too busy obsessing over the possibility of someone somewhere possibly having a slight advantage over them.
Even though you used a straw-man fallacy, I don't have any arguments with this. We saw the same exact thing happen in the Cloak change thread for bombers, where people called for outright removal of the Stealth Bomber class. People will not be happy until everyone has 500m SP toons, is limited to T1 battleships max, no implants, no ABC BCs, and every system is a 1.0 system with no aggression allowed. Thankfully, those wingnuts are a very, very, small minority, and need to be told to HTFU. I just wish CCP told the idiots who cry "waah he ganked my 20b freighter", "waah I don't know what ECM is", "waah i don't understand how complicated ISBoxer is", and "waah my AFK fleet in nullsec got bombed" to HTFU as well.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
ashley Eoner
384
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:08:50 -
[3148] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Even worse this fellow wants to ban mice and keyboards..
Every click of the mouse or keyboard is a broadcast according to his definition. Even more cherry-picking but with a side of straw-man. Using a simple keyboard and mouse with no other program attached is not broadcasting. I don't want to ban mice and keyboards, but I want CCP to expand on G510s and G600's macro keys that cannot automate gameplay and simply send a single string of keys. A single click that does a single action is an "input". Nothing more. ashley Eoner wrote:So now according to you my OS is illegal to use with EVE. Fantastic...
God I saw this miles away. People were going to scramble to make arguments for making every aspect of multiboxing illegal while in the process making non multiboxer gameplay also illegal. lol
CCP this is where this is heading. You try to appease the ignorant masses and they just keep pushing for more ridiculousness. They won't be happy ever because they're too busy obsessing over the possibility of someone somewhere possibly having a slight advantage over them. Even though you used a straw-man fallacy, I don't have any arguments with this. We saw the same exact thing happen in the Cloak change thread for bombers, where people called for outright removal of the Stealth Bomber class. People will not be happy until everyone has 500m SP toons, is limited to T1 battleships max, no implants, no ABC BCs, and every system is a 1.0 system with no aggression allowed. Thankfully, those wingnuts are a very, very, small minority, and need to be told to HTFU. I just wish CCP told the idiots who cry "waah he ganked my 20b freighter", "waah I don't know what ECM is", "waah i don't understand how complicated ISBoxer is", and "waah my AFK fleet in nullsec got bombed" to HTFU as well.
I'm not even talking to you. I'm responding to the ridiculousness you're quoting. So either delete or try again because you're only further pointing out my point.
There's no strawman the people are in this very thread. Just read it. |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
147
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:09:23 -
[3149] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:As we've (and you too) have mentioned before, Twitter is not an official platform and any announcement on Twitter is "meh" until they post it on a dev blog or the forum. Steve used specifically vague language that could have been interpreted as not sending straight F1-F8, but using the same mechanics that bots use as Lucas mentioned via DLL scripting and screen scrapes. Until CCP comes out and says "Yeah, no F1-F8" I'd take anything Twitter says with a grain of salt, especially since Seagull and Fozzie lied to us on Twitter. Macros can mean anything from "F1-F8" to "when I get damaged, turn on stuff". I think we're going to have to have CCP split the definition of "macro" here into "straight input macro", i.e. "F1-F8", and "non-straight input macro", i.e. "Turn on stuff when I get damaged" or "When player presses MJD, also turn on ECM". I know that wasn't the best examples, but they were the best I could come up with in a short amount of time.
That's right, it's not official. That means you can't paste a link to Twitter into a petition to protest a ban and have it count for anything. If you are looking at a ban defense, this won't help. But the objective should be to avoid getting banned in the first place. That means trying to figure out where the line that will get you banned is, not playing CYA if you cross the line. The tweets from CCP Random and the dev blog from CCP Grimmi help do that.
To my way of thinking, not getting banned is much preferable to having to file a petition. You may disagree.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
451
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:09:33 -
[3150] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Even worse this fellow wants to ban mice and keyboards..
Every click of the mouse or keyboard is a broadcast according to his definition. Even more cherry-picking but with a side of straw-man. Using a simple keyboard and mouse with no other program attached is not broadcasting. I don't want to ban mice and keyboards, but I want CCP to expand on G510s and G600's macro keys that cannot automate gameplay and simply send a single string of keys. A single click that does a single action is an "input". Nothing more.
This is a big one.
CCP really needs to lay out a very firm line on the sort of thing allowed or banned, and add the definitions they use to determine bannable behavior to the EULA.
Ex:
Merrian-Webster: wrote:
macro noun
computers : a set of instructions that causes a computer to perform a series of tasks
This means that to be a macro, it would require timers or other series instructions from a single input. On the other hand, you have the common definition of macro in gaming, which includes simple combination keybinds, like f1-f8 all going from the same keypress or mouse button. And then you have things like f1 on depression and alt tab on release, which is technically a single action per input, but physically related inputs. Then you have the straight up "this button automagically activates reps at 1s intervals"
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
|
|
Vala Ancalagon
Aideron Robotics
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:34:45 -
[3151] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:handige harrie wrote:So what you are saying is that you're planning to use isboxer not to manage windows/logins but use it for imput, which stated in the OP is not allowed and binding a series of action to one mouse button (click and select next client)? Using ISBoxer to broadcast your keystrokes to 1 client is still broadcasting, i've bolded the fun part. Jesus christ, way to cherrypick and completely ignore everything I typed. The thing expressly banned in the OP is straight broadcasting to any number of clients greater than 1. Using the software equivalent of a KVM switch was not banned, and given the fact that just about EVERYONE knows what the heck a KVM switch is, it would be rather silly to ban it without mentioning it. By your reading of the policy, VideoFX would be banned as well as it allows players to activate multiple modules on different clients without hitting Alt-Tab (or the ISBoxer "bring x client forward" hotkey). However, VideoFX uses Direct X / Aero (in a way that I don't understand as I didn't write it myself) to simulate focus on each little box so a player can interact with them. Please do research on whatever you're screaming your head off against, or else you'll wind up sounding like the people on the GTA V petition; whiny, immature, and ignorant at best, and downright deceitful at worst. Even worse this fellow wants to ban mice and keyboards.. Every click of the mouse or keyboard is a broadcast according to his definition. Vala Ancalagon wrote:I honestly don't think it goes far enough. They should have banned multi-boxing clients outright, for the ultimate good of the game experience. You can argue there are many activities that "need" alts to be viable, but that's just a symptom of other issues CCP should fix also. If you need an alt to scout for you, that means that someone else playing the scout is boring/undesirable, and that mechanic should be fixed. Scouts, cynos, boosters, etc should all be viable jobs to do in-game. The premise of EvE is that you are a capsuleer, not that you are x number of capsuleers. The intention is that you play through the client, while looking at it in it's standard client configuration, and with a normal keyboard/mouse (not doing special macros, robins, etc). If multi-boxing weren't possible everyone would have a more individual, and interactive experience playing with other people.
Also, this portion of the EULA:
6. CONDUCT
A. Specifically Restricted Conduct
2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
This is pretty clear that you have to have focus on the client to issue a command, and that you should be clicking it yourself. Otherwise you have just changed the way it is played. So now according to you my OS is illegal to use with EVE. Fantastic... God I saw this miles away. People were going to scramble to make arguments for making every aspect of multiboxing illegal while in the process making non multiboxer gameplay also illegal. lol CCP this is where this is heading. You try to appease the ignorant masses and they just keep pushing for more ridiculousness. They won't be happy ever because they're too busy obsessing over the possibility of someone somewhere possibly having a slight advantage over them.
Not really, I'm simply saying that CCP's rules are pretty much self-explanatory. You obviously have to use an OS, because it is designed to run on one. Kind of a disingenuous argument there. What CCP wants is obvious: use the client as intended, don't use things that allow you to do in the client what you can't do with the basic mouse/keyboard setup. Some common sense goes a long way here, and people pushing the "limits" know they are doing so. Those claiming that they don't know are also disingenuous for the most part. For those that truly don't have a clue, the multi-strike rules will have to suffice.
As for my dislike of multi-boxing, it has nothing to do with disadvantage or whatever you believe it is. I just think it would make the game better overall from a social and teamwork perspective. I'd like to see boosters be an interesting and interactive part of fleets. I'd like there to be an interesting reason to be the cyno character for your fleet. The fact there it isn't is a mechanic problem that drives people to rely on multi-boxing. And I stated that getting rid of multi-box would never happen, it was simply a personal view. CCP is heavily invested in multi-boxing financially at this point. |
ashley Eoner
384
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:36:15 -
[3152] - Quote
Vala Ancalagon wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:handige harrie wrote:So what you are saying is that you're planning to use isboxer not to manage windows/logins but use it for imput, which stated in the OP is not allowed and binding a series of action to one mouse button (click and select next client)? Using ISBoxer to broadcast your keystrokes to 1 client is still broadcasting, i've bolded the fun part. Jesus christ, way to cherrypick and completely ignore everything I typed. The thing expressly banned in the OP is straight broadcasting to any number of clients greater than 1. Using the software equivalent of a KVM switch was not banned, and given the fact that just about EVERYONE knows what the heck a KVM switch is, it would be rather silly to ban it without mentioning it. By your reading of the policy, VideoFX would be banned as well as it allows players to activate multiple modules on different clients without hitting Alt-Tab (or the ISBoxer "bring x client forward" hotkey). However, VideoFX uses Direct X / Aero (in a way that I don't understand as I didn't write it myself) to simulate focus on each little box so a player can interact with them. Please do research on whatever you're screaming your head off against, or else you'll wind up sounding like the people on the GTA V petition; whiny, immature, and ignorant at best, and downright deceitful at worst. Even worse this fellow wants to ban mice and keyboards.. Every click of the mouse or keyboard is a broadcast according to his definition. Vala Ancalagon wrote:I honestly don't think it goes far enough. They should have banned multi-boxing clients outright, for the ultimate good of the game experience. You can argue there are many activities that "need" alts to be viable, but that's just a symptom of other issues CCP should fix also. If you need an alt to scout for you, that means that someone else playing the scout is boring/undesirable, and that mechanic should be fixed. Scouts, cynos, boosters, etc should all be viable jobs to do in-game. The premise of EvE is that you are a capsuleer, not that you are x number of capsuleers. The intention is that you play through the client, while looking at it in it's standard client configuration, and with a normal keyboard/mouse (not doing special macros, robins, etc). If multi-boxing weren't possible everyone would have a more individual, and interactive experience playing with other people.
Also, this portion of the EULA:
6. CONDUCT
A. Specifically Restricted Conduct
2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
This is pretty clear that you have to have focus on the client to issue a command, and that you should be clicking it yourself. Otherwise you have just changed the way it is played. So now according to you my OS is illegal to use with EVE. Fantastic... God I saw this miles away. People were going to scramble to make arguments for making every aspect of multiboxing illegal while in the process making non multiboxer gameplay also illegal. lol CCP this is where this is heading. You try to appease the ignorant masses and they just keep pushing for more ridiculousness. They won't be happy ever because they're too busy obsessing over the possibility of someone somewhere possibly having a slight advantage over them. Not really, I'm simply saying that CCP's rules are pretty much self-explanatory. You obviously have to use an OS, because it is designed to run on one. Kind of a disingenuous argument there. What CCP wants is obvious: use the client as intended, don't use things that allow you to do in the client what you can't do with the basic mouse/keyboard setup. Some common sense goes a lot way here, and people pushing the "limits" know they are doing so. Them claiming that they don't know is also disingenuous. For those that truly don't have a clue, the multi-strike rules will have to suffice. As for my dislike of multi-boxing, it has nothing to do with disadvantage or whatever you believe it is. I just think it would make the game better overall from a social and teamwork perspective. I'd like to see boosters be an interesting and interactive part of fleets. I'd like there to be an interesting reason to be the cyno character for your fleet. The fact there it isn't is a mechanic problem that drives people to rely on multi-boxing. And I stated that getting rid of multi-box would never happen, it was simply a personal view. CCP is heavily invested in multi-boxing financially at this point. My OS allows for me to send commands to the non highlighted windows.. That's illegal according to some here.
That one chap tried to argue that mouse or keyboard input is broadcasting thus illegal... It's just getting silly here
Isboxer doesn't do anything you couldn't do with the client on it's own. Well aside from the ability to broadcast the same key to multiple clients at the same time. Your own definition means round robin and such are perfectly fine.
I'd like to see unicorns.. Talk is cheap trying to figure out how to do it is hard work . Try coming up with a way to make boosters interesting and I guarantee I'll show you an exploit that you didn't intend. We didn't get here because CCP just made the game last year and randomly decided stuff. WE got to this point because players have been exploiting everything in game they can to maximize their doctrines for the last +10 years. Making changes in such an environment is extremely difficult. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
547
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:48:03 -
[3153] - Quote
Vala Ancalagon wrote:Not really, I'm simply saying that CCP's rules are pretty much self-explanatory. You obviously have to use an OS, because it is designed to run on one. Kind of a disingenuous argument there. What CCP wants is obvious: use the client as intended, don't use things that allow you to do in the client what you can't do with the basic mouse/keyboard setup. Some common sense goes a lot way here, and people pushing the "limits" know they are doing so. Them claiming that they don't know is also disingenuous. For those that truly don't have a clue, the multi-strike rules will have to suffice.
As for my dislike of multi-boxing, it has nothing to do with disadvantage or whatever you believe it is. I just think it would make the game better overall from a social and teamwork perspective. I'd like to see boosters be an interesting and interactive part of fleets. I'd like there to be an interesting reason to be the cyno character for your fleet. The fact there it isn't is a mechanic problem that drives people to rely on multi-boxing. And I stated that getting rid of multi-box would never happen, it was simply a personal view. CCP is heavily invested in multi-boxing financially at this point.
Except they aren't self explanatory... not in the least. If CCP says that X breaks the EULA, and people ask about Y and Z which mimic X in such a way that it would be damn near impossible to tell the difference, then they need to clarify.
Your dislike of multiboxing does not take into consideration differences of personalities, nor does it take TZ issues into account. It's hard for some Aussies because of sub-par internet at times and lack of people, so they must rely on alts heavily.
Rosewalker wrote:But the objective should be to avoid getting banned in the first place. That means trying to figure out where the line that will get you banned is
Victim blaming aside, that's what we're TRYING to do here.... We want CCP to paint the line with neon orange paint and a paintbrush and say "This is the line", not use a pressure washer and spray it everywhere. You also dismiss the idea of Twitter being a reliable source and then attempt to use it to support your argument. If you bothered to read the Dev blog, it was pretty much "yep, we let the people speak without offering help, time to pack up and call it a day" with no expansion on the topic.
ashley Eoner wrote:There's no strawman the people are in this very thread. Just read it.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
"By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate."
I never said I wanted mice and keyboards banned. I simply pointed out that it and other software that the average EVE user uses could be in breach of the new interpretation of the EULA.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
ashley Eoner
385
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:51:01 -
[3154] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Vala Ancalagon wrote:Not really, I'm simply saying that CCP's rules are pretty much self-explanatory. You obviously have to use an OS, because it is designed to run on one. Kind of a disingenuous argument there. What CCP wants is obvious: use the client as intended, don't use things that allow you to do in the client what you can't do with the basic mouse/keyboard setup. Some common sense goes a lot way here, and people pushing the "limits" know they are doing so. Them claiming that they don't know is also disingenuous. For those that truly don't have a clue, the multi-strike rules will have to suffice.
As for my dislike of multi-boxing, it has nothing to do with disadvantage or whatever you believe it is. I just think it would make the game better overall from a social and teamwork perspective. I'd like to see boosters be an interesting and interactive part of fleets. I'd like there to be an interesting reason to be the cyno character for your fleet. The fact there it isn't is a mechanic problem that drives people to rely on multi-boxing. And I stated that getting rid of multi-box would never happen, it was simply a personal view. CCP is heavily invested in multi-boxing financially at this point. Except they aren't self explanatory... not in the least. If CCP says that X breaks the EULA, and people ask about Y and Z which mimic X in such a way that it would be damn near impossible to tell the difference, then they need to clarify. Your dislike of multiboxing does not take into consideration differences of personalities, nor does it take TZ issues into account. It's hard for some Aussies because of sub-par internet at times and lack of people, so they must rely on alts heavily. Rosewalker wrote:But the objective should be to avoid getting banned in the first place. That means trying to figure out where the line that will get you banned is Victim blaming aside, that's what we're TRYING to do here.... We want CCP to paint the line with neon orange paint and a paintbrush and say "This is the line", not use a pressure washer and spray it everywhere. You also dismiss the idea of Twitter being a reliable source and then attempt to use it to support your argument. If you bothered to read the Dev blog, it was pretty much "yep, we let the people speak without offering help, time to pack up and call it a day" with no expansion on the topic. ashley Eoner wrote:There's no strawman the people are in this very thread. Just read it. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
"By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate." I never said I wanted mice and keyboards banned. I simply pointed out that it and other software that the average EVE user uses could be in breach of the new interpretation of the EULA.
Look at the comments I quoted look at what has been said in this thread. There is no strawman when people are actually advocating it...
christ almighty you're about as bad as the anti-multibox nuts. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4823
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:02:08 -
[3155] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Your using Teamspeak as the example is interesting. If you look in the Third Party Policies, Teamspeak is specifically mentioned as an app that technically violates the EULA, but CCP doesn't really care about. Or at least they won't enforce the EULA against its use. Also, you might want to look at what CCP is saying about the more complex keybinds. CCP Random of Team Security was asked on Twitter by CSM member Steve Ronuken about turning all your hardeners with one hotkey on a mouse. He said that was the definition of a macro. And on Sunday, Mike Azariah said on EVE Radio that he was going to have to stop using his macro that turns on all his hardeners at the same time. So I don't think it's allowed anymore. I personally think that means we have to look at the wording in the EULA, ToS, etc, and forget about any rulings that are currently posted on the forums. CCP Random on Twitter basically stated that, and I think CCP Grimmi said it clearer than you can in a tweet that limits you to 140 characters max. Then I can see a lot of people getting banned, because it's not mbeen made even remotely clear that things that used to be tolerated suddenly won't be.
Rosewalker wrote:This actually isn't just a multiboxing question. I originally started asking around about this because someone asked me about a market application called Evernus. I've asked around and the fast copy option really looks sketchy and does just about the same as the ISBoxer round robin feature. I think the only difference is that Evernus performs multiple actions in the EVE client, while the ISBoxer round robin only does one, with all the other magic happening in ISBoxer. I don't know the final answer because CCP Foxfour is on vacation. Yeah Evernus is just an amalgamation of the old eve-mentat tool and Elinor. Take a look at EvE-mentat, it's pretty much the same UI. Elinor's UI and function is exactly that of the "export item list, auto-copy price". Both of these tools have been allowed for years. If suddenly their function is no longer allowed, we're again stuck in a "nobody is telling us anything" hole which CCP likes to dig.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
547
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:03:06 -
[3156] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Look at the comments I quoted look at what has been said in this thread. There is no strawman when people are actually advocating it...
christ almighty you're about as bad as the anti-multibox nuts.
You directly quoted me as advocating banning mice and keyboards despite having never said that. That's what I was talking about.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4823
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:08:22 -
[3157] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:That's right, it's not official. That means you can't paste a link to Twitter into a petition to protest a ban and have it count for anything. If you are looking at a ban defense, this won't help. But the objective should be to avoid getting banned in the first place. That means trying to figure out where the line that will get you banned is, not playing CYA if you cross the line. The tweets from CCP Random and the dev blog from CCP Grimmi help do that.
To my way of thinking, not getting banned is much preferable to having to file a petition. You may disagree. The way I see it, I'll play EVE within the stated rules. If they want to go ahead and ban me fore something they haven't stated is a problem because they like their massive grey areas being super grey, then who really cares? It'd be their loss of subs and fanfest attendance, and there's plenty of other games out there. And for what? For them to maintain some half-assed attempt at declaring fuzzy rules while fearing the mystical rules-lawyers we hear so much about, yet never seem to see?
Personally, if I get caught up in their nonsensical ban waves I have no problems walking away. I'm sure many others are the same.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
231
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:10:52 -
[3158] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Rosewalker wrote:That's right, it's not official. That means you can't paste a link to Twitter into a petition to protest a ban and have it count for anything. If you are looking at a ban defense, this won't help. But the objective should be to avoid getting banned in the first place. That means trying to figure out where the line that will get you banned is, not playing CYA if you cross the line. The tweets from CCP Random and the dev blog from CCP Grimmi help do that.
To my way of thinking, not getting banned is much preferable to having to file a petition. You may disagree. The way I see it, I'll play EVE within the stated rules. If they want to go ahead and ban me fore something they haven't stated is a problem because they like their massive grey areas being super grey, then who really cares? It'd be their loss of subs and fanfest attendance, and there's plenty of other games out there. And for what? For them to maintain some half-assed attempt at declaring fuzzy rules while fearing the mystical rules-lawyers we hear so much about, yet never seem to see?
Personally, if I get caught up in their nonsensical ban waves I have no problems walking away. I'm sure many others are the same.
Looked in a mirror lately? |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
147
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:15:36 -
[3159] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rosewalker wrote:But the objective should be to avoid getting banned in the first place. That means trying to figure out where the line that will get you banned is Victim blaming aside, that's what we're TRYING to do here.... We want CCP to paint the line with neon orange paint and a paintbrush and say "This is the line", not use a pressure washer and spray it everywhere. You also dismiss the idea of Twitter being a reliable source and then attempt to use it to support your argument. If you bothered to read the Dev blog, it was pretty much "yep, we let the people speak without offering help, time to pack up and call it a day" with no expansion on the topic.
Perhaps Lucas sees something that I don't in trying to decypher the tea leaves. But as far as I can tell, you got your orange neon sign in the dev blog. Here's the key statement:
CCP Grimmi wrote:Any use of macros to interact with the game world is prohibited by EULA now, and has always been.
"Any." The stuff concerning Twitter is just trying to add supporting evidence. You want to disregard it, fine. Doesn't hurt my feelings
CCP thinks it's so plain that they don't need to amplify on it. The safe play is to not use any macros at all.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4824
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:17:34 -
[3160] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Rosewalker wrote:That's right, it's not official. That means you can't paste a link to Twitter into a petition to protest a ban and have it count for anything. If you are looking at a ban defense, this won't help. But the objective should be to avoid getting banned in the first place. That means trying to figure out where the line that will get you banned is, not playing CYA if you cross the line. The tweets from CCP Random and the dev blog from CCP Grimmi help do that.
To my way of thinking, not getting banned is much preferable to having to file a petition. You may disagree. The way I see it, I'll play EVE within the stated rules. If they want to go ahead and ban me fore something they haven't stated is a problem because they like their massive grey areas being super grey, then who really cares? It'd be their loss of subs and fanfest attendance, and there's plenty of other games out there. And for what? For them to maintain some half-assed attempt at declaring fuzzy rules while fearing the mystical rules-lawyers we hear so much about, yet never seem to see?
Personally, if I get caught up in their nonsensical ban waves I have no problems walking away. I'm sure many others are the same. Looked in a mirror lately? You're a ******* idiot. Seriously. Asking for rules to be clarified isn't rules lawyering. Supposedly, if CCP were to declare specific rules, people would crawl out of the woodwork and go "This is legal! HA! Can't ban me!" and CCP would somehow be powerless to alter the rules to incorporate this new variation and would have to just hand the game over to them. So they make the rules as fuzzy and impossible to comprehend as they can, so that you can at best guess what is and isn't allowed. Retards like you coming along with what appears to be half the tutorials knowledge about EVE at most cheering because you for some reason think that these fuzzy rules will suddenly make your peasant little playstyle make fat bank doesn't exactly help.
At the end of the day this thread and the thousands of different views on what the rules are, might be, might not be, will ban, won't ban, etc - it all clearly shows that there's not enough clarity, no matter what side of the discussion you are 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
4824
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:21:15 -
[3161] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Perhaps Lucas sees something that I don't in trying to decypher the tea leaves. But as far as I can tell, you got your orange neon sign in the dev blog. Here's the key statement: CCP Grimmi wrote:Any use of macros to interact with the game world is prohibited by EULA now, and has always been. "Any." The stuff concerning Twitter is just trying to add supporting evidence. You want to disregard it, fine. Doesn't hurt my feelings CCP thinks it's so plain that they don't need to amplify on it. The safe play is to not use any macros at all. Except there's a stark variance in the definition of "macro". Some people seem to think a global keybind is a macro. Strictly speaking anything I assign to my side mouse buttons is a macro, since it goes in the "macros" section of my gaming software, even if it only pushed one button. Not toe mention that if it always has been, then nothing has changed, so the thousands of people using an actual macro to enable all of their defensive modules must be fine to continue doing so, right? It's been petitioned before and been fine, so if macros are just as they have "always been" then clearly they must still be OK.... right?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
148
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:33:58 -
[3162] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Rosewalker wrote:Your using Teamspeak as the example is interesting. If you look in the Third Party Policies, Teamspeak is specifically mentioned as an app that technically violates the EULA, but CCP doesn't really care about. Or at least they won't enforce the EULA against its use. Also, you might want to look at what CCP is saying about the more complex keybinds. CCP Random of Team Security was asked on Twitter by CSM member Steve Ronuken about turning all your hardeners with one hotkey on a mouse. He said that was the definition of a macro. And on Sunday, Mike Azariah said on EVE Radio that he was going to have to stop using his macro that turns on all his hardeners at the same time. So I don't think it's allowed anymore. I personally think that means we have to look at the wording in the EULA, ToS, etc, and forget about any rulings that are currently posted on the forums. CCP Random on Twitter basically stated that, and I think CCP Grimmi said it clearer than you can in a tweet that limits you to 140 characters max. Then I can see a lot of people getting banned, because it's not mbeen made even remotely clear that things that used to be tolerated suddenly won't be. Rosewalker wrote:This actually isn't just a multiboxing question. I originally started asking around about this because someone asked me about a market application called Evernus. I've asked around and the fast copy option really looks sketchy and does just about the same as the ISBoxer round robin feature. I think the only difference is that Evernus performs multiple actions in the EVE client, while the ISBoxer round robin only does one, with all the other magic happening in ISBoxer. I don't know the final answer because CCP Foxfour is on vacation. Yeah Evernus is just an amalgamation of the old eve-mentat tool and Elinor. Take a look at EvE-mentat, it's pretty much the same UI. Elinor's UI and function is exactly that of the "export item list, auto-copy price". Both of these tools have been allowed for years. If suddenly their function is no longer allowed, we're again stuck in a "nobody is telling us anything" hole which CCP likes to dig.
As much as I'd like to be wrong, I agree that a bunch of people will probably get banned for not realizing that CCP was taking away the exceptions that currently litter the forums. If I didn't, I wouldn't be making all these posts on the forums. I hate posting here.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
148
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 23:02:51 -
[3163] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Rosewalker wrote:Perhaps Lucas sees something that I don't in trying to decypher the tea leaves. But as far as I can tell, you got your orange neon sign in the dev blog. Here's the key statement: CCP Grimmi wrote:Any use of macros to interact with the game world is prohibited by EULA now, and has always been. "Any." The stuff concerning Twitter is just trying to add supporting evidence. You want to disregard it, fine. Doesn't hurt my feelings CCP thinks it's so plain that they don't need to amplify on it. The safe play is to not use any macros at all. Except there's a stark variance in the definition of "macro". Some people seem to think a global keybind is a macro. Strictly speaking anything I assign to my side mouse buttons is a macro, since it goes in the "macros" section of my gaming software, even if it only pushed one button. Not toe mention that if it always has been, then nothing has changed, so the thousands of people using an actual macro to enable all of their defensive modules must be fine to continue doing so, right? It's been petitioned before and been fine, so if macros are just as they have "always been" then clearly they must still be OK.... right? And sure, the safe play is to just stop playing the game we've always played, throw away all of our gaming keyboards, stop using mac OS and Linux, or software like voice attack, as well as any forms of global keybinds. Anyone with a disability using shortcut software? They can leave too, since all of their stuff is macro controlled. Thank god Elite:Dangerous is out. Edit: Oh and just for further clarity, am I allowed to use 4 fingers to press F1 to F4 in 1 press, or are multiple fingers banned too?
Well, I can't help you. I don't use a gaming mouse or keyboard or anything voice activated. The only think I use is software KVM so I can switch between computers, but I had that for my normal use, not just gaming. Oh, and Google Docs, Trello, and Dotlan open in a browser open outside the game. I'm trying to figure out what CCP is planning to enforce. Because I'm so far behind the times, I'm probably safe.
I think the dev blog on Friday was a game changer, and there's only a week to go before the new enforcement takes effect. I could be totally wrong about this, and with the scope of the changes I think are coming, I actually hope I am. Because if I'm right, a lot of people are getting banned.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
549
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 23:05:12 -
[3164] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:As much as I'd like to be wrong, I agree that a bunch of people will probably get banned for not realizing that CCP was taking away the exceptions that currently litter the forums. If I didn't, I wouldn't be making all these posts on the forums. I hate posting here.
I wouldn't mind it if it wasn't for all the crybabies going "ban them all", the "hurr umadbro?" people, and the "them tears" people. Talking to you has probably been the most civil discussion I've had with someone on the other side of the fence, and I want to thank you for helping me find the weak spots with some of my arguments, and for (inadvertently, I'm sure) reminding me about other things that break or can break the EULA but are allowed.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 23:43:07 -
[3165] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:
Well, I can't help you. I don't use a gaming mouse or keyboard or anything voice activated. The only think I use is software KVM so I can switch between computers, but I had that for my normal use, not just gaming. Oh, and Google Docs, Trello, and Dotlan open in a browser open outside the game. I'm trying to figure out what CCP is planning to enforce. Because I'm so far behind the times, I'm probably safe.
I think the dev blog on Friday was a game changer, and there's only a week to go before the new enforcement takes effect. I could be totally wrong about this, and with the scope of the changes I think are coming, I actually hope I am. Because if I'm right, a lot of people are getting banned.
And there is the whole thing in a nutshell - "Because I am so far behind the times, I'm probably safe"
I don't have an expensive gaming keyboard but it does come with preset "macros" for window switching and other mundane tasks used in every day computing (outside of Eve).
I did not buy this keyboard because of Eve but was very happy to see it made my multiscreen, multiboxing easier.
From what I can see, there is no way to disable these functions in the keyboard. Am I going to get banned because Logitech added some features to their product?
NB; There is no point asking support as the response was to direct me to the EULA, which of course we all know, does not help.
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
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
148
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 23:50:12 -
[3166] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rosewalker wrote:As much as I'd like to be wrong, I agree that a bunch of people will probably get banned for not realizing that CCP was taking away the exceptions that currently litter the forums. If I didn't, I wouldn't be making all these posts on the forums. I hate posting here. I wouldn't mind it if it wasn't for all the crybabies going "ban them all", the "hurr umadbro?" people, and the "them tears" people. Talking to you has probably been the most civil discussion I've had with someone on the other side of the fence, and I want to thank you for helping me find the weak spots with some of my arguments, and for (inadvertently, I'm sure) reminding me about other things that break or can break the EULA but are allowed.
At this point, the arguments don't really matter anymore. The relevant people at CCP have made their decisions and already are off celebrating the holidays. The customer support people just need to be given their new instructions on 1 January and away they go. Team Security has their algorithms set up and the first bans will probably go out next Friday.
I guess your arguments will be useful for any PR campaign that happens once the bans go out. If the loopholes I reminded you of are too egregious, we'll probably see another announcement at Fanfest about new rules. And if they turn out not to be loopholes but things CCP is looking to ban people for? Well, you're an adult, you know what you're doing.
Time for me to go back poking at the RMTers. Looks like they are doing a roaring business as people take advantage of only getting a warning for a first offense for buying dirty ISK until the end of the year. THOSE are the people I'm really interested in seeing banned and whose tears I want to post.
Fly safe.
o7
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
11
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 00:04:08 -
[3167] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:Rubbish...
The only reason these stupid sized fleets exist is because of outside programmes in the first place.
Take those programmes away and I honestly can't see anyone in their right mind spending half their game time logging every single one on manually, resizing and organizing every individual client manually then undocking, warping to a belt, scanning with every single ship and then targeting 20 or 30 individual rocks.
As for those that can only seem to rely on outside programmes....happy new year.
May the bans commence. Well then you are obviously quite new. Before ISBoxer was as popular as it is, people used to run 20+ man fleets manually. And generally you didn't need to alter the client layout much and certainly not more than once (and it was possible to change one, then copy paste the setup to the others without a tool). It definitely takes longer to set up a decent ISBoxer with VFX setup than setting up your client window layouts. On top of that, ISBoxer isn't being banned. You can still even broadcast to log in at the same time (seriously, check the OP).
Oh come on, no one cares if you log in all your toons together or not. Use what you want for that. The most important part is that you wont be allowed to interact broadcasted with several toons in the game world after the login.
And please stop the attempt to compare a broadcasting multiboxer with a trader who uses sheets, databases and stuff. You really don't get the difference? A trader like you describe him has effort to make his money. A broadcasting multiboxer with miners has to press a few buttons, to make a huge amount of ISK. Just locking a rock and starting the lasers on and on and on.
And why the discussion about the server ticks and stuff? I bet it's totally easy to detect a broadcasting multiboxer without that information. A pure multiboxer without broadcasting tools has to select the client window and to click into the window. Maybe ISBoxer can trigger the click event but i bet it can't trigger the focus event, which occurs when you manually click on a window and it therefore get the focus on screen.
Stop broadcasting your toons after login!
Cheers
Nico |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
551
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 00:55:43 -
[3168] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Oh come on, no one cares if you log in all your toons together or not. Use what you want for that. The most important part is that you wont be allowed to interact broadcasted with several toons in the game world after the login.
And please stop the attempt to compare a broadcasting multiboxer with a trader who uses sheets, databases and stuff. You really don't get the difference? A trader like you describe him has effort to make his money. A broadcasting multiboxer with miners has to press a few buttons, to make a huge amount of ISK. Just locking a rock and starting the lasers on and on and on.
And why the discussion about the server ticks and stuff? I bet it's totally easy to detect a broadcasting multiboxer without that information. A pure multiboxer without broadcasting tools has to select the client window and to click into the window. Maybe ISBoxer can trigger the click event but i bet it can't trigger the focus event, which occurs when you manually click on a window and it therefore get the focus on screen.
I used it as an example, oh thick-skulled one. Straight broadcasting is banned. Round Robin broadcasting is not banned. ISBoxer is not banned. VFX is not banned. FPS limiting and cpu control is not banned. It is dishonest to post "ISBoxer is banned" when a single part of it is, and it only highlights the fact that you know nothing about what you're talking about, didn't read the OP entirely, and thus can safely be ignored.
I'll stop comparing multiboxers to traders when everyone else stops comparing multiboxers to botters. A trader doesn't necessarily need spreadsheets and databases. He can just buy low and sell high on a single item (PLEX, for example, or marauder hulls, or deadspace modules...) and he'll make a fortune. And you are completely out of your mind if you think that mining is one of the better sources of income for a multiboxer. A miner has to coordinate his boosts, coordinate his mining lasers such that they do not overlap and cause reduced income, must grind standings in order to refine with minimal costs (or alternatively pay continuous upkeep for a POS), must haul it somewhere to sell, or must make connections with other players and form agreements with industrial characters, or must train an industrial character to build the stuff, must invest in blueprints, must continuously invest in mining lasers, must be constantly checking local for CODE, must check D-scan for Talos, Tornados, and Catalysts, etc etc.
We started discussing the server ticks and the client because we were discussing false positives. As stated earlier, Round Robin (and now that I think about it, scrolling the mousewheel down bound to F1 while moving across a series of VideoFX windows), and changing your Windows Keyboard settings so that there is no delay from pressing a key to continuous transmission of said key would create false positive flags and false bans. To quote William Blackstone, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". I realize that that was a criminal case, but the principle is the same.
As explained to me by my regional manager, it's better to hand out free Slushies and drinks to people who *may* be scamming and say they "dropped" their drink, than to deny someone because of the bad publicity, bad press, and the fact that people talk with friends and family, and will say "That place is so mean. I dropped my Slushie and they wouldn't give me a replacement."
If you want to outright ban ISBoxer, say so. Don't attempt to hide behind a supposed moral high ground.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
451
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 01:02:56 -
[3169] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:
Oh come on, no one cares if you log in all your toons together or not. Use what you want for that. The most important part is that you wont be allowed to interact broadcasted with several toons in the game world after the login.
Tactically inuduced tidi or logoff camp anyone?
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:
And please stop the attempt to compare a broadcasting multiboxer with a trader who uses sheets, databases and stuff. You really don't get the difference? A trader like you describe him has effort to make his money. A broadcasting multiboxer with miners has to press a few buttons, to make a huge amount of ISK. Just locking a rock and starting the lasers on and on and on.
He is a trader, and (presumably) a boxer, so he would presumably know the relative effort levels.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:
And why the discussion about the server ticks and stuff? I bet it's totally easy to detect a broadcasting multiboxer without that information. A pure multiboxer without broadcasting tools has to select the client window and to click into the window. Maybe ISBoxer can trigger the click event but i bet it can't trigger the focus event, which occurs when you manually click on a window and it therefore get the focus on screen.
Stop broadcasting your toons after login!
Cheers
Nico
And if you use multiple clients with perfectly synched UI and no software management of windows or other features of software assisted multiboxing, you can still get 5-10 toons to act in the same tick, and thus visually identically, if you have sufficiently good hardware and a high twitch rate on your boogerhook, and good repetition rates on your bangswitch.
In other words, if it only looks at which second commands came in, I can fool it with no software assist.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
ashley Eoner
386
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 03:16:49 -
[3170] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Look at the comments I quoted look at what has been said in this thread. There is no strawman when people are actually advocating it...
christ almighty you're about as bad as the anti-multibox nuts. You directly quoted me as advocating banning mice and keyboards despite having never said that. That's what I was talking about.
My apologies for not cutting you out of the quote box successfully. It gets kind of silly at times.
Would you like me to edit it or just leave it? |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
554
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 03:19:12 -
[3171] - Quote
Just to clarify, and as a disclaimer, I dabble in trading some faction modules (probably only earn 100m a week or so, haven't really sat down and looked), but not to the extent that a friend does (estimated value / month: 100B-1T. He was drunk, and swallowed his mic on Skype). He doesn't spend too long on updating buy/sell orders, or he has multiple toons doing it as we aren't interrupted very much by it. I don't multibox mine myself, mostly sticking to incursions and ganks (dps support, I didn't do the hard work myself), but I did take the opportunity, about 5 pages back or so, to sit down with an ISBox miner and have him walk me through what he does in a belt. Much more complicated than incursions, even when I did my own VG fleets.
e:: Ash, it's fine. I misunderstood and retract my statements.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
11
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 09:08:03 -
[3172] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Oh come on, no one cares if you log in all your toons together or not. Use what you want for that. The most important part is that you wont be allowed to interact broadcasted with several toons in the game world after the login.
And please stop the attempt to compare a broadcasting multiboxer with a trader who uses sheets, databases and stuff. You really don't get the difference? A trader like you describe him has effort to make his money. A broadcasting multiboxer with miners has to press a few buttons, to make a huge amount of ISK. Just locking a rock and starting the lasers on and on and on.
And why the discussion about the server ticks and stuff? I bet it's totally easy to detect a broadcasting multiboxer without that information. A pure multiboxer without broadcasting tools has to select the client window and to click into the window. Maybe ISBoxer can trigger the click event but i bet it can't trigger the focus event, which occurs when you manually click on a window and it therefore get the focus on screen. I used it as an example, oh thick-skulled one. Straight broadcasting is banned. Round Robin broadcasting is not banned. ISBoxer is not banned. VFX is not banned. FPS limiting and cpu control is not banned. It is dishonest to post "ISBoxer is banned" when a single part of it is, and it only highlights the fact that you know nothing about what you're talking about, didn't read the OP entirely, and thus can safely be ignored. I'll stop comparing multiboxers to traders when everyone else stops comparing multiboxers to botters. A trader doesn't necessarily need spreadsheets and databases. He can just buy low and sell high on a single item (PLEX, for example, or marauder hulls, or deadspace modules...) and he'll make a fortune. And you are completely out of your mind if you think that mining is one of the better sources of income for a multiboxer. A miner has to coordinate his boosts, coordinate his mining lasers such that they do not overlap and cause reduced income, must grind standings in order to refine with minimal costs (or alternatively pay continuous upkeep for a POS), must haul it somewhere to sell, or must make connections with other players and form agreements with industrial characters, or must train an industrial character to build the stuff, must invest in blueprints, must continuously invest in mining lasers, must be constantly checking local for CODE, must check D-scan for Talos, Tornados, and Catalysts, etc etc. We started discussing the server ticks and the client because we were discussing false positives. As stated earlier, Round Robin (and now that I think about it, scrolling the mousewheel down bound to F1 while moving across a series of VideoFX windows), and changing your Windows Keyboard settings so that there is no delay from pressing a key to continuous transmission of said key would create false positive flags and false bans. To quote William Blackstone, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". I realize that that was a criminal case, but the principle is the same. As explained to me by my regional manager, it's better to hand out free Slushies and drinks to people who *may* be scamming and say they "dropped" their drink, than to deny someone because of the bad publicity, bad press, and the fact that people talk with friends and family, and will say "That place is so mean. I dropped my Slushie and they wouldn't give me a replacement." If you want to outright ban ISBoxer, say so. Don't attempt to hide behind a supposed moral high ground.
Ah, hi there. I was wondering where you get your likes from. Now it is clear - a second toon :)
What do you think could further disturbing me after the fallowing took effect?
Quote:
Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters
If ISBoxer would become as usefull as a screensaver after the new rules takes effect, you still would say "nom nom nom, ISBoxer is still allowed to use". The difference is that no one cares then if you use it as a screensaver or not.
The comparison between botting and input automation is closer than the comparison between a trader and input automation. I would love to say it again if you still don't get the message!
Cheers
Nico |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4826
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 09:48:55 -
[3173] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Ah, hi there. I was wondering where you get your likes from. Now it is clear - a second toon :) I assume you are directing that at me because he responded to your reply to me?
lol, swing and miss buddy.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:If ISBoxer would become as usefull as a screensaver after the new rules takes effect, you still would say "nom nom nom, ISBoxer is still allowed to use". The difference is that no one cares then if you use it as a screensaver or not. Except it's not. It's still going to be viable for multiboxing after the change. You think it's not because you have no idea how it actually works, but most multiboxers will still be playing with the exact same amount of accounts after this change.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:The comparison between botting and input automation is closer than the comparison between a trader and input automation. I would love to say it again if you still don't get the message! Of course it is. Input automation *is* botting. But this isn't banning automation, that's already banned. This is banning broadcasting which is totally different.
And ISBoxer is nothing like botting. Botting is fully automated, requires no input, occurs on absolutely massive scales and is generally used for RMT. ISBoxer is just a way to simplify multibox setups for hardcore players. The thing is, people cry about how much isk an ISBoxer makes, yet nobody cries when traders earn considerably more than them, which most good traders do. I trade for maybe an hour a week and make more than a multibox miner could hope to.
As for the comparison between tools, this is because people keep saying "waah, the EULA says if it makes it faster to gain stuff then it's not allowed!". Trading tool *definitely* make it *far far far* quicker to earn more. If I had to look at the markets manually, it would take me a lot of time to do that, time I wouldn't be spending doing other things. Instead, I get home and my PC pops up a list of items to look at, a list of prices to update and a list of stock to shift. So if the thing that makes a tool bannable is it's ability to help you make isk faster than you could using "normal gameplay", then trading tools are definitely in that category.
At the end of the day what it boils down to is traders you don;t see, so you don't care. Multiboxers you do see, and it makes you envious so you cry endlessly about how unfair it is. I can't wait for you too see how little this change actually affects that and see the next trail of tears spewing out of your face about how unfair it is.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
12
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 10:19:50 -
[3174] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
At the end of the day what it boils down to is traders you don;t see, so you don't care. Multiboxers you do see, and it makes you envious so you cry endlessly about how unfair it is. I can't wait for you too see how little this change actually affects that and see the next trail of tears spewing out of your face about how unfair it is.
Hi Lucas,
Don't become too excited about my tears, because I don't care if you use it like CCP Falcon described it:
Quote:Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇóEVE Online client settings
GÇóWindow positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
GÇóThe login process
What are the features of ISBoxer you say they will make me cry? Please tell me!
Cheers
Nico |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4826
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 10:47:35 -
[3175] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Quote:Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇóEVE Online client settings
GÇóWindow positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
GÇóThe login process What are the features of ISBoxer you say they will make me cry? Please tell me! VideoFX and round robin. Neither of which are banned because neither fall under those new rules. Both however make it trivial to control just as many characters as broadcasting. You see, if you actually know how ISBoxing worked, you'd realise that the vast majority of it use VideoFX, not broadcasting.
Take a typical ISBoxed miner:
* Setup phase
- Log in all accounts (broadcast, still allowed)
- Fleet invite all accounts (single client)
- Accept fleet invite (broadcast, now banned, can use Round robin instead)
- Undock (broadcast, now banned, can use Round robin instead, can be replaced by logging miners off in space)
- Warp to target belt/anom (fleet warp, still allowed)
- Target initial set of rocks (broadcast, now banned, still relatively easy with VideoFX)
- Engage lasers (broadcast, now banned, can use Round robin instead)
* Mining Phase - this is where most time is spent
- Targeting new rocks (VideoFX, still allowed)
- Cycling Lasers (VideoFX, still allowed)
- Drag ore to Orca (Broadcast, now banned, still relatively easy with VideoFX)
- Drag ore to hauler (single client)
- Haul to station and come back (single client)
* Pack up phase
- Dock all ships (broadcast, now banned, can be replaced by logging miners off in space)
You see, not much is really going to change. The part you spend most of your time doing is the "Mining phase", and if someone was using broadcast to do the whole of that part, they were doing it wrong, since different rocks have different amounts in them, so miners won't be in sync unless you are over harvesting every rock.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
12
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 11:38:09 -
[3176] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
* Setup phase
- Log in all accounts (broadcast, still allowed)
- Fleet invite all accounts (single client)
- Accept fleet invite (broadcast, now banned, can use Round robin instead)
- Undock (broadcast, now banned, can use Round robin instead, can be replaced by logging miners off in space)
- Warp to target belt/anom (fleet warp, still allowed)
- Target initial set of rocks (broadcast, now banned, still relatively easy with VideoFX)
- Engage lasers (broadcast, now banned, can use Round robin instead)
* Mining Phase - this is where most time is spent
- Targeting new rocks (VideoFX, still allowed)
- Cycling Lasers (VideoFX, still allowed)
- Drag ore to Orca (Broadcast, now banned, still relatively easy with VideoFX)
- Drag ore to hauler (single client)
- Haul to station and come back (single client)
* Pack up phase
- Dock all ships (broadcast, now banned, can be replaced by logging miners off in space)
Nice! Everytime you say VideoFX means you have to do it manually, and that's all i want to hear.
It's a big difference between broadcasting all your toons to do something or manually dragging and dropping in sequence. Especially when it has to go fast.
For me it's in order like the guy in the fallowing video proceeded with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPJYSmLR-hY
What I don't like to see is the fallowing procedure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAbDPHnxLU4
Cheers
Nico |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4826
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 11:45:10 -
[3177] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Nice! Everytime you say VideoFX means you have to do it manually, and that's all i want to hear. It's a big difference between broadcasting all your toons to do something or manually dragging and dropping in sequence. Especially when it has to go fast. For me it's in order like the guy in the fallowing video proceeded with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPJYSmLR-hY
What I don't like to see is the fallowing procedure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAbDPHnxLU4 A good VideoFX setup will be as efficient as that second video. And no, it's not a big difference, because most ISBoxers don't use as much broadcasting as you think they do. Most already do what that first video does, just not with the windows all spread out like that. You think this change will actually change multiboxing, it really, really won't. The only people being disadvantaged are players with 100 accounts and disabled players.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3111
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 15:23:20 -
[3178] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post.
The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4827
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 15:50:13 -
[3179] - Quote
Sometimes Ezwal, it's just the truth.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
554
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 16:18:13 -
[3180] - Quote
While Lucas got most of it right in his summary of what an ISBoxer miner now does, he forgot to realize that Round Robin can be used for just about everything that VideoFX does, so even less will change.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
|
|
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
12
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 16:31:26 -
[3181] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
Edit: Honestly, I get tired of arguing with players like you. The way you see it, you don't play that way, so nobody should be allowed to. You scream and cry and whine when you feel someone else's playstyle unfair and all because you're too incompetent to keep up with everyone else. In the end, people like you will never be happy, because there will always be the vast majority of the playerbase able to do more than you, faster than you and better than you. After January, you'll undoubtedly see nothing change and be back here complaining that there needs to be yet another ban, then another, and so on ad infinitum.
Oh, no worries. Guy's like you can't make me unhappy. I'm a really happy person. Also the stuff you are writing is very funny but feel free to stop it if you feel tired of it.
It sounds like an attempt to make advertising for ISBoxer. Well, in that case I understand that you have to denounce peoples who say something against ISBoxer and therefore against your employer.
But maybe you aren't an employee of that company and you are just not a nice person. It would be pity, if that is what ISBoxer brings to us. It's also pity that I've missed the moment when you've lost your countenance, or was in someone else? :)
I'm not crying but you are sounding like it. There was a moment you've told me that what i've wrote was just driven by baseless emotions. Now please read what you've wrote so far :) So many emotions and fear to loose your shiny ISBoxer or its reputation.
This is the EVE forum and not the ISBoxer forum. I like the coming rule changes very much and I hope you'll enjoy them too!
Cheers
Nico |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4828
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 16:47:39 -
[3182] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Oh, no worries. Guy's like you can't make me unhappy. I'm a really happy person. Also the stuff you are writing is very funny but feel free to stop it if you feel tired of it.
It sounds like an attempt to make advertising for ISBoxer. Well, in that case I understand that you have to denounce peoples who say something against ISBoxer and therefore against your employer.
But maybe you aren't an employee of that company and you are just not a nice person. It would be pity, if that is what ISBoxer brings to us. It's also pity that I've missed the moment when you've lost your countenance, or was in someone else? :) Nice tinfoil hat there.
And what I'm pointing out is that this is a pointless change. You're cheering because you think it's going to magically make PLEX prices drop, which it won't. If CCP want to address multiboxers, they should fix their broken game mechanics, not pointlessly ban mechanics and put legitimate players of getting caught up in half-assed ban waves.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:I'm not crying but you are sounding like it. There was a moment you've told me that what i've wrote was just driven by baseless emotions. Now please read what you've wrote so far :) So many emotions and fear to loose your shiny ISBoxer or its reputation.
This is the EVE forum and not the ISBoxer forum. I like the coming rule changes very much and I hope you'll enjoy them too! No, you're not currently crying (although the amount of whine against people who oppose this change is astounding), because people like you don't cry when they think things are going their way. When January rolls round and you realise PLEX prices are going to start going back up and multiboxers will still be filling all the belts, that's when you'll cry.
And I understand you like the rule change, but that's because you don't understand it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
554
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 16:52:41 -
[3183] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Oh, no worries. Guy's like you can't make me unhappy. I'm a really happy person. Also the stuff you are writing is very funny but feel free to stop it if you feel tired of it.
It sounds like an attempt to make advertising for ISBoxer. Well, in that case I understand that you have to denounce peoples who say something against ISBoxer and therefore against your employer.
But maybe you aren't an employee of that company and you are just not a nice person. It would be pity, if that is what ISBoxer brings to us. It's also pity that I've missed the moment when you've lost your countenance, or was in someone else? :)
I'm not crying but you are sounding like it. There was a moment you've told me that what i've wrote was just driven by baseless emotions. Now please read what you've wrote so far :) So many emotions and fear to loose your shiny ISBoxer or its reputation.
This is the EVE forum and not the ISBoxer forum. I like the coming rule changes very much and I hope you'll enjoy them too!
You clearly didn't read what he posted or else you would have realized that he didn't use ISBoxer before, but will now. He's not worried about the current broadcast ban thanks to Round Robin and VideoFX. He explained very rationally how and why this will only stop the largest of the ISBoxers or the ones who are tired of being treated like third class citizens by CCP. We gave perfect examples of the new way to multibox which would follow the rules.
You, on the other hand, came into here screaming and kicking about how ISBoxer in its entirety is banned, and when you were told it wasn't, you started attacking anyone and everyone who had a differing opinion. You reacted very poorly when we outlined our new way to box that fell within guidelines, and proceeded to scream and cry about how much ISK we were making, and about how we were making bad comparisons (comparisons, I might add, that came from personal experience, something you lack with ISBoxer). I'm sorry that you think we're paid employees of ISBoxer, and I wonder if you would be saying the same thing if we were defending something like Siggy, or EVEMon. You let your emotions take the best of you when you declared ISBoxers botters, and when you wanted the entire thing banned. You also attempted to silence us and discredit us by pulling the emotion card, which is quite funny. Anyhow, back to your cave, little troll. Come out when you can present a decent, rational argument against ISBoxer that does not include the word "bot".
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
13
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 17:33:22 -
[3184] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Oh, no worries. Guy's like you can't make me unhappy. I'm a really happy person. Also the stuff you are writing is very funny but feel free to stop it if you feel tired of it.
It sounds like an attempt to make advertising for ISBoxer. Well, in that case I understand that you have to denounce peoples who say something against ISBoxer and therefore against your employer.
But maybe you aren't an employee of that company and you are just not a nice person. It would be pity, if that is what ISBoxer brings to us. It's also pity that I've missed the moment when you've lost your countenance, or was in someone else? :) Nice tinfoil hat there. And what I'm pointing out is that this is a pointless change. You're cheering because you think it's going to magically make PLEX prices drop, which it won't. If CCP want to address multiboxers, they should fix their broken game mechanics, not pointlessly ban mechanics and put legitimate players of getting caught up in half-assed ban waves. Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:I'm not crying but you are sounding like it. There was a moment you've told me that what i've wrote was just driven by baseless emotions. Now please read what you've wrote so far :) So many emotions and fear to loose your shiny ISBoxer or its reputation.
This is the EVE forum and not the ISBoxer forum. I like the coming rule changes very much and I hope you'll enjoy them too! No, you're not currently crying, because people like you don;t cry when they think things are going their way. when January rolls round and you realise PLEX prices are going to start going back up and multiboxers will still be filling all the belts, that's when you'll cry. And I understand you like the rule change, but that's because you don't understand it.
Ah, yes. I forgot you are the only person who understand everything. Sorry for that mistake oh lord! Do you write that for the same reason you are useing ISBoxer? Like trying to be on top of everything, pushing everyone else down to the ground. Ingame with all the toons and in the forums with denouncing statements?
I don't expect anything about PLEX prices really. I hope it and I'm excited about it, because I can't see into the future - and just to say it: "You also not!". Play lottery If you are able to do so.
The only thing I expect is that you and everyone else follows the rules of EVE like I do, to have a fairer gameplay. That contains e.g. to start modules one by one and to unload ore manually on each client. That changes enough for me to be pleased so far. If the rule changes dont work proper, I'm sure CCP will adjust the rule catalogue, and that's fair enough for me.
Not everyone want to have several accounts but we all want to play EVE. The changes will bring you the same manually activitys for all of your toons like a single toon player has to do, and that is what it makes EVE playable next to you e.g. in the same belt. The only advantage you might have is the fleet bonus, because you have it always. But that's something other players can do the same way with a few friends and that is great.
Oh, and to prevent you write the same stuff as always: I'm not crying or whining, I'm just happy about the changes and I understand that you are not. Think about your behavior if fairness makes your gameplay harder.
Cheers
Nico |
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
13
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:06:37 -
[3185] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:You clearly didn't read what he posted or else you would have realized that he didn't use ISBoxer before, but will now. He's not worried about the current broadcast ban thanks to Round Robin and VideoFX. He explained very rationally how and why this will only stop the largest of the ISBoxers or the ones who are tired of being treated like third class citizens by CCP. We gave perfect examples of the new way to multibox which would follow the rules.
You, on the other hand, came into here screaming and kicking about how ISBoxer in its entirety is banned, and when you were told it wasn't, you started attacking anyone and everyone who had a differing opinion. You reacted very poorly when we outlined our new way to box that fell within guidelines, and proceeded to scream and cry about how much ISK we were making, and about how we were making bad comparisons (comparisons, I might add, that came from personal experience, something you lack with ISBoxer). I'm sorry that you think we're paid employees of ISBoxer, and I wonder if you would be saying the same thing if we were defending something like Siggy, or EVEMon. You let your emotions take the best of you when you declared ISBoxers botters, and when you wanted the entire thing banned. You also attempted to silence us and discredit us by pulling the emotion card, which is quite funny. Anyhow, back to your cave, little troll. Come out when you can present a decent, rational argument against ISBoxer that does not include the word "bot".
1. Your friend Lucas was pulling the emotional card. I've just pushed it back to the owner.
2. You and Lucas trys to make the readers of this forum believe that nothing will change and you'll still stay on top of everything. It's fair enough for me if you find a fair way to stay on top. But the new rules will make it harder for you and that are good news for everyone who plays EVE without input multiplexing or what ever you want to call it!
3. This forum thread has nothing to do with EVEMon or similar tools.
4. I believe I never said ISBoxer users are botters. But ISBoxer users are more like a botter when they control more than one toon with just one input action. And that means not the fleet warp! That's game mechanic @ Lucas!
5. I don't care how much ISK you have made with ISBoxer or did I ever asked about it? I just say it's unfair against all other players how you deal with the ressources in your surroundings, when you are multiplexing your input to a horde of toons!
I guess the only thing what's left is the expression little troll... what do you want to say with it?
Cheers
Nico |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
555
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:35:35 -
[3186] - Quote
Pick one, and only one. A well established trader with hundreds of billions of ISK can run rings around the smaller traders trying to get into a certain market simply because he has more funds and can shave his margins razor thin and still turn more of a profit than the smaller guy. Shall we take away his ISK? Limit everyone to a certain number of updates per day?
If you don't believe what Lucas and I have been patiently attempting to explain, by all means, wait til Jan 1 rolls around. Just don't come posting on the forums saying "hurrdurr usomad" after we've spent over a hundred pages attempting to explain to people just like you that it won't change as much as you think it would.
You keep saying you don't compare ISBoxers to botters and in the next breath you make the comparison. You attempt to dishonestly compare some superhuman ISBoxer user to the equivalent of a BRAVE pilot, saying that because the ISBoxer player has been here longer and become more proficient with the game compared to the BRAVE pilot, and thus make fewer mistakes, that it's somehow a problem or that a player can't use his proficiency to the fullest extent that he can. Stop punishing those who are more experienced and more visible in order to pretend that you're leveling the playing field. It won't work.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
13
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:56:09 -
[3187] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Pick one, and only one. A well established trader with hundreds of billions of ISK can run rings around the smaller traders trying to get into a certain market simply because he has more funds and can shave his margins razor thin and still turn more of a profit than the smaller guy. Shall we take away his ISK? Limit everyone to a certain number of updates per day? If you don't believe what Lucas and I have been patiently attempting to explain, by all means, wait til Jan 1 rolls around. Just don't come posting on the forums saying "hurrdurr usomad" after we've spent over a hundred pages attempting to explain to people just like you that it won't change as much as you think it would. You keep saying you don't compare ISBoxers to botters and in the next breath you make the comparison. You attempt to dishonestly compare some superhuman ISBoxer user to the equivalent of a BRAVE pilot, saying that because the ISBoxer player has been here longer and become more proficient with the game compared to the BRAVE pilot, and thus make fewer mistakes, that it's somehow a problem or that a player can't use his proficiency to the fullest extent that he can. Stop punishing those who are more experienced and more visible in order to pretend that you're leveling the playing field. It won't work.
I don't need to be experienced like players who play EVE longer than me to see if something goes wrong. Maybe my advantage is that I'm not as routine-blinded as you.
That contains that I see EVE still as a game, and a game has und needs rules to be fair. If you want to play EVE just with "old pilots" ask for your own server and hope someone would like to join you there.
And why always this ISK and trader discussion? No one want to hear that and no one asked about it within this thread! Make ISK like you want and fallow the rules!
Stop to say nothing will change! Input automation will be forbidden or limitted, what makes it fairer than before. That's a change! Do you get this point please?
Cheers
Nico |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
556
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 19:20:59 -
[3188] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:I don't need to be experienced like players who play EVE longer than me to see if something goes wrong. Maybe my advantage is that I'm not as routine-blinded as you.
That contains that I see EVE still as a game, and a game has und needs rules to be fair. If you want to play EVE just with "old pilots" ask for your own server and hope someone would like to join you there.
And why always this ISK and trader discussion? No one want to hear that and no one asked about it within this thread! Make ISK like you want and fallow the rules!
Stop to say nothing will change! Input automation will be forbidden or limitted, what makes it fairer than before. That's a change! Do you get this point please?
There have always been rules in place to stop botting, RMT, hacking, exploits, glitches, and a myriad of other, real, problems that genuinely change gameplay in such a way that it cannot be stopped by a player. See: Off Grid Complex assigning fighters in FW lowsec. See: C6 Magnetar EWAR infinite gun. See: Local count bug where you didn't show up in local until you aggressed a player in nullsec/lowsec.
These new rules are being put into place because players are unwilling to change their nullsec doctrine of "lol only napocs" to include anti-bomber support ships. A good real-life analogy would be the Navy sending a single carrier or battleship out during WW2 without it's anti-submarine screen and it's supporting anti-air ships and logistical ships. Back then, if there was a single carrier or a single battleship sitting in the middle of the ocean without any support nearby, you can rest assured that it'd get torpedoed or bombed.
As for the incursion aspect, people are comparing a completely A-type deadspace and faction fitted fleet with 6% and above implants with a pilot who knows the spawn order and knows how to spread webs to an E-Uni kitchen sink fleet of 4 month old toons and saying it's unbalanced.
I brought up the ISK and trader discussion because either you or someone else made the outrageous claim that ISBoxers should not be allowed to earn as much ISK as they do. These people claimed that ISBoxers make too much ISK but bent over backwards making allowances for station traders, saying that it's different. To be fair, it is different. ISBoxers undock and risk their ships every time they want to make ISK, while the hardcore station traders sit in a station all day adjusting orders.
I started out EVE as one of the anti-ISBoxer crowd. I spouted nonsense such as "isk vs risk!" and "6a3!" despite not knowing anything about either, or about how much time and effort an ISBoxer expends in setting up. I even spent time bumping one guy's mining boats around (didn't really do much as I didn't know about 100mn stabbers back then). However, that changed once I sat down with a boxer and we talked about it for about two hours or so. He showed me some videos and explained parts that I didn't understand. After that, I went to youtube and watched a bunch of videos of guys setting up ISBoxer, and setting up all the little VFX and hotkeys.
Alright. I'll concede that *absolutely nothing* will change. We will see some players stop boxing. However, the ones who are not boxing anymore, such as myself, are doing it because we are tired of getting hit with a steel dildo by CCP, or we don't want to jump through a hoop every time we want to play because someone's feelings got hurt. But you've got another thing coming if you think this will stop all boxing.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Nico Fruehinsfeld
Glorious Astronauts Society
13
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 19:38:46 -
[3189] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:But you've got another thing coming if you think this will stop all boxing.
I don't think it and I wont stop boxing.
Cheers
Nico |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
557
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 19:58:54 -
[3190] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:But you've got another thing coming if you think this will stop all boxing. I don't think it and I wont stop boxing.
Christ, I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you.
Nolak Ataru wrote:But you've got another thing coming if you think this will stop all ISBoxing.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
|
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
231
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 21:51:34 -
[3191] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Oh, no worries. Guy's like you can't make me unhappy. I'm a really happy person. Also the stuff you are writing is very funny but feel free to stop it if you feel tired of it.
It sounds like an attempt to make advertising for ISBoxer. Well, in that case I understand that you have to denounce peoples who say something against ISBoxer and therefore against your employer.
But maybe you aren't an employee of that company and you are just not a nice person. It would be pity, if that is what ISBoxer brings to us. It's also pity that I've missed the moment when you've lost your countenance, or was in someone else? :) Nice tinfoil hat there. And what I'm pointing out is that this is a pointless change. You're cheering because you think it's going to magically make PLEX prices drop, which it won't. If CCP want to address multiboxers, they should fix their broken game mechanics, not pointlessly ban mechanics and put legitimate players of getting caught up in half-assed ban waves. Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:I'm not crying but you are sounding like it. There was a moment you've told me that what i've wrote was just driven by baseless emotions. Now please read what you've wrote so far :) So many emotions and fear to loose your shiny ISBoxer or its reputation.
This is the EVE forum and not the ISBoxer forum. I like the coming rule changes very much and I hope you'll enjoy them too! No, you're not currently crying (although the amount of whine against people who oppose this change is astounding), because people like you don't cry when they think things are going their way. When January rolls round and you realise PLEX prices are going to start going back up and multiboxers will still be filling all the belts, that's when you'll cry. And I understand you like the rule change, but that's because you don't understand it.
What on Earth has his or my statements got to do with Plex prices?
Never bought one and don't give a **** how far they drop or climb.
I have never spoken out against multiboxing either, just the way that it can be used along with outside programmes to control hordes of characters in game.
But...the more I read your posts? The more I would love every programme like it banned.
Understand it? Yes I do, It's used by players like you that are bone idle and can't be bothered to use the tools you are given. You always look for the easy option..It's a disease that needs to be cured.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4830
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 22:23:27 -
[3192] - Quote
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Ah, yes. I forgot you are the only person who understand everything. Sorry for that mistake oh lord! Do you write that for the same reason you are useing ISBoxer? Like trying to be on top of everything, pushing everyone else down to the ground. Ingame with all the toons and in the forums with denouncing statements? I'm not an ISBoxer user. I'm a trader. I happen to be on the side of what's good for the game though, regardless of whether or not it affects me. Sweeping rule changes because the devs are too lazy to fix archaic game mechanics is bad.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:I don't expect anything about PLEX prices really. I hope it and I'm excited about it, because I can't see into the future - and just to say it: "You also not!". Play lottery If you are able to do so. Well I do hope I know what will happen with PLEX prices, since I've been trading in them for years. If I still didn't know how they worked by now, it wouldn't be very good.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:The only thing I expect is that you and everyone else follows the rules of EVE like I do, to have a fairer gameplay. That contains e.g. to start modules one by one and to unload ore manually on each client. That changes enough for me to be pleased so far. If the rule changes dont work proper, I'm sure CCP will adjust the rule catalogue, and that's fair enough for me. Everyone *has* been following the rules. Because of whining, entitled players like yourself however those rules are changing, leaving the stagnant, badly designed gamplay as it is.
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:Not everyone want to have several accounts but we all want to play EVE. The changes will bring you the same manually activitys for all of your toons like a single toon player has to do, and that is what it makes EVE playable next to you e.g. in the same belt. The only advantage you might have is the fleet bonus, because you have it always. But that's something other players can do the same way with a few friends and that is great. Whey does it matter how other people want to play the game? I couldn't give a flying **** if you wanted to run 2000 accounts and control them with a magic wand. As long as each character isn't able to perform impossible tasks, such as speedcheating, godmode, etc, I really couldn't care less how other people play the game. Just because it's not how *you* want to play the game, doesn't mean nobody else should be allowed.
And no, the changes will *not* bring the same amount of manual activity that a "normal" multiboxer will need to do. This has been covered at length.
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
4830
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 22:35:29 -
[3193] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:What on Earth has his or my statements got to do with Plex prices?
Never bought one and don't give a **** how far they drop or climb. Feel free to go back and read his posts then. He quite clearly stated that he hoped the PLEX prices would drop.
Drago Shouna wrote:I have never spoken out against multiboxing either, just the way that it can be used along with outside programmes to control hordes of characters in game. But...the more I read your posts? The more I would love every programme like it banned. Understand it? Yes I do, It's used by players like you that are bone idle and can't be bothered to use the tools you are given. You always look for the easy option..It's a disease that needs to be cured. You're not very bright, are you? You realise that if I had it my way, the programs wouldn't be banned, but you wouldn't be bale to use them to control anywhere near the amount of characters you can now, right? And you realise that I'm not an ISBoxer user, right?
I'll be as clear as I can. I want CCP to address the actual problem, which is that some game mechanics are so outdated and so lacking in any form of input requirement that they can be controlled by someone using a blind broadcasting program, or nearly completely AFKed. Rather than addressing the game mechanics, they are doing their usual thing of changing the rules to leave a massive grey area, so they can ignore the crappy game mechanics and do something else. All this means is that people will move to the next legal form of multiboxing control (VFX and RR), while some randoms who don't even use ISBoxer get caught up in the ban waves.
But by all means, if you want CCP to continue ignoring archaic game mechanics in favour of just banning parts of the community, support the change. If you seriously think this will do any serious damage to ISBoxer users though, you've got a surprise waiting for you in January.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2832
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 22:45:34 -
[3194] - Quote
Lucas, CCP have no desire to ban anybody, only to curb a small part of ISboxer gameplay.
Some in this thread have stated that the incoming limit to a small part of ISboxing will have no real impact.
Much ado about nothing methinks.
Unless...
This is not a signature.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4830
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 23:05:04 -
[3195] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Lucas, CCP have no desire to ban anybody, only to curb a small part of ISboxer gameplay.
Some in this thread have stated that the incoming limit to a small part of ISboxing will have no real impact.
Much ado about nothing methinks.
Unless... No, they never have a desire to ban anybody, yet people still end up getting banned with no method of contesting it. Let's face it, after this change, every single time some whining little carebear sees more than a couple of miners being played by one person, they'll report it regardless of what control method is being used. With probably thousands of reports coming in, it only takes handful of GMs not looking into it quite enough, and someone's game time is done. If even a single player gets banned without reason, then it's already too many considering it doesn't actually improve anything (as is proven by the fact that if nobody knew ISBoxers were ISBoxing, nobody would have a problem with these characters existing, thus there's no actual problem, just the idea of unfairness).
Beyond that, it's still a way of scapegoating their way out of improving game mechanics. I'd rather they actually worked on them rather than sweeping them under the rug and moving on.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
557
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 23:09:57 -
[3196] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Lucas, CCP have no desire to ban anybody, only to curb a small part of ISboxer gameplay.
Some in this thread have stated that the incoming limit to a small part of ISboxing will have no real impact.
Much ado about nothing methinks.
Unless...
Right, because limiting someone's completely legal gameplay in no way constitutes censorship, nor will CCP ban people who don't cross the line (oh wait.....).
/sarcasm
It may be "much ado about nothing", look at it this way. Every day for the last 5 or so years, on your way to work or school, you stopped at a Wawa and grabbed a cup of coffee. Now, one day, someone comes along a la Jenny McCarthy and starts shrieking that coffee turned you into a serial killer. The evidence she presents is a picture of some mentally ill person who wasn't receiving the proper medication who suddenly snapped.
Now, in order to get your daily cup of mana, you must present a signed letter from your doctor stating that you are not insane. Now, it may not seem like a big deal. After all, you're not insane right? So there's no reason to not go to the doctors and get a letter! However, this presumes guilty until proven innocent based on a single isolated incident that had a shakier connection between the incident and the coffee than using 56k dialup with someone on the line. Add to the fact that the person(s) making the outrageous claims wants to simply ban something that *might* be a problem (coffee, isboxer) instead of attempting to address the issues at hand that led to the incident (no treatment for mental illness, outdated gameplay that results in near-afk scenarios) and you have a recipe for slippery slope arguments that will result in people eating a nutrient paste and nothing else (only allowed 1 client per human online at a time mining in a 1.0 system for 2 hours a day with no aggression allowed at all).
I dunno about you, but I don't like playing a game where my gamestyle can be forcibly changed simply because someone else found it unfair by a very oddball definition of "unfair" in a game that was never designed to be fair.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 05:53:40 -
[3197] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Lucas, CCP have no desire to ban anybody, only to curb a small part of ISboxer gameplay.
Some in this thread have stated that the incoming limit to a small part of ISboxing will have no real impact.
Much ado about nothing methinks.
Unless... Right, because limiting someone's completely legal gameplay in no way constitutes censorship, nor will CCP ban people who don't cross the line (oh wait.....). /sarcasm It may be "much ado about nothing", look at it this way. Every day for the last 5 or so years, on your way to work or school, you stopped at a Wawa and grabbed a cup of coffee. Now, one day, someone comes along a la Jenny McCarthy and starts shrieking that coffee turned you into a serial killer. The evidence she presents is a picture of some mentally ill person who wasn't receiving the proper medication who suddenly snapped. Now, in order to get your daily cup of mana, you must present a signed letter from your doctor stating that you are not insane. Now, it may not seem like a big deal. After all, you're not insane right? So there's no reason to not go to the doctors and get a letter! However, this presumes guilty until proven innocent based on a single isolated incident that had a shakier connection between the incident and the coffee than using 56k dialup with someone on the line. Add to the fact that the person(s) making the outrageous claims wants to simply ban something that *might* be a problem (coffee, isboxer) instead of attempting to address the issues at hand that led to the incident (no treatment for mental illness, outdated gameplay that results in near-afk scenarios) and you have a recipe for slippery slope arguments that will result in people eating a nutrient paste and nothing else (only allowed 1 client per human online at a time mining in a 1.0 system for 2 hours a day with no aggression allowed at all). I dunno about you, but I don't like playing a game where my gamestyle can be forcibly changed simply because someone else found it unfair by a very oddball definition of "unfair" in a game that was never designed to be fair.
As much as I like the scenario you paint, I don't think mining was the "target" of the upcoming changes.
There was a minority of ISBoxer and similar software users, who's use of the software to enhance their solo PVP capabilities created a problem.
The changes may or may not have any impact on this group but it will certainly have even less impact on smart multibox miners.
CCP unfortunately haven't been very forthcoming with the reasons behind the changes so of course speculation has ruled this thread pretty much from the 1st post.
One can only hope that at some time in the future CCP see fit to let players in on their reasons, goals and a way players can help the same be achieved.
If not, they can expect to be responding to many many support requests along the lines of - JoeBlow has 20 alts and is a multibox miner so I am reporting him for breaking the rules.
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
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
557
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 06:20:37 -
[3198] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:As much as I like the scenario you paint, I don't think mining was the "target" of the upcoming changes.
There was a minority of ISBoxer and similar software users, who's use of the software to enhance their solo PVP capabilities created a problem.
The changes may or may not have any impact on this group but it will certainly have even less impact on smart multibox miners.
CCP unfortunately haven't been very forthcoming with the reasons behind the changes so of course speculation has ruled this thread pretty much from the 1st post.
One can only hope that at some time in the future CCP see fit to let players in on their reasons, goals and a way players can help the same be achieved.
If not, they can expect to be responding to many many support requests along the lines of - JoeBlow has 20 alts and is a multibox miner so I am reporting him for breaking the rules.
I already addressed the so-called concerns of the PVPers. ISBoxers are at a supreme disadvantage when it comes to incoming EWAR and Capacitor Warfare compared to a non-boxing fleet. They can't maneuver easily to mitigate the effects, they can't ask for ECCM, ReSebos, cap transfers, or webs. Ships must sacrifice EWAR slots or damage slots for buffer as they will not react as fast as a solo player getting aggro from an enemy fleet.
They're also disadvantaged because they are limited in their fleet comp due to the limitations of ISBoxer and their ability to multitask under pressure. Adding to that, the limitations of the fleet comp means they go out often with little to no EWAR or Cap Warfare support on their side to help, unless they bring along friends.
For gankers and freighter pilots, it doesn't matter if you're ganked by a boxer or not. If you undock with 20b in your freighter, you will get ganked.
As for the bombers, I've said it before and I'll say it again: If your nullsec BS fleet is sitting AFK on a planet, you will get bombed by someone. Also, if your nullsec BS fleet goes out without anti-bomber support, either in defensive bubbles or ships like instacanes and Zealots, you deserve to get bombed.
Also, 4-digit arming code for bombs would slap most of em.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 07:00:46 -
[3199] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:As much as I like the scenario you paint, I don't think mining was the "target" of the upcoming changes.
There was a minority of ISBoxer and similar software users, who's use of the software to enhance their solo PVP capabilities created a problem.
The changes may or may not have any impact on this group but it will certainly have even less impact on smart multibox miners.
CCP unfortunately haven't been very forthcoming with the reasons behind the changes so of course speculation has ruled this thread pretty much from the 1st post.
One can only hope that at some time in the future CCP see fit to let players in on their reasons, goals and a way players can help the same be achieved.
If not, they can expect to be responding to many many support requests along the lines of - JoeBlow has 20 alts and is a multibox miner so I am reporting him for breaking the rules. I already addressed the so-called concerns of the PVPers. ISBoxers are at a supreme disadvantage when it comes to incoming EWAR and Capacitor Warfare compared to a non-boxing fleet. They can't maneuver easily to mitigate the effects, they can't ask for ECCM, ReSebos, cap transfers, or webs. Ships must sacrifice EWAR slots or damage slots for buffer as they will not react as fast as a solo player getting aggro from an enemy fleet. They're also disadvantaged because they are limited in their fleet comp due to the limitations of ISBoxer and their ability to multitask under pressure. Adding to that, the limitations of the fleet comp means they go out often with little to no EWAR or Cap Warfare support on their side to help, unless they bring along friends. For gankers and freighter pilots, it doesn't matter if you're ganked by a boxer or not. If you undock with 20b in your freighter, you will get ganked. As for the bombers, I've said it before and I'll say it again: If your nullsec BS fleet is sitting AFK on a planet, you will get bombed by someone. Also, if your nullsec BS fleet goes out without anti-bomber support, either in defensive bubbles or ships like instacanes and Zealots, you deserve to get bombed. Also, 4-digit arming code for bombs would slap most of em.
You've never encountered the 1 man fleet with his 20 Hounds in M-O have you?
Ewar, webs etc are all pretty useless - He decloaks, fires and your in your pod. (check killboards for M-OEE8) Only counter we could come up with for him was bubbles, which of course means he won't come near you.
You've never been in a fleet and had 20 Bombers all decloak and launch at exactly the same time 30k from you. We weren't AFK and had less than no chance of catching him as 1 button push meant, his whole fleet recloaked at exactly the same time.
The type of PVP you are referring to is not likely to be greatly affected by these changes (it has always been relatively easy to counter) but the guy who uses bombers and broadcasts his targets in 20 v 1 encounters is likely to find it far more difficult
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
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
557
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 07:12:43 -
[3200] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Only counter we could come up with for him was bubbles, which of course means he won't come near you.
Sorry, how is this a bad thing? Isn't that exactly what I just suggested?
Sgt Ocker wrote:You've never been in a fleet and had 20 Bombers all decloak and launch at exactly the same time 30k from you. We weren't AFK and had less than no chance of catching him as 1 button push meant, his whole fleet recloaked at exactly the same time.
No, but I've participated in fleets where it was my job to look out for bombers. I've also been on the other side of the torpedo launcher. IIRC, bombs take 10 seconds to land. That gives you 10 seconds to warp off or MWD away (MWD being less likely unless nano gang or you got boosts).
Sgt Ocker wrote:The type of PVP you are referring to is not likely to be greatly affected by these changes (it has always been relatively easy to counter) but the guy who uses bombers and broadcasts his targets in 20 v 1 encounters is likely to find it far more difficult
Doubtful that his fleet would be changed too much. The one who'll really change are the 40-boxers wheniaminspace and Ammzi (plus the others that I forget). Round Robin Broadcasting is still legal (even with the massive grey line CCP painted) so this guy will likely not go away.
Unless, of course, you use bubbles. Which is what I said.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
|
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2833
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 07:49:17 -
[3201] - Quote
Lucas, you make a lot of assumptions based on little, if no evidence.
Of course some of what you say makes sense, it is blindingly obvious that CCP do ban players just because they can - a handful of GMs not looking into it quite enough - It is not as if CCP are running a business and want more players to subscribe so that they make more money, how dumb would that be?
I see that you use the usual 'carebear' insult to disparage anyone who does not conform you your way of thinking. If, say, I did use ISboxer to multi-mine to pay for my null-sec pvp gameplay, I am just as likely to complain about my 'competitors' as any so called hi-sec carebear, to remove the competition.
The part where you say that if no one knew about ISboxing is well below your usual standard of contrarian views. It is like saying that if nobody knew about botting or hacking the game, no one would complain. I have never met a botter or hacker, but, and I am going to be honest with you, I still disaprove of them because of, 'the idea of unfairness'
If, as ISboxers say, this change will have little impact on them, whay are so many of them threatening to rage quit with and take their zillion alts with them?
Oh, real life bit, I hope you have a really enjoyable Christmas holiday.
This is not a signature.
|
Orchid Fury
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 07:52:24 -
[3202] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Everyone *has* been following the rules. Because of whining, entitled players like yourself however those rules are changing, leaving the stagnant, badly designed gamplay as it is.
this is wrong. the eula was last changed in april 2012. the use of input broadcasting is and always was against the eula. it was tolerated, the only thing that changed is their tolerance. using broadcasting hence was always a grey area, and quite frankly isboxer users did infact know that very well. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28510
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 08:09:10 -
[3203] - Quote
Just got a GM response to a support ticket, and it says binding a G-key to F1 through F8 is legal.
I was also referred to this post
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
557
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 08:24:40 -
[3204] - Quote
Orchid Fury wrote:usage of input broadcasting is and always was against the eula
Yeah, gonna have to call BS on that. CCP didn't have a problem with input broadcasting as long as there was a human being behind the keyboard issuing commands. If it broke the EULA then, they would've either said it somewhere, or they would have banned people a long time ago. Botting has always been against the EULA, and botting will continue as the broadcast ban meant nothing to the botters. Maybe you're confusing the two.
Orchid Fury wrote:quite frankly isboxer users did infact know that very well.
We knew that we were at the mercy of CCP but we trusted them to make rational, well thought-out decisions based on hard numbers and evidence, and to attempt to fix their game as they saw fit before attempting to pin the blame on a 3rd party. We worked damn hard to make sure we were legit, including conversations on twitter, petitions in-game, and interviews with specific devs. We didn't attempt to pull an AHARM where we asked "is everything OK with the game?" and use that as a blanket excuse for everything.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 10:11:20 -
[3205] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Only counter we could come up with for him was bubbles, which of course means he won't come near you. Sorry, how is this a bad thing? Isn't that exactly what I just suggested? Sgt Ocker wrote:You've never been in a fleet and had 20 Bombers all decloak and launch at exactly the same time 30k from you. We weren't AFK and had less than no chance of catching him as 1 button push meant, his whole fleet recloaked at exactly the same time. No, but I've participated in fleets where it was my job to look out for bombers. I've also been on the other side of the torpedo launcher. IIRC, bombs take 10 seconds to land. That gives you 10 seconds to warp off or MWD away (MWD being less likely unless nano gang or you got boosts). Sgt Ocker wrote:The type of PVP you are referring to is not likely to be greatly affected by these changes (it has always been relatively easy to counter) but the guy who uses bombers and broadcasts his targets in 20 v 1 encounters is likely to find it far more difficult Doubtful that his fleet would be changed too much. The one who'll really change are the 40-boxers wheniaminspace and Ammzi (plus the others that I forget). Round Robin Broadcasting is still legal (even with the massive grey line CCP painted) so this guy will likely not go away. Unless, of course, you use bubbles. Which is what I said.
If the plan is not engage, the bubbles work well. He is smart enough to stay away from anything with bubbles. Unless it is alone, in which case it is usually dead before getting to light the bubble..
Average battleship takes 12 seconds to align, your dead. As for MWDing away LOL, yeah cause there is nothing like having a sig radius the size of a barn when there are bombs on grid.
The guy I am referring to is likely already cross training his alts as miners. Even with round robin, he would need to carry out 60 key presses in a split second to remain effective (now he uses 3, 5 if you include the recloak and warp out).
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
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4830
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 10:32:44 -
[3206] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:You've never encountered the 1 man fleet with his 20 Hounds in M-O have you?
Ewar, webs etc are all pretty useless - He decloaks, fires and your in your pod. (check killboards for M-OEE8) Only counter we could come up with for him was bubbles, which of course means he won't come near you. I doubt he'd use 20 hounds in one go since his bombs would detonate each other. And the people this change least affects is bombers, since they already do most of their stuff with fleet warps.
Sgt Ocker wrote:You've never been in a fleet and had 20 Bombers all decloak and launch at exactly the same time 30k from you. We weren't AFK and had less than no chance of catching him as 1 button push meant, his whole fleet recloaked at exactly the same time.
The type of PVP you are referring to is not likely to be greatly affected by these changes (it has always been relatively easy to counter) but the guy who uses bombers and broadcasts his targets in 20 v 1 encounters is likely to find it far more difficult Any even remotely competent bomber fleet will appear to launch at exactly the same time, since they all fire at roughly the same time and the 1 second server ticks mean that most of the commands will all get executed at the same time. I've been in, and the target of, many many bomber fleets.
They'll also scatter to different safe points and cloak on the way, only idiots try to cloak on grid. You warp to your target, align to him, decloak, launch bomb, then warp through your target to a preset safe (so you don't need to realign) and cloak on the way.
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
4830
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 10:47:03 -
[3207] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Lucas, you make a lot of assumptions based on little, if no evidence.
Of course some of what you say makes sense, it is blindingly obvious that CCP do ban players just because they can - a handful of GMs not looking into it quite enough - It is not as if CCP are running a business and want more players to subscribe so that they make more money, how dumb would that be? And banning a feature of hardcore gaming software somehow makes the game more likeable? I think making game mechanics less mind-numbingly boring would do a better job of that.
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:I see that you use the usual 'carebear' insult to disparage anyone who does not conform you your way of thinking. If, say, I did use ISboxer to multi-mine to pay for my null-sec pvp gameplay, I am just as likely to complain about my 'competitors' as any so called hi-sec carebear, to remove the competition. No, I use carebear for a specific type of player, the type that's far too incompetent to play EVE properly, so they demand rules change to make it easier. They want gankers gone, multiboxers (not just ISBoxers gone) and they want to be sure they can just make isk and buy cheap PLEX for eternity. And I too would want to remove competitiors, so I would remove them. I wouldn't go crying to CCP, I'd bump the ever living hell out of their haulers and orcas, I'd gank their ships and I'd outplay them. I crush smaller traders all the time by choking off their profits, even if it cuts some of mine down as well.
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:The part where you say that if no one knew about ISboxing it would not be an issue, is well below your usual standard of contrarian views. It is like saying that if nobody knew about botting or hacking the game, no one would complain. I have never met a botter or hacker, but, and I am going to be honest with you, I still disaprove of them because of, 'the idea of unfairness' Well if you think about it, a bot does things a human never could. It plays all day without breaks and with no sleep and is 100% effective as it can work out to the second when it should stop it's lasers. And ISBoxer controlled character can only do what any normal player can do. If nobody knew any other forms of control existed, they'd look at a botter and say "well that's wierd, he works like clockwork 24/7 and never takes a break. That's impossible!", but they'd look at an ISBoxer character, and it would just be a normal character. So literally, the complaint here is that one person gets the profit. I get the profit of all my trading alts, and I put in far less input than an ISBoxer does and get far more isk out of it. So surely if an ISBoxer is unfair, so is having alts and trading. I even get to pay 1/3 the PLEX too, because I can run traders on the same account.
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:If, as ISboxers say, this change will have little impact on them, whay are so many of them threatening to rage quit with and take their zillion alts with them? There are only a few threatening to quit. Mostly the biggest ones who to be fair have resulted in CCP getting more cash than a "regular" player ever will. Many of us are simply against the nature of this change. I want CCP to fix terrible game mechanics, not just scapegoat ISBoxers, then leave mining, missioning and incursions the same way they've been done for years. I'd love to see a single player who pays attention and engages in the gameplay earning significantly more than an AFK player or a multiboxer with his attention divided. But that's never going to happen if we just accept CCP making changes like this instead.
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Oh, real life bit, I hope you have a really enjoyable Christmas holiday. You too bro, have a good one.
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
4830
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 10:49:57 -
[3208] - Quote
Orchid Fury wrote:that is wrong. the eula was last revised in april 2012. usage of input broadcasting is and always was against the eula, but was tolerated. the only change is their tolerance. using broadcasting was always a grey area, and quite frankly isboxer users did infact know that very well. Indeed it was, but it wasn't just tolerated, it was explicitly accepted. The rule always was that as long as 1 key did 1 action, it didn't matter how many clients it did it on, and that has now changed. But then, most ISboxer player's wouldn't even care that it's changing either, if CCP would actually do what they said they would and answer questions that have been put to them so they know where they stand.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 11:15:12 -
[3209] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:You've never encountered the 1 man fleet with his 20 Hounds in M-O have you?
Ewar, webs etc are all pretty useless - He decloaks, fires and your in your pod. (check killboards for M-OEE8) Only counter we could come up with for him was bubbles, which of course means he won't come near you. I doubt he'd use 20 hounds in one go since his bombs would detonate each other. And the people this change least affects is bombers, since they already do most of their stuff with fleet warps. Sgt Ocker wrote:You've never been in a fleet and had 20 Bombers all decloak and launch at exactly the same time 30k from you. We weren't AFK and had less than no chance of catching him as 1 button push meant, his whole fleet recloaked at exactly the same time.
The type of PVP you are referring to is not likely to be greatly affected by these changes (it has always been relatively easy to counter) but the guy who uses bombers and broadcasts his targets in 20 v 1 encounters is likely to find it far more difficult Any even remotely competent bomber fleet will appear to launch at exactly the same time, since they all fire at roughly the same time and the 1 second server ticks mean that most of the commands will all get executed at the same time. I've been in, and the target of, many many bomber fleets. They'll also scatter to different safe points and cloak on the way, only idiots try to cloak on grid. You warp to your target, align to him, decloak, launch bomb, then warp through your target to a preset safe (so you don't need to realign) and cloak on the way.
Interesting, you don't seem to know how bombs work but that is an aside. (mixed bombs have a chance of detonating each other, a very good reason why bombing squads like to have the same ship or at least bomb type).
The guy who has until recently haunted M-O has his toons named quite nicely and numbered 1 to 30. They don't fire at "roughly" the same time, they fire at "exactly" the same time. He also primarily used torps.
Funny but I don't see an argument here, aside from the fleet composition (which unless you choose to believe 30 people all created toons on the same day and named them the same using name and number) of 1 guy and alts, your comments backup what i said.
I can hardly wait for the next 1 man bombing squad to land on grid and use round robin to align, decloak, fire bomb, warp out, cloak. I would imagine he just lost at least half his bombers or at best, is now fighting his way out of a dictor bubble that went up while he was round robin decloaking and firing his bombs off.
Did I forget to mention, the guy from M-O also spent quite a bit of time in local, explaining to anyone interested how he had setup ISboxer to run his fleet? I believe he also has instructional and practical videos on youtube.
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
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4830
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 11:33:57 -
[3210] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Interesting, you don't seem to know how bombs work but that is an aside. (mixed bombs have a chance of detonating each other, a very good reason why bombing squads like to have the same ship or at least bomb type). You might want to go read up about bombs. Bombs do 6400 damage, have 96 armor (with a 99.8% resistance to their own type) and 20 hull. What this means is that if you launch bombs of different types, once 1 goes off it will destroy all others not of it's type. If the bombs are of the same type and are launched together, they will do 12.8 points of armor damage to the surrounding bombs each time one detonates. This means that once the 8th bomb goes off, all of the others that were there will be destroyed, so you can launch 30 bombs if you like, but only 8 of them will actually explode. They are specifically designed this way.
Sgt Ocker wrote:The guy who has until recently haunted M-O has his toons named quite nicely and numbered 1 to 30. They don't fire at "roughly" the same time, they fire at "exactly" the same time. He also primarily used torps.
Funny but I don't see an argument here, aside from the fleet composition (which unless you choose to believe 30 people all created toons on the same day and named them the same using name and number) of 1 guy and alts, your comments backup what i said. Oh I believe this guy is one, sure, but that doesn't mean that all bomber fleets are 1 guy. the server ticks mean that even if they fire at "roughly" the same time, on your screen they will appear at *exactly* the same time. You have no way of telling how far through that tick they fired.
Sgt Ocker wrote:I can hardly wait for the next 1 man bombing squad to land on grid and use round robin to align, decloak, fire bomb, warp out, cloak. I would imagine he just lost at least half his bombers or at best, is now fighting his way out of a dictor bubble that went up while he was round robin decloaking and firing his bombs off. They already are using the new setup. Fleet warp takes care of the in and out so you don't lose the bombers, and round robin is pretty quick at firing them all in the same tick. Now that we know you can push more than one butter per keypress (thanks Rain) it will make it even easier.
Sgt Ocker wrote:Did I forget to mention, the guy from M-O also spent quite a bit of time in local, explaining to anyone interested how he had setup ISboxer to run his fleet? I believe he also has instructional and practical videos on youtube. Again, I'm not denying that this guy was a multiboxer, I'm simply saying that seeing weapons fired at the same time isn't enough to make that assumption.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
148
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 15:09:37 -
[3211] - Quote
I only took a look here because Lucas left a comment on my blog. It's Christmas and you guys are still waging your little war?
Well, I hope you take (or took, depending on where you live) an hour or two to get away from the serious business of internet spaceships and enjoy the holiday.
Merry Christmas!
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4830
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 17:28:04 -
[3212] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:I only took a look here because Lucas left a comment on my blog. It's Christmas and you guys are still waging your little war? Well, I hope you take (or took, depending on where you live) an hour or two to get away from the serious business of internet spaceships and enjoy the holiday. Merry Christmas! Are you kidding? I've already managed to cook an entire Christmas dinner, watch a couple of films,play a few games with the fam and drink more alcohol that one should and I'm more ready for war than ever!
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 23:04:03 -
[3213] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Interesting, you don't seem to know how bombs work but that is an aside. (mixed bombs have a chance of detonating each other, a very good reason why bombing squads like to have the same ship or at least bomb type). You might want to go read up about bombs. Bombs do 6400 damage, have 96 armor (with a 99.8% resistance to their own type) and 20 hull. What this means is that if you launch bombs of different types, once 1 goes off it will destroy all others not of it's type. If the bombs are of the same type and are launched together, they will do 12.8 points of armor damage to the surrounding bombs each time one detonates. This means that once the 8th bomb goes off, all of the others that were there will be destroyed, so you can launch 30 bombs if you like, but only 8 of them will actually explode. They are specifically designed this way. Sgt Ocker wrote:The guy who has until recently haunted M-O has his toons named quite nicely and numbered 1 to 30. They don't fire at "roughly" the same time, they fire at "exactly" the same time. He also primarily used torps.
Funny but I don't see an argument here, aside from the fleet composition (which unless you choose to believe 30 people all created toons on the same day and named them the same using name and number) of 1 guy and alts, your comments backup what i said. Oh I believe this guy is one, sure, but that doesn't mean that all bomber fleets are 1 guy. the server ticks mean that even if they fire at "roughly" the same time, on your screen they will appear at *exactly* the same time. You have no way of telling how far through that tick they fired. Sgt Ocker wrote:I can hardly wait for the next 1 man bombing squad to land on grid and use round robin to align, decloak, fire bomb, warp out, cloak. I would imagine he just lost at least half his bombers or at best, is now fighting his way out of a dictor bubble that went up while he was round robin decloaking and firing his bombs off. They already are using the new setup. Fleet warp takes care of the in and out so you don't lose the bombers, and round robin is pretty quick at firing them all in the same tick. Now that we know you can push more than one butter per keypress (thanks Rain) it will make it even easier. Sgt Ocker wrote:Did I forget to mention, the guy from M-O also spent quite a bit of time in local, explaining to anyone interested how he had setup ISboxer to run his fleet? I believe he also has instructional and practical videos on youtube. Again, I'm not denying that this guy was a multiboxer, I'm simply saying that seeing weapons fired at the same time isn't enough to make that assumption.
Sorry Lucas but you have been arguing in this thread for soooooo long you are now contradicting yourself.
Not sure how much time you have spent playing around with bombing runs but there are indeed ways to ensure ALL your bombs do what you want them to.
As for using the new setup.. The guy I mention has said; "I knew they would ban it eventually but it was fun while it lasted". He obviously believes using round robin with his fleet of bombers, the way he uses them, is too much extra work / risk.
I have never said all bomber squads were run by one person, I made a very specific statement about one very specific player. You could even verify my story by simply checking the system kill history.
And lastly, if Rain is right and multiple round robin key presses are indeed acceptable - This whole change will come to nothing and CCP has simply played "lip service" to those who's complaints brought about the change to start with. (is what I thought all along, CCP didn't want to change anything, just make it appear they had).
Fatigue is the only "real" change we have seen recently and if the goal there was to bring about a more static nulsec - It is a great success.
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
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
558
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 23:49:35 -
[3214] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Sorry Lucas but you have been arguing in this thread for soooooo long you are now contradicting yourself.
Not sure how much time you have spent playing around with bombing runs but there are indeed ways to ensure ALL your bombs do what you want them to.
As for using the new setup.. The guy I mention has said; "I knew they would ban it eventually but it was fun while it lasted". He obviously believes using round robin with his fleet of bombers, the way he uses them, is too much extra work / risk.
I have never said all bomber squads were run by one person, I made a very specific statement about one very specific player. You could even verify my story by simply checking the system kill history.
And lastly, if Rain is right and multiple round robin key presses are indeed acceptable - This whole change will come to nothing and CCP has simply played "lip service" to those who's complaints brought about the change to start with. (is what I thought all along, CCP didn't want to change anything, just make it appear they had).
Fatigue is the only "real" change we have seen recently and if the goal there was to bring about a more static nulsec - It is a great success.
Unless he's using 13 Void bombs, (23,400 gj neuted; Base NavPoc: 7,000, lots of wasted potential) there's no way he'll be dropping 20 bombs in one wave (160,000 raw damage max skills) as they'll kill each other off due to resists and damage.
After any large change there will always be some who will leave because of the lack of communication from CCP to the playerbase, as well as the general impression that CCP is either making changes for the sake of change, that CCP did not think things through, or that they are tired of being hit with the stick while the carrot is moved so far away that it would take a HG Ascendancy clone in a Leopard a day to warp to. Additionally, people don't want to jump through a hundred hoops for the possibility of finding a carrot, as we saw with the WH mass change thread and the subsequent exodus of WH corps and mass-merging into, for lack of a better term, "blue donut-esque" WH coalitions. Add to that, the lack of information and communication by CCP Fozzie regarding the promised graphs has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many people, and a new want to take anything CCP says or does with a grain of salt.
I still stand by my earlier statement that CCP needed to tell the whiners to HTFU, or to fix the gameplay mechanics that was, in the whiners minds, "abused", before attempting to issue a ban and pay lip service to them.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6509
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 01:07:01 -
[3215] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: I want CCP to fix terrible game mechanics, not just scapegoat ISBoxers, then leave mining, missioning and incursions the same way they've been done for years.
You're asking for too much.
Sometimes, one has to be satisfied with a little "just scapegoat ISBoxers"
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4833
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 01:13:23 -
[3216] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Not sure how much time you have spent playing around with bombing runs but there are indeed ways to ensure ALL your bombs do what you want them to. Perhaps you'd like to explain ow you get round the designed limits of bombing runs so CCP can address it. The way you get all your bombs to do what you want is by breaking down he run into waves.
Sgt Ocker wrote:As for using the new setup.. The guy I mention has said; "I knew they would ban it eventually but it was fun while it lasted". He obviously believes using round robin with his fleet of bombers, the way he uses them, is too much extra work / risk. So... one person decides it's too much hassle, therefore all of them will? I guess it must be problem solved then! Round robin won't be an issue. Good job buddy!
Sgt Ocker wrote:I have never said all bomber squads were run by one person, I made a very specific statement about one very specific player. You could even verify my story by simply checking the system kill history. I literally could not care less about your little story. Why don't you go back to mailing me pages and pages of tears, crying about being a goon and hating yourself for it ending with "stop replying because I won't bother reading it" then blocking me.
Sgt Ocker wrote:And lastly, if Rain is right and multiple round robin key presses are indeed acceptable - This whole change will come to nothing and CCP has simply played "lip service" to those who's complaints brought about the change to start with. (is what I thought all along, CCP didn't want to change anything, just make it appear they had). Yes, which is exactly what I've been saying all along, that this change as it is currently being put in is pointless and ineffective. So thanks for agreeing with me I guess.
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
4833
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 01:15:30 -
[3217] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: I want CCP to fix terrible game mechanics, not just scapegoat ISBoxers, then leave mining, missioning and incursions the same way they've been done for years. You're asking for too much. Sometimes, one has to be satisfied with a little "just scapegoat ISBoxers" If people didn't settle with mediocrity so much, perhaps the game would be vastly improved.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
559
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 01:22:30 -
[3218] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:You're asking for too much.
Sometimes, one has to be satisfied with a little "just scapegoat ISBoxers"
And when the same whiners come back to the forums with tears in their eyes, complaining about broken mechanics, then what? Where do we draw the line? I for one am not going to sit idly by while these "equality warriors" keep pushing the line back until every system turns into 1.0 space, we're limited to a single Venture, one account online per person, and we're limited to 2 hours a day. EVE by design is unfair. The playerbase has furthered the gap. Attempting to blame everything on ISBoxer is hilarious, and will accomplish nothing in the long term.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
RoCkEt X
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
94
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 02:04:11 -
[3219] - Quote
I've stayed out of this until now;
CCP Falcon wrote:l
TL:DR :
*We tried to nerf ISBoxing stealth bombers because it's pretty OP.
*We decided to nerf it by changing the cloaking mechanics (cloaked ships decloak eachother).
*The playerbase pointed out it was stupid and pretty much nerfed every cloaking ship in the game to the point of unbalancing them.
*We failed to come up with a viable solution for ISbomber rebalancing.
*We nerfed all TRUE multiboxers instead.
[/i]
Fixed one problem, nerfed your veteran/serious players again, will probably lose several hundred subscriptions over it with all the unsubbing multiboxer accounts...
Like everything else in eve, those who have not (the majority), complain about how those who have are OP.
NBD right?
I'm not mad about it, and i understand that CCP is making EVE easier to draw in more casual players. but it's not casual players that make the major content in your game. it's not casual players that made global gaming news in Asakai, Odamia, BR-. People play EVE because they are not the average. Remember that in your future changes please.
Disclaimer: Quote is re-written by myself, revolves around my interpretation of the OP...
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28805
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 02:18:27 -
[3220] - Quote
EVE is not l337. It's about as input-intensive as Starcraft... if you only control one unit. Farmville has more input.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
559
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 02:40:14 -
[3221] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:EVE is not l337. It's about as input-intensive as Starcraft... if you only control one unit. Farmville has more input.
LOL. Have you seen some of the stuff that is pulled in the tournaments with "one unit"? As I recall, someone micro'd a single Stalker pretty damn effectively (with a lot of APM) and it nearly won him the game. Look at some of the solo frigate, dessy, and nano-cruiser videos out there. Heck, even the Bastionnades video has a fair amount of APM. I think one of my favorite videos was the solo 10mn AB Manticore taking out small gangs of BC and Cruisers. Just because dreadnaughts and supercaps don't warrant a lot of APM besides "F1 to siege, F2 to fire, assign drones", doesn't mean the rest of EVE doesn't as well. Even incursions, with non-asleep players, put out a decent amount of APM.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28827
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 02:57:57 -
[3222] - Quote
You can play ten EVE clients at once. Go away.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
559
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 03:18:15 -
[3223] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:You can play ten EVE clients at once.
Right, and after this change, we'll see the same miners in the belt, and the same people will run straight to CCP and complain.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28828
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 03:43:27 -
[3224] - Quote
is that supposed to mean something
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
559
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 03:56:40 -
[3225] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:is that supposed to mean something
It's supposed to mean "change for the sake of change is bad".
It's supposed to mean (for lack of a better phrase) "don't count your chickens before they hatch".
It's supposed to mean "changes will have unexpected consequences".
It's supposed to mean "this was a **** change as has been explained time and time again for the past 150 pages with no valid or reasonable reasons, explanation, evidence, or discussions behind it, and was brought about by the EVE equivalent of the thought-police".
If you want to attempt to defend or present an argument for this change, please, let's hear it. Just don't shitpost and expect nothing to happen.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Kiryen O'Bannon
Silver Guardians
Fidelas Constans
174
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 04:07:01 -
[3226] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Lucas, CCP have no desire to ban anybody, only to curb a small part of ISboxer gameplay.
Some in this thread have stated that the incoming limit to a small part of ISboxing will have no real impact.
Much ado about nothing methinks.
Unless... Right, because limiting someone's completely legal gameplay in no way constitutes censorship, nor will CCP ban people who don't cross the line (oh wait.....).
When they implement this change it will, by definition, no longer be completely legal gameplay. It also has nothing to do with censorship. Censorship is about freedom of speech and freedom of expression; changing the means you are allowed to use to execute game inputs pretty much has zero to do with either.
Quote:
It may be "much ado about nothing", look at it this way. Every day for the last 5 or so years, on your way to work or school, you stopped at a Wawa and grabbed a cup of coffee. Now, one day, someone comes along a la Jenny McCarthy and starts shrieking that coffee turned you into a serial killer. The evidence she presents is a picture of some mentally ill person who wasn't receiving the proper medication who suddenly snapped.
Now, in order to get your daily cup of mana, you must present a signed letter from your doctor stating that you are not insane. Now, it may not seem like a big deal. After all, you're not insane right? So there's no reason to not go to the doctors and get a letter! However, this presumes guilty until proven innocent based on a single isolated incident that had a shakier connection between the incident and the coffee than using 56k dialup with someone on the line. Add to the fact that the person(s) making the outrageous claims wants to simply ban something that *might* be a problem (coffee, isboxer) instead of attempting to address the issues at hand that led to the incident (no treatment for mental illness, outdated gameplay that results in near-afk scenarios) and you have a recipe for slippery slope arguments that will result in people eating a nutrient paste and nothing else (only allowed 1 client per human online at a time mining in a 1.0 system for 2 hours a day with no aggression allowed at all).
I dunno about you, but I don't like playing a game where my gamestyle can be forcibly changed simply because someone else found it unfair by a very oddball definition of "unfair" in a game that was never designed to be fair.
I struggle to imagine how this asinine scenario is in any way related to the situation in question.
This is more like if you go into your local gas station every morning with a ten gallon jug, buy all the available coffee, and fill a huge box with all the breakfast tacos and then the establishment implements a policy saying "we will only sell hot beverages and prepared breakfast food in our own cups or boxes and if that means you can't carry out our entire supply, tough corn nuggets."
The rest of the customers are cheering that they can now get their 16 ounce house roast and a chorizo con queso y huevoes without having to rush to get there before you show up and hog the entire supply, while you are raving about notes from psychologists for no apparent reason.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28829
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 04:08:37 -
[3227] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rain6637 wrote:is that supposed to mean something It's supposed to mean "change for the sake of change is bad". It's supposed to mean (for lack of a better phrase) "don't count your chickens before they hatch". It's supposed to mean "changes will have unexpected consequences". It's supposed to mean "this was a **** change as has been explained time and time again for the past 150 pages with no valid or reasonable reasons, explanation, evidence, or discussions behind it, and was brought about by the EVE equivalent of the thought-police". If you want to attempt to defend or present an argument for this change, please, let's hear it. Just don't shitpost and expect nothing to happen.
Scrubs will always complain, is what I was thinking. You're pointing to scrub behavior like it matters.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
559
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 04:19:22 -
[3228] - Quote
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:I struggle to imagine how this asinine scenario is in any way related to the situation in question.
This is more like if you go into your local gas station every morning with a ten gallon jug, buy all the available coffee, and fill a huge box with all the breakfast tacos and then the establishment implements a policy saying "we will only sell hot beverages and prepared breakfast food in our own cups or boxes and if that means you can't carry out our entire supply, tough corn nuggets."
The rest of the customers are cheering that they can now get their 16 ounce house roast and a chorizo con queso y huevoes without having to rush to get there before you show up and hog the entire supply, while you are raving about notes from psychologists for no apparent reason.
Except that in EVE, the coffee never runs out (and if by some miracle it does, you can walk ten feet to the next coffee shop), and people are complaining about using a 12oz cup while I walk in and buy a 24oz cup. I get more coffee, but I also pay more per cup. You're coming along and complaining that I get more coffee, but are unwilling to spend more to get more coffee. Instead, they're complaining to management, and now management is limiting everyone to a 12oz cup max. While the crowd cheers, in the long term, people will start buying 2x 12oz cups, and we'll be back where we started with people complaining to management.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
559
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 04:20:31 -
[3229] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Scrubs will always complain, is what I was thinking. You're pointing to scrub behavior like it matters.
That's funny. I could've sworn that I wasn't the one complaining about multiboxers or how others play the game....
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Kiryen O'Bannon
Silver Guardians
Fidelas Constans
175
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 04:27:02 -
[3230] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Except that in EVE, the coffee never runs out (and if by some miracle it does, you can walk ten feet to the next coffee shop), and people are complaining about using a 12oz cup while I walk in and buy a 24oz cup. I get more coffee, but I also pay more per cup. You're coming along and complaining that I get more coffee, but are unwilling to spend more to get more coffee. Instead, they're complaining to management, and now management is limiting everyone to a 12oz cup max. While the crowd cheers, in the long term, people will start buying 2x 12oz cups, and we'll be back where we started with people complaining to management.
In the real world, you could also go down the street to the next gas station and coffee in any developed country and quite a few less-developed ones might as well be infinite too; coffee is definitely NOT on a list of things anyone seriously contemplates a shortage of.
However, like the coffee at the gas station, it can only be made available so fast. If you have to go "down the street" that means additional time spent, and time is very finite - both IRL and in-game. In real life the fact that the gas station can secure a near-limitless supply of coffee does not make you any less of a jackass if you go in there and buy them out of it. You are not buying a 24 oz cup to someone else's 12 oz; you're coming in with a bucket and buying stuff by the gallon. No one cares if you run two accounts side by side and manually control them both.
Furthermore, in EVE it isn't just coffee buying that benefits from this nonsense - people do it in combat against other players too. There's no real suitable real-life analogy for it but the problems remain. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
559
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 04:38:35 -
[3231] - Quote
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:In the real world, you could also go down the street to the next gas station and coffee in any developed country and quite a few less-developed ones might as well be infinite too; coffee is definitely NOT on a list of things anyone seriously contemplates a shortage of.
However, like the coffee at the gas station, it can only be made available so fast. If you have to go "down the street" that means additional time spent, and time is very finite - both IRL and in-game. In real life the fact that the gas station can secure a near-limitless supply of coffee does not make you any less of a jackass if you go in there and buy them out of it. You are not buying a 24 oz cup to someone else's 12 oz; you're coming in with a bucket and buying stuff by the gallon. No one cares if you run two accounts side by side and manually control them both.
Furthermore, in EVE it isn't just coffee buying that benefits from this nonsense - people do it in combat against other players too. There's no real suitable real-life analogy for it but the problems remain.
I said the coffee never runs out, not that the machine never runs out. I implied that it was a machine that always had coffee in it. I worked at a c-store for 3 years, and I assumed a lot of things in my original post that may not have been clear to many, including other employees, for which I apologize.
People control entire subsets of the EVE market and rake in billions, if not hundreds of billions, of ISK with fewer accounts and less effort than a multiboxer, essentially bringing their own bucket. Why are they given a free pass? Why are you targeting the ones who either pay the store for a larger size of coffee / multiple cups, or pay others to buy coffee and bring it to us? Double standards, my friend.
The CFC did not become a superpower in EVE overnight, but they control (or used to, I don't know the numbers now esp with the jump changes) more capitals, supercaps, titans, and SOV than anyone else. Shall we break them up as well since they have more titans than anyone else and can, as you said, "buy all the coffee" when push comes to shove in a capital battle?
And finally, what are you going to do after the change when the multibox miner is back in the belt, or back in nullsec, or wherever? Sit back and say "It is goodGäó"? If you do, your analogy falls apart completely.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28830
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 06:39:53 -
[3232] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Scrubs will always complain, is what I was thinking. You're pointing to scrub behavior like it matters. That's funny. I could've sworn that I wasn't the one complaining about multiboxers or how others play the game....
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
Requiem Eternal
74
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 12:09:45 -
[3233] - Quote
Sgt Ocker Your talking about Replicator? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6510
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 12:11:15 -
[3234] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:The CFC did not become a superpower in EVE overnight, but they control (or used to, I don't know the numbers now esp with the jump changes) more capitals, supercaps, titans, and SOV than anyone else. Shall we break them up as well since they have more titans than anyone else and can, as you said, "buy all the coffee" when push comes to shove in a capital battle?
That's odd, I thought for sure when pl went all in we were doomed as according to that one kugu post
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Kiryen O'Bannon
Silver Guardians
Fidelas Constans
177
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 21:39:51 -
[3235] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:I said the coffee never runs out, not that the machine never runs out. I implied that it was a machine that always had coffee in it. I worked at a c-store for 3 years, and I assumed a lot of things in my original post that may not have been clear to many, including other employees, for which I apologize.
I don't see how being pedantic about the specifics of gas station coffee makers improves your position.
Quote:People control entire subsets of the EVE market and rake in billions, if not hundreds of billions, of ISK with fewer accounts and less effort than a multiboxer, essentially bringing their own bucket. Why are they given a free pass? Why are you targeting the ones who either pay the store for a larger size of coffee / multiple cups, or pay others to buy coffee and bring it to us? Double standards, my friend.
They are not doing so by the same means, however. Being clever enough to be highly successful at market manipulation and exploitation means you are playing the game more skillfully than everyone else. ISBoxer does not. It is a means of augmenting your physical abilities, allowing you to rapidly control far more clients than you normally would.
You are intentionally misunderstanding the point. The point is not "ISBoxers are too rich" but "ISBoxers get rich by using technical means to circumvent the limitations of the human body."
Quote:The CFC did not become a superpower in EVE overnight, but they control (or used to, I don't know the numbers now esp with the jump changes) more capitals, supercaps, titans, and SOV than anyone else. Shall we break them up as well since they have more titans than anyone else and can, as you said, "buy all the coffee" when push comes to shove in a capital battle?
Organizing and maintaining a large organization is a skill all its own. The CFC relies on hundreds or thousands of pilots. Moreover, the CFC was in favor of changing drone assist mechanics for ages, for reasons not entirely dissimlar from the ISBoxer removal.
To use the coffee analogy again, the CFC doesn't come in and hog all the coffee; it buys out all the gas stations in its area, and starts selling its own coffee - and at this point the analogy is strained enough that it's rapidly becoming inapplicable. Analogies have limits, you know.
Quote:And finally, what are you going to do after the change when the multibox miner is back in the belt, or back in nullsec, or wherever? Sit back and say "It is goodGäó"? If you do, your analogy falls apart completely.
Not really. The multiboxer isn't the problem. He rapidly runs into the limits of human attention and capability. You are either fundamentally unable to understand, or are intentionally misunderstanding, the problem this change is intended to address.
There's also the fact that the analogy was loose to begin with. Analogies don't need to be 100% accurate for their own sake; they're illustrative, not probative in nature. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
559
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 22:07:37 -
[3236] - Quote
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:They are not doing so by the same means, however. Being clever enough to be highly successful at market manipulation and exploitation means you are playing the game more skillfully than everyone else. ISBoxer does not. It is a means of augmenting your physical abilities, allowing you to rapidly control far more clients than you normally would.
ISBoxer is a means of directly controlling multiple accounts through various means through continuous input. It can be used in lieu of buying 10 monitors or 10 computers and using other software to move the mouse through each screen. It's most common use is not, as you seem to believe, a way to control your accounts and have them magically controlled by some magical AI that never makes a mistake and reacts far faster than a human being could. That's a bot, and that's always been against the EULA.
Quote:You are intentionally misunderstanding the point. The point is not "ISBoxers are too rich" but "ISBoxers get rich by using technical means to circumvent the limitations of the human body."
You may be making the argument that it somehow circumvents supposed limitations, but I was referring to the rest of the rabble. But to deal with your argument, I think I'm going to have to know what you mean by "technical means", and what exactly you think a baseline limitation of the human body is. Take a look at the pro CS or pro COD tournaments. They arguably react far faster than the "average" player, or else they wouldn't be there. Some players, through genetics or training, react faster, can process information faster, and can make decisions faster than others. ISBoxer can, arguably, bridge the gap between the pros and the average people if they were each controlling multiple accounts.
Quote:Organizing and maintaining a large organization is a skill all its own.
So's controlling multiple accounts, via alt-tab or ISBoxer.
Quote:The CFC relies on hundreds or thousands of pilots. Moreover, the CFC was in favor of changing drone assist mechanics for ages, for reasons not entirely dissimlar from the ISBoxer removal.
I try to stay out of null politics, but didn't the CFC want to change drone assist mechanics AFTER it was used against them? I seem to remember that being the butt-end of many jokes about how the CFC will use and endorse any weapon system in EVE until it gets turned against them.
Quote:Not really. The multiboxer isn't the problem. He rapidly runs into the limits of human attention and capability. You are either fundamentally unable to understand, or are intentionally misunderstanding, the problem this change is intended to address.
You missed the point. ISBoxer is not being banned. RR Broadcasting is not being banned either. With the same overview settings, and with Round Robin Broadcasting, he'll still be out there running as fast as he can either spam F1, mouse-click, or scroll a mouse wheel. If ISBoxer and similar software was being banned, then yes, you would have a point. But since it's not, it's a band-aid fix for the underlying problems of EVE, and it will remain so until the gameplay is changed. CCP is currently playing lip service to the whiners who can't HTFU and learn about the game, so they ask the devs to add another upper limit to a game that already has upper limits (and rewards players for finding and reaching said upper limits) in order to feel equal.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4833
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 01:08:42 -
[3237] - Quote
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:They are not doing so by the same means, however. Being clever enough to be highly successful at market manipulation and exploitation means you are playing the game more skillfully than everyone else. ISBoxer does not. It is a means of augmenting your physical abilities, allowing you to rapidly control far more clients than you normally would. FYI, all successful traders in EVE use a multitude of tools to augment their abilities.
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:Organizing and maintaining a large organization is a skill all its own. The CFC relies on hundreds or thousands of pilots. Moreover, the CFC was in favor of changing drone assist mechanics for ages, for reasons not entirely dissimlar from the ISBoxer removal. The CFC also uses a lot of tools, a LOT of tools, for organisation.
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:Not really. The multiboxer isn't the problem. He rapidly runs into the limits of human attention and capability. You are either fundamentally unable to understand, or are intentionally misunderstanding, the problem this change is intended to address. What you miss is that there are still other ways to multibox with tools, which will still be legal afte January. Even if they weren't most things ISBoxer does well can be done on near infinite alts, because the reason they can be run by a broadcast tool is because they require nearly no input per character. You can easily run upwards of 20 miners using nothing but alt tab, and back in the day, that's what was done.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6512
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 05:07:09 -
[3238] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:Organizing and maintaining a large organization is a skill all its own. The CFC relies on hundreds or thousands of pilots. Moreover, the CFC was in favor of changing drone assist mechanics for ages, for reasons not entirely dissimlar from the ISBoxer removal. The CFC also uses a lot of tools, a LOT of tools, for organisation.
Clearly we need an Update regarding organizational third-party tools and multi-all-all-broadcasting.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
559
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 05:46:58 -
[3239] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:Organizing and maintaining a large organization is a skill all its own. The CFC relies on hundreds or thousands of pilots. Moreover, the CFC was in favor of changing drone assist mechanics for ages, for reasons not entirely dissimlar from the ISBoxer removal. The CFC also uses a lot of tools, a LOT of tools, for organisation. Clearly we need an Update regarding organizational third-party tools and multi-all-all-broadcasting.
Some of the software isn't just organizational, or can't be classified as only organizational. Why does CCP have to keep changing their EULA or third-party TOS when they can change something in-game and fix the problem itself?
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6512
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 08:42:25 -
[3240] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:Organizing and maintaining a large organization is a skill all its own. The CFC relies on hundreds or thousands of pilots. Moreover, the CFC was in favor of changing drone assist mechanics for ages, for reasons not entirely dissimlar from the ISBoxer removal. The CFC also uses a lot of tools, a LOT of tools, for organisation. Clearly we need an Update regarding organizational third-party tools and multi-all-all-broadcasting. Some of the software isn't just organizational, or can't be classified as only organizational. Why does CCP have to keep changing their EULA or third-party TOS when they can change something in-game and fix the problem itself?
Why not just start making those things bannable and not "fix" anything since nothing is broken.
I mean we have alliance evemails
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
|
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
57
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 09:10:45 -
[3241] - Quote
After reading x pages i still don't unterstand why isboxer guys try to protect round robbin From being banned. This function gives you an advantage over a player who has to alt+tab through The clients and The function interacts with The Eve world. Not allowed, Done .
O/ |
wheniaminspace
Love Squad
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
37
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 10:01:04 -
[3242] - Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsZESJoHftI |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4834
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 10:01:05 -
[3243] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:After reading x pages i still don't unterstand why isboxer guys try to protect round robbin From being banned. This function gives you an advantage over a player who has to alt+tab through The clients and The function interacts with The Eve world. Not allowed, Done. Having multiple monitors is also faster than alt tab. So is tiling your windows and sending keypresses to the focussed windows which some operating systems can do.
And nobody needs to "protect" anything, since round robin is not banned.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
57
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 10:22:23 -
[3244] - Quote
Wait for Jan 1st to See if you are right and round robbin is not considerred AS illegal advantage. I heard so many Boxers want to use it to get around The other restrictions that i am sure it will be looked at again. Pressing 10x F1 and leaving the distribution of The key presses to a third Party software is faster and more effizient than doing it manually.
You are just operating in a grey zone hoping that The rules won't be looked at again if the first hit against this plague doesn't eleminate it. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
559
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 10:26:52 -
[3245] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Why not just start making those things bannable and not "fix" anything since nothing is broken.
You do realize that people said "EVE is not broken" during the C6 Magnetar business right?
They said that "EVE is not broken" when people were able to warp a titan into a hostile POS.
If you truly believe nothing is broken, fine. But attempt try to persuade people who would say otherwise with zero evidence other than your desire to have the game handed to you on a silver platter.
Dustpuppy wrote:After reading x pages i still don't unterstand why isboxer guys try to protect round robbin From being banned. This function gives you an advantage over a player who has to alt+tab through The clients and The function interacts with The Eve world. Not allowed, Done .
If you are fool enough not to trust my words, do a comparison on your own. Open 10 Clients and then measure The time required to send a F1 to Every client without making mistakes with and without round robbin. No advantage?
Last but not least:
The proof oft my conclusion is: if it wouldn't give you an advantage you would not fight for it. Who cares about a loss which is no loss at all...
Nothing is stopping those players from using the software that we use. We aren't some coalition that blocked entry to nullsec by smaller alliances.
People fight for many things. Just because they fight for it does not mean it's overpowered or that it gives them an advantage. Case in point, the recent WH changes regarding ship mass. Most of the smaller corps left WH space or were forced into massive alliances in order to protect their assets. Fozzie has still yet to give us the graphs he promised months ago.
"You oppose me, therefore you must be wrong." Same arguments and mentality that the more radical feminists use. Congrats. Come back when you have a real argument.
edit: As someone recently pointed out in a correspondence with a GM, RoundRobin is allowed. One mouse click per client.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
57
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 10:53:23 -
[3246] - Quote
Wait for some more days. If these changes don't result in the expected improvements it will be looked at again. And then it's only about how to Interpret the words "Software interacting with the Eve world giving you advantages over regular players" .
press 10x F1 and leave the distribution to isboxer, do it manually, measure what is More efficient. Then read my last sentence agasin and think about your statement again...
Time will show who is right. some months ago only few would have considerred that CCP would change their mind about isboxer at all and look where we are now. I can wait o/ |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
559
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 11:16:58 -
[3247] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:Wait for some more days. If these changes don't result in the expected improvements it will be looked at again. And then it's only about how to Interpret the words "Software interacting with the Eve world giving you advantages over regular players" .
press 10x F1 and leave the distribution to isboxer, do it manually, measure what is More efficient. Then read my last sentence agasin and think about your statement again...
Time will show who is right. some months ago only few would have considerred that CCP would change their mind about isboxer at all and look where we are now. I can wait o/
Again, all we're asking is for CCP to balance and fix the game before scapegoating us. I will happily wait till Jan1, and I will be the first person in system local to **** myself laughing at all the whiners and QQers in local ranting and raving over the ISBoxer in the belt.
Please learn to read. Lucas and I addressed your concerns regarding the "distribution" issue about three or four pages ago, and, had you read the handy graphic by CCP Random, you would've seen that one action per client is allowed under the new law.
Time will not show who is right, only who has control of the game. Games change as they go on. Few could have predicted the mass exodus and "blue donuting" of WH space, yet here we are. Stop making random statements that have no relevance on what is currently happening.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
57
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 11:20:03 -
[3248] - Quote
@nolak
Just to consider ...
There is no statement out about round robin except one response of a GM. CCP only mentions to read the rules and everything else is on your own risk. This leaves them any options for interpreting the rules in the future. And why do you trust the words of a GM now while stating "they lied in the Papst, what next?" in your sig?
Bzw. I know who rules the game. It's CCP. You are only hoping that the ban hammer doesn't hit you. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
559
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 11:56:29 -
[3249] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:Just to consider ...
There is no statement out about round robin except one response of a GM. CCP only mentions to read the rules and everything else is on your own risk. This leaves them any options for interpreting the rules in the future. And why do you trust the words of a GM now while stating "they lied in the Papst, what next?" in your sig?
Bzw. I know who rules the game. It's CCP. You are only hoping that the ban hammer doesn't hit you.
Just to consider, it took one response of a GM to (inadvertently) declare the C6 Magnetar weapon viable. ISBoxers and Lax have always paid strict attention to the rules and the EULA and stayed within the guidelines set out by CCP. We have always agreed with CCP that the ability to go AFK or cease inputting actions and have it continue to perform actions would constitute botting, and Lax has (if I remember correctly) worked to remove the ability to turn ISBoxer into a botting program.
I put that in my signature in an effort to remind them, and the playerbase, that they made a promise/declaration that they are now breaking, and that I was asking them to reconsider this change.
I'm not "hoping" the hammer won't hit me. I've stopped boxing because I'm tired of getting buttfucked by an Avatar, so it'd be quite funny to find myself retroactively banned. But since a GM himself thinks that RR broadcasting would be allowed by the new interpretation, then it's so until CCP comes back from vacation and sits down with the multiboxers.
Until then, enjoy seeing the same miners in the belts! And have a merry XMas.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6512
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 14:53:43 -
[3250] - Quote
Can't wit for Update regarding XXYY and AABB thread #2
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4837
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 16:38:27 -
[3251] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:Wait for Jan 1st to See if you are right and round robbin is not considerred AS illegal advantage. I heard so many Boxers want to use it to get around The other restrictions that i am sure it will be looked at again. Pressing 10x F1 and leaving the distribution of The key presses to a third Party software is faster and more efficient than doing it manually - clear break oft The New rules.
You are just operating in a grey zone hoping that The rules won't be looked at again if the first hit against this plague doesn't eleminate it. It's been talked about enough and raised in enough petitions, that I'm sure if CCP were going to ban it, they would have said so. I don't expect CCP would know full well that people are going to use round robin, then wait for it to be bannable before letting people know. Stop being ridiculous.
And even if they want to ban it, they couldn't without banning manual multiboxers in the precess, since its not something that can be detected.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
560
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 17:28:17 -
[3252] - Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJgQO9rjVZ0 Thanks goes to UFO for another video proving ISBoxer isn't a 1-button win program.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Indis Inzilbeth
Aevarr Ventures
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 17:39:25 -
[3253] - Quote
Maxxor Brutor wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:
is there some dark gateway that requires precise coordinated action from several eve clients at once to unlock the portal to mac compatibility that must be opened every day
Yeah mac users need isboxer because they only have one mouse button :(
I alt tab-ed 6 accounts on mac for 3 years and all I have to say is wtf is "isboxer" |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
560
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 17:53:01 -
[3254] - Quote
Indis Inzilbeth wrote:Maxxor Brutor wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:
is there some dark gateway that requires precise coordinated action from several eve clients at once to unlock the portal to mac compatibility that must be opened every day
Yeah mac users need isboxer because they only have one mouse button :( I alt tab-ed 6 accounts on mac for 3 years and all I have to say is wtf is "isboxer"
Think he meant for those few using a Mac mouse, though I'm not sure. I do know that there's a lot of "bugs and issues" threads on the forums about Mac and Linux though.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Kaphrah
Kaphrah Corporation4
27
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 17:56:36 -
[3255] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:Wait for Jan 1st to See if you are right and round robbin is not considerred AS illegal advantage. I heard so many Boxers want to use it to get around The other restrictions that i am sure it will be looked at again. Pressing 10x F1 and leaving the distribution of The key presses to a third Party software is faster and more efficient than doing it manually - clear break oft The New rules.
You are just operating in a grey zone hoping that The rules won't be looked at again if the first hit against this plague doesn't eleminate it.
so you're telling me if I have a hotkey other than alt tab to set focus to the next window, even completly without ISBoxer and then just spam those 2 buttons like x- F1 - x- F1 - x- F1 etc etc, this would be bannable in your eyes? what do you want to ban next? windows? And I'm sure this method will be fukin fast. |
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
1277
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 18:33:19 -
[3256] - Quote
So, regarding the ignorant misuse of the word multiplexing, what is it that is actually being referred to in this case?
Do not run. We are your friends.
|
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
304
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 18:34:55 -
[3257] - Quote
heres a quick video, more proof of concept, showing how isboxer mouseovers can be used to very quickly activate dozens of modules
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhAk7EMDjvE&feature=youtu.be
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
|
Indis Inzilbeth
Aevarr Ventures
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 18:42:40 -
[3258] - Quote
I do not see the problem here
multi boxing is not being banned, just the use of software/hardware to over come it's challenges
multi-boxing or multi-clienting (i know, thats probably not a real word) shouldn't be easy,
everything else in this game follows the premise that the more money an activity makes the more challenging it is,
ether by way of higher risk or increased effort or complexity of game play.
why should multi-boxing be any different, the more clients you have the more potential ya have for making isk,
so the more clients ya run the harder it should get.
I'm a mining ***** and I simul-run 6 clients on a single 15" laptop with a standard mouse and the laptops keyboard,
thats 4 hulks an Orca and a Charion Freighter, now the reason I run 4 hulks instead of say 8 or 10 is because managing 12 strip miners with A 82 second cycle and keeping an eye on 4 ore holds that only hold 1 whole cycle gives me plenty to do in a activity that is considered slow monotonous and boring. .....(also that gives me 1 hulk per ore type)
so when ya have come to a point where ya are running so many clients that it exceeds yer human capacity to effectively manage then maybe its time to find a player corp that can take some of the workload of yer hands.
to me, using outside software/hardware to over come this limitation by effectively enabling ya to click multiple buttons at once is just plane and simple cheating.
this is just my opinion, take it in the spirit it was offered
Indis
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
560
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 22:01:00 -
[3259] - Quote
Indis Inzilbeth wrote:multi boxing is not being banned, just the use of software/hardware to over come it's challenges
multi-boxing or multi-clienting (i know, thats probably not a real word) shouldn't be easy,
everything else in this game follows the premise that the more money an activity makes the more challenging it is,
ether by way of higher risk or increased effort or complexity of game play.
why should multi-boxing be any different, the more clients you have the more potential ya have for making isk,
so the more clients ya run the harder it should get.
I'm a mining ***** and I simul-run 6 clients on a single 15" laptop with a standard mouse and the laptops keyboard,
thats 4 hulks an Orca and a Charon Freighter, now the reason I run 4 hulks instead of say 8 or 10 is because managing 12 strip miners with A 82 second cycle and keeping an eye on 4 ore holds that only hold 1 whole cycle gives me plenty to do in a activity that is considered slow monotonous and boring. .....(also that gives me 1 hulk per ore type)
so when ya have come to a point where ya are running so many clients that it exceeds yer human capacity to effectively manage then maybe its time to find a player corp that can take some of the workload of yer hands.
to me, using outside software/hardware to over come this limitation by effectively enabling ya to click multiple buttons at once is just plane and simple cheating.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It's been established that multiboxing is not banned (yet). It has also been established (with no counter-evidence or counter-proof) that ISBoxing is anything but "simple" or "easy" so I don't know why you attempt to once again claim it's easy without proof or evidence to back up your claim.
Again, certain people will multibox or run multiple accounts easier than others. My friend runs solo C5 full escalations, and I'm 99% positive I can't do that yet, not without a lot of time training. I'm nowhere near the level that wheniaminspace or Oodell operate at. Hell, I still had trouble commanding 10 even after a year of flying them. I find it very disingenuous when people dare to lump every non-ISBoxer person into one catagory, and then lump every ISBoxer into another. This isn't a black-and-white community. This isn't something you can just "wave away" with a hand and make the baseless and evidence-lacking claim that somehow defending your gamestyle automatically means we're guilty. It's silly and it looks bad.
6 clients on a 15inch laptop? So you either have a powerful 2-core gaming rig, or a average/slightly above average 4-core laptop. Either way, you can arguably gain a marked advantage over another player who's using older stuff by running a single or two accounts and hitting 60 to 90 or even 120 FPS consistently in a small scale engagement, allowing you to react faster to the changes and have the game register your commands in a timely manner and transmit them to the server.
In your last paragraph, please define "effectively" and "human capacity". As stated earlier by others and myself, ISBoxer is not some plug-and-play software that runs itself. Please do some research on something you're going to decry on the forums, as we've heard the usual stuff spouted by Carl Crazycakes in system local and it's tiring at this point.
And finally, you tell us to join player corps, yet you completely missed 2 simple facts: 1) the general population of EVE would love nothing more than to find themselves in a player corporation of an ISBoxer, as awoxxing runs rampant in EVE and is at times encouraged. 2), it is a pain in the ass to transfer funds from 10+ accounts to one every day, so most players simply form a corp with 100% tax and call it a day. Not many are willing to be in a 100% tax corp, so ISBoxers are mostly alone.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
ESN Seeker
The Scope
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 00:03:08 -
[3260] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:After reading x pages i still don't unterstand why isboxer guys try to protect round robbin From being banned. This function gives you an advantage over a player who has to alt+tab through The clients and The function interacts with The Eve world. Not allowed, Done .
O/
Don't forget to ban touch-screens, too. |
|
|
Haplo Bartow
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 01:24:31 -
[3261] - Quote
How about letting us log into the game with multiple characters from a single account using multiple machines (or even on the same machine)? That would be nice. |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
148
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 01:52:53 -
[3262] - Quote
You really are on a campaign to get Inner Space banned from EVE Online. That video may actually succeed in convincing CCP to ban it. Too bad. I really like the way that ISBoxer allows Laz to switch screens effortlessly during his streams. It really adds some production value.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
561
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 01:56:26 -
[3263] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:You really are on a campaign to get Inner Space banned from EVE Online. That video may actually succeed in convincing CCP to ban it. Too bad. I really like the way that ISBoxer allows Laz to switch screens effortlessly during his streams. It really adds some production value.
If anyone's on a crusade here, it's you. Please don't try to project your actions onto others.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28904
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 03:16:28 -
[3264] - Quote
ISBoxer has been a crutch that EVE has leaned on to avoid supporting multiboxing in the client. Multiple clients are marketed as a thing, and I think it's assumed by everyone that multiple clients will be used advantageously and simultaneously, including in combat. I like to think that the sooner ISBoxer is banned, EVE will finally support multiple clients within the client.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
562
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 04:02:46 -
[3265] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:ISBoxer has been a crutch that EVE has leaned on to avoid supporting multiboxing in the client. Multiple clients are marketed as a thing, and I think it's assumed by everyone that multiple clients will be used advantageously and simultaneously, including in combat. I like to think that the sooner ISBoxer is banned, EVE will finally support multiple clients within the client.
Uh.... you do know that WoW has macro support right? It allows a player to re-direct keys on their keyboard to certain spells, abilities, and items in the game. If I could bind a macro to tell my ship to stop firing, swap crystals, and then continue firing, that'd be lovely.
You also assume that every player with multiple accounts puts in the same effort as everyone else with the same amount of accounts, and that ISBoxer somehow affects the income of each toon. I find that claim (with no supporting evidence, btw) funnyas I know a nullsec pilot who cranks out quite a lot of ISK with a relatively lower effort involved. EVE is all about min/maxing, and right now you and others like are annoyed that people found a new way to min/max in such a visible fashion, or because of some bizarre belief that ISBoxers aren't subjected to risk/isk, or that we somehow hacked into CCP's servers and gave ourselves free accounts. I dunno where these ideas came from, and I'm not sure I can get drunk enough to find out before I die to liver failure.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28904
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 04:12:10 -
[3266] - Quote
I might have said something about income somewhere, so I'll take your word for it. I'm not, however, annoyed at ISBoxer, and we have coexisted in EVE peacefully. I am amused that EVE is bringing itself closer to tackling the issue of supporting multiple clients natively.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
562
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 04:24:36 -
[3267] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I might have said something about income somewhere, so I'll take your word for it. I'm not, however, annoyed at ISBoxer, and we have coexisted in EVE peacefully. I am amused that EVE is bringing itself closer to tackling the issue of supporting multiple clients natively.
Look, if EVE manages to basically copy/paste ISBoxer into EVE, congrats. Still won't change the fact that the input ban was brought about by the SJW idiots of EVE, it won't change the fact that people won't trust CCP after this kerfluffle, and it certainly won't change the fact that people will think that CCP pulled a Sony by attempting to force the competition's product off the market so they can release a crappy version themselves.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Athryn Bellee
Concordiat
Spaceship Samurai
46
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 04:37:13 -
[3268] - Quote
How is this different? |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28904
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 04:38:27 -
[3269] - Quote
I think it's simple, without all the video tricks. Basically more leadership commands like warp and regroup. Which is not so far-fetched, unlike the task of implanting ISBoxer into the client.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
562
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 04:40:13 -
[3270] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I think it's simple, without all the video tricks. Basically more leadership commands like warp and regroup. Which is not so far-fetched, unlike the task of implanting ISBoxer into the client.
If you could give us some examples of leadership commands that aren't already in the client, then we can talk.
A lot of time and effort was put into making ISBoxer compatible with the EVE client. Just because it seems easy from the outside world doesn't mean it's easy behind-the-scenes.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28904
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 04:51:44 -
[3271] - Quote
lock target, activate DPS, align to, jump, dock.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
562
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 05:00:46 -
[3272] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:lock target, activate DPS, align to, jump, dock.
So...... Das Boot/slowcat/Ishtar fleet, but even more AFK? At that point, it's no longer "log archon in, go to POS, assign drones, go AFK till Mumble Ping tells you to jump to next cyno" but "log in, join fleet, go afk".
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28904
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 05:03:06 -
[3273] - Quote
those are balance issues, while ISBoxer is an issue of CCP selling a product (multiple clients) without supporting it.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
562
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 05:14:56 -
[3274] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:those are balance issues, while ISBoxer is an issue of CCP selling a product (multiple clients) without supporting it.
So wait, that's a balance issue and we should forgive CCP and give them all the breaks and all the time in the world to change, but using ISBoxer to control multiple accounts is unforgivable and must be stamped out at all costs, even though there were hundreds of threads in F&I regarding reasonable ways to balance ISBoxer and EVE?
Double standards like this make me lose faith in humanity. Please get off your high horse.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28904
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 05:16:52 -
[3275] - Quote
bombs and drones are broken for other reasons. bombs because they're AOE, and drones because they're automated.
I'm not sure what you mean by high horse. you'll have to explain that one to me before I can respond.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
562
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 05:26:08 -
[3276] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:bombs and drones are broken for other reasons. bombs because they're AOE, and drones because they're automated.
I'm not sure what you mean by high horse. you'll have to explain that one to me before I can respond.
I'll retract my high horse statement if you explain why you're willing to give CCP a free pass regarding supers, drones, bombs, and incursions, while at the same time wanting to tar and feather ISBoxers.
If bombs and drones are indeed broken, and since they're one of the things the whiners bring up regarding ISBoxer, why not fix them?
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28905
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 05:32:28 -
[3277] - Quote
I can't really answer that, and I guess I'm treating it like a foregone conclusion because I'm mostly helpless to CCP's balance decisions. I think requiring a lock would fix drones, and bombs could use a bit less HP to bring them down from the 7x limit. I'd like to see both multibox support and module imbalance handled together. over this issue, even.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
562
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 05:56:01 -
[3278] - Quote
Forgive me for being optimistic in this case. I was unaware it was against the EULA. I'm trying my damned best to remain optimistic but it's damn hard. With CCP's new patch timeline, I would've rather them attempt to balance the issues at hand before resorting to outright bans and prohibitions. Call me old fashioned if you like, but I see bans and prohibitions as a last resort.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28905
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 06:43:55 -
[3279] - Quote
Updates seem to come slowly. Not sure what's up with that. I don't hold this issue against CCP -too much- because it makes sense to me how we got here. And it's just a situation, not necessarily one where one party has to "lose." By accident, the EVE client lended itself reasonably well to controlling multiple instances, and at some point CCP went with it and started peddling the idea. Then players wanted to make it easier, and some used ISBoxer.
I think, instead of being ok with ISBoxer for this long, CCP should have looked at what players were using ISBoxer for, and attempted to provide support for those actions in the client. I think then, the issues of scalability would make themselves more apparent, and faster, so they can be balanced.
I understand why some people think it would be a travesty to openly support multiboxing, but I think that goes back to the basic disagreement between players who are willing to play harder, and those who are not. However, with in-client support, any player can participate in the type of coordination and synchronization enjoyed by ISBoxer users.
Ethically, any dilemmas are solved by encouraging fleet gameplay (lol friends?) to make use of the ISBoxer-type multibox support that could be provided in the client.
I just see it as a matter of being a responsible merchant, and supporting their product. In the meantime, with ISBoxer out of the picture, collecting money for multiple subscriptions is just irresponsible on CCP's part. It strikes me as deadbeat behavior.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
785
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 06:52:01 -
[3280] - Quote
I see one action doing one thing on one client, I'm not sure why people are even taking a second look at this. To stop something like this, CCP needs to ban the use of keyboards and the behaviour you see there can be done with any number of tools. These tools include all accessibility tools for the disabled.
Tread carefully. |
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6512
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 07:53:33 -
[3281] - Quote
The hilarity until the the next "update"... and if it never occurs will be amusing.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
562
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 07:54:18 -
[3282] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Updates seem to come slowly. Not sure what's up with that. I don't hold this issue against CCP -too much- because it makes sense to me how we got here. And it's just a situation, not necessarily one where one party has to "lose." By accident, the EVE client lended itself reasonably well to controlling multiple instances, and at some point CCP went with it and started peddling the idea. Then players wanted to make it easier, and some used ISBoxer.
I think, instead of being ok with ISBoxer for this long, CCP should have looked at what players were using ISBoxer for, and attempted to provide support for those actions in the client. I think then, the issues of scalability would make themselves more apparent, and faster, so they can be balanced.
I understand why some people think it would be a travesty to openly support multiboxing, but I think that goes back to the basic disagreement between players who are willing to play harder, and those who are not. However, with in-client support, any player can participate in the type of coordination and synchronization enjoyed by ISBoxer users.
Ethically, any dilemmas are solved by encouraging fleet gameplay (lol friends?) to make use of the ISBoxer-type multibox support that could be provided in the client.
I just see it as a matter of being a responsible merchant, and supporting their product. In the meantime, with ISBoxer out of the picture, collecting money for multiple subscriptions is just irresponsible on CCP's part. It strikes me as deadbeat behavior.
I was more referring to their new patch schedule with faster releases than the "once a year" stuff. I remember one of the devs going on about how this will let them change something a certain amount, and then let them fix it later on in a much shorter timespan than the 1/year.
I'd agree with you that they could've done something to mimic or duplicate ISBoxer, but I'm not going to have ISBoxer sit on the front line of the changes with more important things such as EVEMon and EFT being relegated to the end, where "more important" means "used by more people / percentage".
CCP was fine with ISBoxer being used to control multiple clients sans automation until people started whining and wanting CCP to fix their problems for them because they were too lazy to look up "Catalyst", "Talos", and "EWAR".
Activision recently had a minor kerfluffle over accusations that their CoD netcode actively hampered better players and gave unfair advantages to "noobs", for lack of a better term. I'm no sysadmin, but from what I could gather, the net-code would actively fiddle with latency and ping times on the players, would discount "hits" from the better player, and change misses to hits for the noob. I don't want to see the same thing to happen to EVE; nerfing "experts" in an attempt to level the playing field in a game that's not designed to be fair.
Actually, any dilemmas are solved by rewarding solo player gameplay to a point where the benefit of controlling fewer accounts outweighs the gained rewards.
I'm not willing to touch the "responsible merchant" tidbit given that PLEX was well on it's way to break 1b ISK and there was no word from CCP about it, even with people unsubbing until the price dropped to something more reasonable.
What strikes me as "deadbeat behavior" is going to EVE Vegas and Fanfest, making promises that nothing is changing regarding multiboxing, dropping a patch this huge on the playerbase, refusing any and all questions and requests for a sit-down by at least 5 people in the ISBoxing community, going off on vacation after said repeated requests, and then finally agreeing to a sit-down on Jan1, AFTER the patch goes through.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6512
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 08:02:53 -
[3283] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Actually, any dilemmas are solved by rewarding solo player gameplay to a point where the benefit of controlling fewer accounts outweighs the gained rewards.
You mean like the mining minigames intended to take all your attention on a single client sort of thing?
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
562
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 08:12:24 -
[3284] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Actually, any dilemmas are solved by rewarding solo player gameplay to a point where the benefit of controlling fewer accounts outweighs the gained rewards. You mean like the mining minigames intended to take all your attention on a single client sort of thing?
Hey, at least I'm trying to find a solution instead of blindly drinking the kool-aid. The length of the minigame doesn't have to take up an entire cycle's worth of time. Just enough (after some research, ofc) where there would be a definitive point of diminishing returns.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28905
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 08:37:21 -
[3285] - Quote
Replacing ISBoxer has big implications and benefits everyone able to get in a fleet. It's basically a proliferation.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Aoto Machine
Enclave Corp
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 08:53:58 -
[3286] - Quote
I think i understand the policy but better safe then sorry would a problem like Synergy be considered against the EULA?
Basicly it lets you use 1 mouse 1 keyboard on two computers BUT i would have to move my mouse to the other screen to use the keyboard on the other computer... it does have features that could be considered against the new rules but as long as you just use its basic functions it should be fine right?
For example i have 1 account on the other computer and one on my mine while i mine or mission i would have to move the mouse to the other computer to use shortcuts and or click on things then move it back to the main PC to use shortcuts and click on things on that account. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
562
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 09:05:25 -
[3287] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Replacing ISBoxer has big implications and benefits everyone able to get in a fleet. It's basically a proliferation.
Nope, can't understand this while hammered. I'll try in the morning when I'm not shitfaced.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28914
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 10:22:40 -
[3288] - Quote
what are you doing posting, you should be undocking
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Indis Inzilbeth
Aevarr Ventures
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 15:24:03 -
[3289] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Indis Inzilbeth wrote:multi boxing is not being banned, just the use of software/hardware to over come it's challenges
multi-boxing or multi-clienting (i know, thats probably not a real word) shouldn't be easy,
everything else in this game follows the premise that the more money an activity makes the more challenging it is,
ether by way of higher risk or increased effort or complexity of game play.
why should multi-boxing be any different, the more clients you have the more potential ya have for making isk,
so the more clients ya run the harder it should get.
I'm a mining ***** and I simul-run 6 clients on a single 15" laptop with a standard mouse and the laptops keyboard,
thats 4 hulks an Orca and a Charon Freighter, now the reason I run 4 hulks instead of say 8 or 10 is because managing 12 strip miners with A 82 second cycle and keeping an eye on 4 ore holds that only hold 1 whole cycle gives me plenty to do in a activity that is considered slow monotonous and boring. .....(also that gives me 1 hulk per ore type)
so when ya have come to a point where ya are running so many clients that it exceeds yer human capacity to effectively manage then maybe its time to find a player corp that can take some of the workload of yer hands.
to me, using outside software/hardware to over come this limitation by effectively enabling ya to click multiple buttons at once is just plane and simple cheating. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It's been established that multiboxing is not banned (yet). It has also been established (with no counter-evidence or counter-proof) that ISBoxing is anything but "simple" or "easy" so I don't know why you attempt to once again claim it's easy without proof or evidence to back up your claim. Again, certain people will multibox or run multiple accounts easier than others. My friend runs solo C5 full escalations, and I'm 99% positive I can't do that yet, not without a lot of time training. I'm nowhere near the level that wheniaminspace or Oodell operate at. Hell, I still had trouble commanding 10 even after a year of flying them. I find it very disingenuous when people dare to lump every non-ISBoxer person into one catagory, and then lump every ISBoxer into another. This isn't a black-and-white community. This isn't something you can just "wave away" with a hand and make the baseless and evidence-lacking claim that somehow defending your gamestyle automatically means we're guilty. It's silly and it looks bad. 6 clients on a 15inch laptop? So you either have a powerful 2-core gaming rig, or a average/slightly above average 4-core laptop. Either way, you can arguably gain a marked advantage over another player who's using older stuff by running a single or two accounts and hitting 60 to 90 or even 120 FPS consistently in a small scale engagement, allowing you to react faster to the changes and have the game register your commands in a timely manner and transmit them to the server. In your last paragraph, please define "effectively" and "human capacity". As stated earlier by others and myself, ISBoxer is not some plug-and-play software that runs itself. Please do some research on something you're going to decry on the forums, as we've heard the usual stuff spouted by Carl Crazycakes in system local and it's tiring at this point. And finally, you tell us to join player corps, yet you completely missed 2 simple facts: 1) the general population of EVE would love nothing more than to find themselves in a player corporation of an ISBoxer, as awoxxing runs rampant in EVE and is at times encouraged. 2), it is a pain in the ass to transfer funds from 10+ accounts to one every day, so most players simply form a corp with 100% tax and call it a day. Not many are willing to be in a 100% tax corp, so ISBoxers are mostly alone. edit: And as for your claim that it's simply cheating, how? Why? What part? Please, let us know.
Yer right I know nothing about Using outside software/hardware having never used any, but I also dare ya to find a single specific
referance to ISBoxer in my post, I refrained from talking about it specifically because as you say i no nothing about it, I just feel that activating 12 miners at once, over 4 clients with 1 push of a button is cheating, thats just my opinion, and I am perfectly fine with you disagreeing with me.
regarding my equipment. I used to (up until 4 months ago) use A 13" macbook pro 2,9 GHz i7 core 8GB RAM Intel HD Graphics 4000 1024MB client graphics optimized for memory, changed to PC Laptop 2,5 GHz i7 core 16GB Nvidia GeForce GTX 880M, 8GB of dedicated graphics memory now i run 6 clients on full graphics. changed because due to the graphic changes to the game I was starting to get a little lag in my clicking to game reaction time 2-3 sec
any hoo I rarely post on forums and I was just posting my musings, I didn't expect to have to defend it like a theses so I'm just gona accept the fact that ya disagree with me
Indis
|
Indis Inzilbeth
Aevarr Ventures
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 15:39:15 -
[3290] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Updates seem to come slowly. Not sure what's up with that. I don't hold this issue against CCP -too much- because it makes sense to me how we got here. And it's just a situation, not necessarily one where one party has to "lose." By accident, the EVE client lended itself reasonably well to controlling multiple instances, and at some point CCP went with it and started peddling the idea. Then players wanted to make it easier, and some used ISBoxer.
I think, instead of being ok with ISBoxer for this long, CCP should have looked at what players were using ISBoxer for, and attempted to provide support for those actions in the client. I think then, the issues of scalability would make themselves more apparent, and faster, so they can be balanced.
I understand why some people think it would be a travesty to openly support multiboxing, but I think that goes back to the basic disagreement between players who are willing to play harder, and those who are not. However, with in-client support, any player can participate in the type of coordination and synchronization enjoyed by ISBoxer users.
Ethically, any dilemmas are solved by encouraging fleet gameplay (lol friends?) to make use of the ISBoxer-type multibox support that could be provided in the client.
I just see it as a matter of being a responsible merchant, and supporting their product. In the meantime, with ISBoxer out of the picture, collecting money for multiple subscriptions is just irresponsible on CCP's part. It strikes me as deadbeat behavior.
Thats just good old fashioned Icelandic greed |
|
|
Sirius Jr
Crimson Minmatar Industry
Northern Associates.
5
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 18:34:40 -
[3291] - Quote
OK for all the STUPID people here, ISBOXER isnt band, some of its functions are.
If your using it to log on your toons to mine with etc and use each account separately then you are fine, if you log on your toons, form a gang and go kill **** using one key stroke, you get BANNED.
Easy isnt stupid people |
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
307
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 18:37:32 -
[3292] - Quote
Sirius Jr wrote:OK for all the STUPID people here, ISBOXER isnt band, some of its functions are. If your using it to log on your toons to mine with etc and use each account separately then you are fine, if you log on your toons, form a gang and go kill **** using one key stroke, you get BANNED. Easy isnt stupid people
Either your a troll, Enligsh isnt your 1st or 2nd language or you have zero idea what your talking about.
Let the people decide I say!
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
|
Sirius Jr
Crimson Minmatar Industry
Northern Associates.
5
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 18:41:54 -
[3293] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Sirius Jr wrote:OK for all the STUPID people here, ISBOXER isnt band, some of its functions are. If your using it to log on your toons to mine with etc and use each account separately then you are fine, if you log on your toons, form a gang and go kill **** using one key stroke, you get BANNED. Easy isnt stupid people Either your a troll, Enligsh isnt your 1st or 2nd language or you have zero idea what your talking about. Let the people decide I say!
What part don't you understand?
|
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
307
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 18:47:48 -
[3294] - Quote
your really over dramatizing what is now "prohibited". You can still multibox and kill someone with one key stroke (assign drones to your main and press F1 on that main client).
but dont send the same command to 2+ clients at the same time, or your banned (man that sounds so ridiculous, its laughable)
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
|
Marsha Mallow
1815
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 21:50:11 -
[3295] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Either your a troll, Enligsh isnt your 1st or 2nd language or you have zero idea what your talking about.
Let the people decide I say!
I hope English isn't your first language either
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
566
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 21:51:47 -
[3296] - Quote
It isn't his either.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Marsha Mallow
1815
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 22:14:35 -
[3297] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:It isn't his either.
Thanks for clarifying. Since I can't be bothered rereading this can you summarise the thread (and your argument) atm? I'm assuming it's fairly detailed since Eve-search is telling me you've just about beaten Lucas for posts with 234 and counting. Although he's flailing about gloriously elsewhere and might be in the lead overall.
Btw, your sig isn't proving anything other than a comprehension failure. Multiboxers don't have anything to worry about if they don't use Isboxer, macros or 15 plyboard keystroke replicators in their forevervirgin basements.
But, please, carry on. First one to 500 posts gets a Fedo.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
566
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 22:59:37 -
[3298] - Quote
"Multiboxing" encompasses ISBoxers. ISBoxers, by definition, use multiple accounts. All ISBoxers are multiboxers, but not all multiboxers are ISBoxers.
If you insist on not reading my other posts, here's a quick summary:
This change was brought about by lazy whiners who want CCP to bring down multiboxers because they put more time, effort, and money into the game. These whiners make false comparisons in order to shore up their cause, and blatantly ignore force-multipliers like EWAR and capacitor warfare in their tantrum, as well as ignoring the limitations that ISBoxer puts on fleet and fit compositions. Additionally, it makes maneuvering solitary clients to avoid EWAR and minimize damage near impossible without compromising the entire fleet.
These players' continuous attempts to make the argument that 6A3 was on a per-human basis despite months if not years of GMs and Devs stating otherwise is a pathetic attempt to further cloud the issue.
Additionally, these players want to argue that ISBoxers earn an inordinate amount of ISK than some magical "average" player, meanwhile making any excuse they can to justify and defend market traders who earn much more than ISBoxers with comparably less effort.
These players can't make any argument as to why ISBoxing or input broadcasting in it's current form should be banned without engaging in multiple logical fallacies, outright lying to players, using double standards, and attempting to use their emotions as something with value.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Indis Inzilbeth
Aevarr Ventures
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 02:37:12 -
[3299] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Indis Inzilbeth wrote:Yer right I know nothing about Using outside software/hardware having never used any, but I also dare ya to find a single specific
referance to ISBoxer in my post, I refrained from talking about it specifically because as you say i no nothing about it, I just feel that activating 12 miners at once, over 4 clients with 1 push of a button is cheating, thats just my opinion, and I am perfectly fine with you disagreeing with me.
regarding my equipment. I used to (up until 4 months ago) use A 13" macbook pro 2,9 GHz i7 core 8GB RAM Intel HD Graphics 4000 1024MB client graphics optimized for memory, changed to PC Laptop 2,5 GHz i7 core 16GB Nvidia GeForce GTX 880M, 8GB of dedicated graphics memory now i run 6 clients on full graphics. changed because due to the graphic changes to the game I was starting to get a little lag in my clicking to game reaction time 2-3 sec
any hoo I rarely post on forums and I was just posting my musings, I didn't expect to have to defend it like a theses so I'm just gona accept the fact that ya disagree with me When you referenced using multiple clients and your sniping remark at "software/hardware to overcome it's challenges" I naturally assumed you meant ISBoxer and similar software since that was the general target of this thread. I have no problem with people disagreeing, I just wish that people who disagree would post actual arguments instead of "I feel that". This isn't tumblr where "feels" have any weight to them.
wtf is tumblr? |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28929
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 03:29:09 -
[3300] - Quote
I wonder if there are plans to accommodate multiple clients, or if CCP expects everyone to create frankencomputers like I've done, just to play EVE. It's no wonder why EVE never had a breakout moment. To be accurate, multiboxing isn't the biggest issue, it's the clunkiness of the UI, with information laid out in bare, unimaginative tables with the excuse of there being a lot of information.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6513
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 03:44:42 -
[3301] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:clunkiness of the UI, with information laid out in bare, unimaginative tables with the excuse of there being a lot of information.
But you have to admit it is a pretty good excuse.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28930
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 03:46:27 -
[3302] - Quote
I understand why an elegant solution has escaped so many people for so long, yeah.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
569
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 05:13:15 -
[3303] - Quote
Wait, what do you mean by "frankencomputer"? This really is a new phrase to me.
Sniping remarks aside, EVE never had a "breakout" moment because it was never designed or catered to the "casual" or "average" person like WoW was. EVE was always marketed as a game where you claw your way up from nothing in a universe where one of the main jokes is "EVE stands for Everyone vs Everyone", where you can be a station trader earning billions of isk on the market, pirate terrorizing the locals with a destroyer, or the leader of a massive coalition commanding hundreds of capitals. This game was not meant to usurp WoW, or Guild Wars, or Final Fantasy, and it's that difference that brought a lot of players into the game. Attempting to change the game and turn it into another WoW clone will only end in disaster.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
28963
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 13:09:25 -
[3304] - Quote
Personally, if EVE makes the changes that would be necessary to appeal to a larger segment of the gaming population, at the cost of the "hardcore" players it has now, I would stay.
Frankencomputer is what I have linked in my sig as mk III.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
789
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 13:42:15 -
[3305] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Personally, if EVE makes the changes that would be necessary to appeal to a larger segment of the gaming population, at the cost of the "hardcore" players it has now, I would stay.
Frankencomputer is what I have linked in my sig as mk III.
But why would they do the transition over to a crowd which doesn't bring in money, doesn't stay for long and demands everything to be handed on a silver platter via instant gratification?
Those games exist for a reason; so that I don't have to mingle with every single "OH EM GEE" teen who are not even worthy of getting themselves beaten lifeless with their selfie sticks. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6513
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 13:46:07 -
[3306] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: EVE was always marketed as a game where you claw your way up from nothing in a universe where one of the main jokes is "EVE stands for Everyone vs Everyone", where you can be a station trader earning billions of isk on the market, pirate terrorizing the locals with a destroyer, or the leader of a massive coalition commanding hundreds of capitals.
Of course we must never forget the doctrine of isk on field. Because you gotta make the isk, deploy it, and nothing makes it easier than having numbers.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6513
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 13:48:13 -
[3307] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:But why would they do the transition over to a crowd which doesn't bring in money, doesn't stay for long and demands everything to be handed on a silver platter via instant gratification?
Those games exist for a reason; so that I don't have to mingle with every single "OH EM GEE" teen who are not even worthy of getting themselves beaten lifeless with their selfie sticks.
But a selfie of themselves about to be owned on a gate...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Sealin Windfire
Rum Runners and T2 Ducktape
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 16:10:10 -
[3308] - Quote
I would like to Clarify that in no way do I use any form of anything to control the 5 accounts I have, but I would like to point out the legality aspect of this. The only way CCP could be finding out what somebody is using on there on personal computer is to be gathering information out side of the scope of the game. This means running some sort of Trojan horse program or a Bot of there on. it would have to gather software and hardware information with out the owner of the computer first being able to decide if they will allow this. this is know has "planting the worm" or flat out hacking our system.
The truth is do you really have a right to dictate to paying customers what software we run on our personal computers, And is gathering information from our computers even legal? So I ask out of concern of Privacy How exactly do you intend to determine what if any software you are running. to find out who is using software or hardware that is in no way actually connected to the game, as these will run on personal computers. I will be keeping a close Eye on what information is being received and sent to any CCP related system. I don't care about the use of programs or hardware to control accounts. My only concern is for my Privacy and those of my family who also might use the computers I use to play Eve.
I eagerly await CCP response to my quarry. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4845
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 16:43:48 -
[3309] - Quote
Sealin Windfire wrote:I would like to Clarify that in no way do I use any form of anything to control the 5 accounts I have, but I would like to point out the legality aspect of this. The only way CCP could be finding out what somebody is using on there on personal computer is to be gathering information out side of the scope of the game. This means running some sort of Trojan horse program or a Bot of there on. it would have to gather software and hardware information with out the owner of the computer first being able to decide if they will allow this. this is know has "planting the worm" or flat out hacking our system.
The truth is do you really have a right to dictate to paying customers what software we run on our personal computers, And is gathering information from our computers even legal? So I ask out of concern of Privacy How exactly do you intend to determine what if any software you are running. to find out who is using software or hardware that is in no way actually connected to the game, as these will run on personal computers. I will be keeping a close Eye on what information is being received and sent to any CCP related system. I don't care about the use of programs or hardware to control accounts. My only concern is for my Privacy and those of my family who also might use the computers I use to play Eve.
I eagerly await CCP response to my quarry. By playing EVE, you have agreed to section 7D of the EULA which reads:
Quote:You agree that CCP may remotely monitor your Game hardware solely for the purpose of establishing whether in playing the Game and accessing the System you are using software created or approved by CCP, or whether you are using unauthorized software created by you or a third party in contravention of Section 6. So they can (and do) monitor your PC anyway.
With this change however, it's likely to be a server side change looking for simultaneous actions from the same IP address.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
148
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 16:46:14 -
[3310] - Quote
Sealin Windfire wrote:I would like to Clarify that in no way do I use any form of anything to control the 5 accounts I have, but I would like to point out the legality aspect of this. The only way CCP could be finding out what somebody is using on there on personal computer is to be gathering information out side of the scope of the game. This means running some sort of Trojan horse program or a Bot of there on. it would have to gather software and hardware information with out the owner of the computer first being able to decide if they will allow this. this is know has "planting the worm" or flat out hacking our system.
The truth is do you really have a right to dictate to paying customers what software we run on our personal computers, And is gathering information from our computers even legal? So I ask out of concern of Privacy How exactly do you intend to determine what if any software you are running. to find out who is using software or hardware that is in no way actually connected to the game, as these will run on personal computers. I will be keeping a close Eye on what information is being received and sent to any CCP related system. I don't care about the use of programs or hardware to control accounts. My only concern is for my Privacy and those of my family who also might use the computers I use to play Eve.
I eagerly await CCP response to my quarry.
Since CCP isn't responding to this thread anymore, I'll just drop this section of the EVE Online EULA here.
Section 7D of the EVE EULA wrote:
D. MONITORING
You agree that CCP may remotely monitor your Game hardware solely for the purpose of establishing whether in playing the Game and accessing the System you are using software created or approved by CCP, or whether you are using unauthorized software created by you or a third party in contravention of Section 6.
Always read the EULA before buying a new game. It's been in the EULA for years.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29004
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 18:39:32 -
[3311] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Personally, if EVE makes the changes that would be necessary to appeal to a larger segment of the gaming population, at the cost of the "hardcore" players it has now, I would stay.
Frankencomputer is what I have linked in my sig as mk III. But why would they do the transition over to a crowd which doesn't bring in money, doesn't stay for long and demands everything to be handed on a silver platter via instant gratification? Those games exist for a reason; so that I don't have to mingle with every single "OH EM GEE" teen who are not even worthy of getting themselves beaten lifeless with their selfie sticks.
if you don't stop I'm telling Carneros that you're posting bad.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
790
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 18:55:45 -
[3312] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Personally, if EVE makes the changes that would be necessary to appeal to a larger segment of the gaming population, at the cost of the "hardcore" players it has now, I would stay.
Frankencomputer is what I have linked in my sig as mk III. But why would they do the transition over to a crowd which doesn't bring in money, doesn't stay for long and demands everything to be handed on a silver platter via instant gratification? Those games exist for a reason; so that I don't have to mingle with every single "OH EM GEE" teen who are not even worthy of getting themselves beaten lifeless with their selfie sticks. if you don't stop I'm telling Carneros that you're posting bad.
Santa didn't bring a new iphone for you?
How about you come and shoot me in the head (ingame) and we can stay on topic. Do you ahve anything to add to the point or are you just testposting? |
ESN Seeker
The Scope
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 20:22:47 -
[3313] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Frankencomputer is what I have linked in my sig as mk III.
Nice! But ... don't you need a few more monitors?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29012
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 23:11:50 -
[3314] - Quote
is this the twilight zone?
Adrie Atticus wrote:Santa didn't bring a new iphone for you?
How about you come and shoot me in the head (ingame) and we can stay on topic. Do you ahve anything to add to the point or are you just testposting?
what about my new iPhone m8?
ESN Seeker wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Frankencomputer is what I have linked in my sig as mk III. Nice! But ... don't you need a few more monitors?
yeah, I'm about to add 4 conventional 23" 1080p
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Marsha Mallow
1819
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 00:34:41 -
[3315] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:is this the twilight zone?
Yes. I mean no. Take the blue pill.
I didn't mean you with the earlier remarks btw *ahem*. There was an older topic used to justify multiboxing where someone posted snaps of their screens with a handmade keyboard input. Your 8 inch screens are quite cute compared to that. Although the plyboard wall mount, batman logo, plastic cup and strumpet figurine.... anyway, moving along.
What's that ball thing in the final snap though? I want one.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6515
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 00:48:11 -
[3316] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Rain6637 wrote:is this the twilight zone? Yes. I mean no. Take the blue pill. I didn't mean you with the earlier remarks btw *ahem*. There was an older topic used to justify multiboxing where someone posted snaps of their screens with a handmade keyboard input.
And soon enough they'll be banned if they use it
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Marsha Mallow
1820
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 00:57:08 -
[3317] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:And soon enough they'll be banned if they use it
<- I'm doing my sympathetic face at the multiboxing community
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
570
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 01:31:59 -
[3318] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:And soon enough they'll be banned if they use it
Implying multiboxing only started in the last year.
Implying it'll stop people from multiboxing.
Implying RR broadcasting is banned.
Implying it'll magically cause PLEX to drop to 250m.
Implying it'll magically solve "the blue donut".
Implying it'll fix bombing.
Implying it'll fix incursions.
Implying it'll fix mining.
Implying that everyone is the same and can make friends as easily as you.
Implying that you aren't badly shitposting.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29018
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 02:44:19 -
[3319] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Personally, if EVE makes the changes that would be necessary to appeal to a larger segment of the gaming population, at the cost of the "hardcore" players it has now, I would stay.
Frankencomputer is what I have linked in my sig as mk III. But why would they do the transition over to a crowd which doesn't bring in money, doesn't stay for long and demands everything to be handed on a silver platter via instant gratification? Those games exist for a reason; so that I don't have to mingle with every single "OH EM GEE" teen who are not even worthy of getting themselves beaten lifeless with their selfie sticks.
I'm still trying to spot all the fallacies in this post. Every time I look, I find something new.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
570
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 03:31:04 -
[3320] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I'm still trying to spot all the fallacies in this post. Every time I look, I find something new.
Engaging in a fallacy of fallacies while deflecting. How cute.
Only fallacy I can find is possibly grouping every "casual" MMO player into a small subset. But then again, that's what most of EVE's players are. In every other MMO / MMORPG I can think of, no other world is like EVE. Every other MMO, you run into town, grab a quest, run out, complete it, come home, and you basically roleplay as a hero. In WoW for example, you kill monsters and bosses such as The Lich King and Galleon day in and day out. You're a hero, sure, but you don't forge your own destiny (excuse the movie cliche) like you do in EVE. You can't take over entire regions and hold them, harvesting resources and fighting for survival. If you die in WoW, you respawn and start again with little to no loss of actual *things* other than potions and food you consumed in the fight. If you die in EVE, not even counting being podded, that ship is gone, and you can't just click a button and pop it back into existence, ready to continue the fight. That ship cost time and effort to mine and construct, and ISK to produce and purchase it off the market or in a contract.
EVE right now is the only MMO that allows players to play the bandits, the pirates, the scammers. In WoW (sorry I'm using it so much. I have a friend who played and we've talked about the differences a lot), scams are not allowed, and severe punishment is handed out. You cannot play the bandit or pirate, raider of towns/cities/stations/systems, except in carefully pre-generated battlefields with linear story-lines. Sure, there are PVP maps and a gladiator arena, but the PVP map is nothing more than a scripted siege of a city. I will grant that the new dojos are coming, and I posted a similar idea on the F&I forum a while ago, which is where I found some of the ideas about balancing the more-common forms of ISBoxing in EVE. That was well before I was a multiboxer, FYI, but I'm sure you'll still accuse me of having a vested interest in defending ISBoxing.
I don't want to see this game turned into another WoW/LOTRO/DDO/GW2 clone. I play EVE because it's different than the others, because I can influence the map if I wanted, because players make a difference in the world of EVE. If you can't see why others are glad that this isn't WoW with no lasting consequences for mistakes (Asakai) or luck (hacking minigames, officer spawns) or perseverance (BRAVE), then I'm sorry.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
|
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
792
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 07:34:00 -
[3321] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Personally, if EVE makes the changes that would be necessary to appeal to a larger segment of the gaming population, at the cost of the "hardcore" players it has now, I would stay.
Frankencomputer is what I have linked in my sig as mk III. But why would they do the transition over to a crowd which doesn't bring in money, doesn't stay for long and demands everything to be handed on a silver platter via instant gratification? Those games exist for a reason; so that I don't have to mingle with every single "OH EM GEE" teen who are not even worthy of getting themselves beaten lifeless with their selfie sticks. I'm still trying to spot all the fallacies in this post. Every time I look, I find something new.
Why are you quoting the same post twice with wildly differentiating replies? |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29019
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 07:45:50 -
[3322] - Quote
I'd like to help both of you, but I don't know where to start.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
570
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 08:01:09 -
[3323] - Quote
How about "craft an actual response addressing issues you see" with a touch of "form an actual argument"? I'm sure that shouldn't be too hard an assignment, even for a Goon.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
794
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 08:12:07 -
[3324] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I'd like to help both of you, but I don't know where to start.
Screw it, I'll bite for the fallacies part, please do read on.
Monetization: recent study released by Swrve (link broken, see here) shows how most of players do not give any money at all in a gaming situation if presented with the option of not paying. This leads into half of the revenue of the game being paid by the top 0.15% of players and the only way to keep a company afloat is to keep those few people happy by steering the development minutely towards their habits instead of pleasing more people.
Average player retention and how monetization ties into that: Kongregate released its numbers for multiple F2P games which show their revenue and user retention rates to be close to the Swrve study. They showed that 62% of revenue comes from 1.1% of players, who are also the only ones playing the game at a "committed" level of returning more than 500 times. If you're actually going through the slides, see slide 11 for this. Asian market is large but this isn't an asian MMO played majorly by asians. Less than $5 per head is payed in F2P at best. That's less than half of the cheapest subscription. For Eve to reach an ARPU of $5 with 1-month subscriptions, we need one out of 35 players who try the game to stay for one month per year. I cannot recall the retention rates from the keynote, but I'm fairly sure it was higher. Remember, largest F2P studios come by with way less money than CCP who can afford to run projects on the side and fail with them without going bankrupt.
User age: Here's a curse report with F2P as one of the bars for age. Feel free to find more, but keep in mind the average age of an Eve Online player is past 30.
Instant gratification vs delayed gratification is a well-researched topic and you need to provide both for humans to stay attached. Provide too much of IG and no DG, you're in a situation where you need to ramp up the impulse to get the same reward from your brain; see drug addiction.
How this ties into ISBoxer? No idea, but multiboxing is fun and I'm staying roughly on topic. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6515
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 08:27:18 -
[3325] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Instant gratification vs delayed gratification is a well-researched topic and you need to provide both for humans to stay attached. Provide too much of IG and no DG, you're in a situation where you need to ramp up the impulse to get the same reward from your brain; see drug addiction.
How this ties into ISBoxer? No idea, but multiboxing is fun and I'm staying roughly on topic.
It's Multiple (Broadcasted) gratification
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
570
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 08:30:48 -
[3326] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:It's Multiple (Broadcasted) gratification
Quick fix: Make all boxers use missiles and non-sentry drones!
/sarcasm
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29023
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 08:33:11 -
[3327] - Quote
Ok, I'll disagree with that point, since EVE is already what it is with a mix of F2P and P2P, and I think adding more players would mean more revenue. In other words, if it's likely true, it's also true right now, and even by percentages, more players means more revenue.
So. Why they would do such a thing is revenue, which they would gain.
My second main issue with your statement is the presumption that making EVE not-clunky means appeasing childish, selfish behavior, and also that you said it.
I'm not concerned with things like people's personalities, and I think it's a waste of time and words to be judge players when the goal is whether they have enough fun to pay money.
And Nolak, I don't know where you got the prompts for all those words. If it's in response to my comment to Adrie, I'll need each paragraph summarized with their main statements and conclusions (per paragraph). Reading that post feels like wading through knee-high water.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
570
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 08:35:17 -
[3328] - Quote
Don't enter the kitchen if you can't take the heat.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29024
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 08:36:53 -
[3329] - Quote
lol. bro, I don't even know what your post said, or what you were replying to.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
570
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 08:40:03 -
[3330] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:lol. bro, I don't even know what your post said, or what you were replying to.
Sorry. Given your predilection against quotes, I naturally assumed you would've known it was directed at you.
If you aren't willing to make an effort to present a decent argument, people will naturally assume you're intentionally flaming or otherwise posting unproductive posts.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29024
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 08:43:09 -
[3331] - Quote
ok,
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rain6637 wrote:I'm still trying to spot all the fallacies in this post. Every time I look, I find something new. Engaging in a fallacy of fallacies while deflecting. How cute. Only fallacy I can find is possibly grouping every "casual" MMO player into a small subset. But then again, that's what most of EVE's players are. In every other MMO / MMORPG I can think of, no other world is like EVE. Every other MMO, you run into town, grab a quest, run out, complete it, come home, and you basically roleplay as a hero. In WoW for example, you kill monsters and bosses such as The Lich King and Galleon day in and day out. You're a hero, sure, but you don't forge your own destiny (excuse the movie cliche) like you do in EVE. You can't take over entire regions and hold them, harvesting resources and fighting for survival. If you die in WoW, you respawn and start again with little to no loss of actual *things* other than potions and food you consumed in the fight. If you die in EVE, not even counting being podded, that ship is gone, and you can't just click a button and pop it back into existence, ready to continue the fight. That ship cost time and effort to mine and construct, and ISK to produce and purchase it off the market or in a contract. EVE right now is the only MMO that allows players to play the bandits, the pirates, the scammers. In WoW (sorry I'm using it so much. I have a friend who played and we've talked about the differences a lot), scams are not allowed, and severe punishment is handed out. You cannot play the bandit or pirate, raider of towns/cities/stations/systems, except in carefully pre-generated battlefields with linear story-lines. Sure, there are PVP maps and a gladiator arena, but the PVP map is nothing more than a scripted siege of a city. I will grant that the new dojos are coming, and I posted a similar idea on the F&I forum a while ago, which is where I found some of the ideas about balancing the more-common forms of ISBoxing in EVE. That was well before I was a multiboxer, FYI, but I'm sure you'll still accuse me of having a vested interest in defending ISBoxing. I don't want to see this game turned into another WoW/LOTRO/DDO/GW2 clone. I play EVE because it's different than the others, because I can influence the map if I wanted, because players make a difference in the world of EVE. If you can't see why others are glad that this isn't WoW with no lasting consequences for mistakes (Asakai) or luck (hacking minigames, officer spawns) or perseverance (BRAVE), then I'm sorry.
yes. you win.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
794
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 08:47:55 -
[3332] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:RE: Adrie
Ok, I'll disagree with that point, since EVE is already what it is with a mix of F2P and P2P, and I think adding more players would mean more revenue. In other words, if it's likely true, it's also true right now, and even by percentages, more players means more revenue.
So. Why they would do such a thing is revenue, which they would gain.
My second main issue with your statement is the presumption that making EVE not-clunky means appeasing childish, selfish behavior, and also that you said it.
I'm not concerned with things like people's personalities, and I think it's a waste of time and words to be judge players when the goal is whether they have enough fun to pay money.
And Nolak, I don't know where you got the prompts for all those words. If it's in response to my comment to Adrie, I'll need each paragraph summarized with their main statements and conclusions (per paragraph). Reading that post feels like wading through knee-high water.
The case you made about having a clunky UI just because we have so much information available, be it useful or useless, a few pages back. I really disagree with the streamlining of the UI as a whole. What we have now is the middle road of being playable, but also being highly customizable. Sure, you could compartmentalize information from the overview (and it's columns) onto the target box, but the information would still be there. If I fly a railgun or artillery boat, I need to see the transversal of the target to shoot at the correct time. If I fly missile boats, I need to see the target velocity to make an educated guess on if I can hit the target and determine the maximum projected range I have. A ceptor orbiting at 20km against my HAMS flying 28km doesn't mean I will hit it because it can outrun that missile for a tad too long.
Information can be shuffled around between elements but I cannot come up with a whole UI package which gives the necessary information to not be an idiot who just shoots primaries from a swarm relying on RNG giving good enough rolls to alpha through the tank. The reason the new industry UI works (in my opinion) is because they also changed the mechanics and made data which was previously required fully moot (slots). If making the UI more streamlined means losing features which are either old and cumbersome or actually useful, it has to take a long discussion on if we can ditch information people use daily just to satisfy the cravings of someone who is not used to depth in games.
Making Eve "non-clunky" means it's going to be more accessible to a larger audience, but if the underlying mechanics are not changed, the player base which lacks the attention span to learn a game for 6 months is not going to stay no matter how pretty and functional the UI itself is. Someone once compared this to the chicken and egg problem, but I had to disagree back then and I still would due to us not having either side of the discussion in a state which could support the other; to make eve accessible we need to gut the UI and gut the game mechanics to get more mainstream players.
I'm not sure the game would survive that. |
Daneau
Unconstrained Design
30
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 09:08:48 -
[3333] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Rain6637 wrote:is this the twilight zone? Yes. I mean no. Take the blue pill. I didn't mean you with the earlier remarks btw *ahem*. There was an older topic used to justify multiboxing where someone posted snaps of their screens with a handmade keyboard input. Your 8 inch screens are quite cute compared to that. Although the plyboard wall mount, batman logo, plastic cup and strumpet figurine.... anyway, moving along. What's that ball thing in the final snap though? I want one.
http://www.bodystore.com/3/sv/artiklar/abilica-fitnessboll-75-cm
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29027
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 09:28:37 -
[3334] - Quote
Adrie. your post assumes EVE cannot be improved to appeal to everyone while retaining its functionality. I'm not sure if you're being difficult or if you're just unimaginative. I'm not sure why you would find it acceptable for a video game to be flawed like this.
I'll keep your post in mind for my second UI suggestion for replacing the eyesore that is overview. As for the other things like multiboxing, I have several threads open in F&I, one in particular, for ways to stream multiboxing, which is a product that is being sold.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4848
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 09:37:29 -
[3335] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:The case you made about having a clunky UI just because we have so much information available I may be misreading, but think the comments was made as in making all of the changes required to cater to the more casual market, not just UI changes.
I'm with that too. I think that EVE in it's current state is destined for failure, as new players are required to keep the game running, but new player retention is so low. Changes like this current once, which attacks dedicated players (only dedicated players are going to be running 30+ accounts) aren't particularly smart, since those players you know you've already drawn in and kept. I think there's plenty of room for middleground, where players can come in and have mindless fun without damaging the spirit of EVE.
Personally, I think they've overlooked PvE too much. If PvE were more involved and engaging, it would draw more people in. If it then encouraged you to move out of your comfort zone and endanger yourself for significantly improved rewards, it would go a long way to bridging the gap between the "level my raven" players and the solid PvP aspects. As it currently stands most new players jump into PvE then either get bored and quit, or stay doing that forever. The mechanics as they are encourage you to smash PvE with ruthless efficiency and turn it into a grind.
The UI though was pretty terrible and now it's more terrible, since it's basically the same but now takes considerably more from your computer.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
570
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 09:39:44 -
[3336] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Adrie. your post assumes EVE cannot be improved to appeal to everyone while retaining its functionality. I'm not sure if you're being difficult or if you're just unimaginative. I'm not sure why you would find it acceptable for a video game to be flawed like this.
Nobody's saying that EVE cannot be improved. We're saying that EVE was marketed towards a niche subset of the MMO universe, and changing that will lose CCP some of it's hardcore fans, and will change what it means to play EVE / be a fan of EVE. We're saying that we don't want EVE to turn into a WoW clone with spaceships.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29028
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 09:50:20 -
[3337] - Quote
the core gameplay fallacy, from Sirlin.net
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
570
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 10:08:25 -
[3338] - Quote
EVE already has hardcore (small gang pvp, WH, pirate, super pilots, trading mogul, etc) and casual (level my raven, mine a belt) players though. Attempting to open the door for the WoW players who are used to "die, respawn, no loss of stuff", lack of scams, and general attitudes will be disastrous.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29028
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 10:13:36 -
[3339] - Quote
do you often find people deciding not to talk to you, or do you not realize that people never talk to you.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
570
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 10:19:29 -
[3340] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:do you often find people deciding not to talk to you, or do you not realize that people never talk to you.
If you made proper use of the quote system, people wouldn't try to talk to you and assume you're an idiot.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4850
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 10:25:40 -
[3341] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:EVE already has hardcore (small gang pvp, WH, pirate, super pilots, trading mogul, etc) and casual (level my raven, mine a belt) players though. Attempting to open the door for the WoW players who are used to "die, respawn, no loss of stuff", lack of scams, and general attitudes will be disastrous. EVEs PCU is in decline and they a hemorrhaging both players and devs, so it can't really get much worse. Besides, nobody is saying "turn it into WoW". The problem with people like you is that when someone says "make it more accessible", you hear "take away everything that makes EVE what it is". You realise there's room for middleground, right? It is possible for them to make the game more appealing to the more casual market while also retaining the more "hardcore"* players and keeping to the fundamental design of EVE. Sure, the moment you cater to casual players, you'll get the minority whining about how it's turned into hello kitty online, and the usual nonsense (and funnily enough those same people will still not quit anyway) but the game would continue. Take highsec awoxing removal for example. It's a small step to help newer players more easily move from NPC corps to player ones, and sure, it's made some people rage to no end, but overall it's a good change.
* I use the term "hardcore" very loosely, since there's noting really "hardcore" about EVE. When you consider how easy it is to become rich, you consider ships to be more like ammo, and you look at how you need to actively choose to put yourself in danger, you realise there's not really that much of a hardcore element. There's not even real consequences. Anything I want to do that might have consequences I can just use alts for. If I want to gank or scam someone, I can just use an alt. Killrights? Bounties? Reputation damage? Naaaah.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
570
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 10:37:56 -
[3342] - Quote
If there's room for middleground, these people have yet to show me. Dojos, sure, I was all for that. Re-balance SOV, awesome. Removal of highsec AWOX, I can understand. But then what? The perma-death thing with the 20m sp toons? Thera, which turned into a 24/7 camper heaven? Making it harder for smaller corps to live in WH space by adding in unneeded danger to rolling holes?
If the new player gates can take a person into lowsec or null while avoiding the gatecamps and the guy in Rancer, awesome. That'd do a great deal to give people who would normally never set foot outside of highsec a taste of danger. But attacking multiboxing like it's the one thing keeping players away while ignoring the underlying issues is messed up.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
316
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 12:03:06 -
[3343] - Quote
*breathes heavily*
Quote:2. Be respectful toward others at all times.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.
3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
20. All posts must be related to EVE Online.
Posts regarding other companies and products or services are prohibited and any content of this nature will be removed. Posts regarding other games are however permitted on the Out of Pod Experience forum for the purposes of discussion only.
23. Post constructively.
Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
Please be mindful of the forum rules before continuing to post in this thread. I've removed numerous posts on the last couple of pages which were completely off topic.
ISD Decoy
Lieutenant Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Solecist Project
The Scope
Gallente Federation
12144
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 12:27:34 -
[3344] - Quote
ISD Decoy wrote:*breathes heavily* Quote:2. Be respectful toward others at all times.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.
3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
20. All posts must be related to EVE Online.
Posts regarding other companies and products or services are prohibited and any content of this nature will be removed. Posts regarding other games are however permitted on the Out of Pod Experience forum for the purposes of discussion only.
23. Post constructively.
Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
Please be mindful of the forum rules before continuing to post in this thread. I've removed numerous posts on the last couple of pages which were completely off topic. Wow you must have huuuuge lungs! :O
Ladies of New Eden YC 117 Calendar by Indahmawar Fazmarai
Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
795
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 12:36:02 -
[3345] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Adrie. your post assumes EVE cannot be improved to appeal to everyone while retaining its functionality. I'm not sure if you're being difficult or if you're just unimaginative. I'm not sure why you would find it acceptable for a video game to be flawed like this.
I'll keep your post in mind for my second UI suggestion for replacing the eyesore that is overview. As for the other things like multiboxing, I have several threads open in F&I, one in particular, for ways to stream multiboxing, which is a product that is being sold.
I'm not being unimaginative as such, I'm choosing not to exert energy on something which is not needed in my head as it has two possible results: regression or removal of features. I've seen and I remember your cones for tracking in space and it is a novel idea. What I see in that is 300 cones on my screen blocking everything I see OR having to target every single ship to see which one I can hit. This approach is easier to understand and would help newer players to understand the tracking pattern, but I cannot fathom having to click every single thing on my overview just to find a favourable angular velocity. You'd have to cater to both ways or implement nothing, we all know how much CCP likes options in our UI's.
Personally I don't find the game flawed in regards of how information is presented in the UI to the point where the "little things" thread is not sufficient in providing the expected improvements. Other MMO's I've played in which ahve supported LUA scripting I've always stripped away as much graphical fidelity and replaced it with as much information in the smallest container imaginable. This is to me the perfect UI, it doesn't include flashing colors, it doesn't include newest in UI design, it includes the necessary information to play the game presented in a way which is easy to instantaneously find and utilize. On top of that, if information is crucial to your performance in-game (in eve, capacitor, HP levels, in other games character health, resouces etc) that information cannot be obscured in any way. Currently I have the option of looking at the highly effective capacitor flower and it even separates the amounts in clearly understood segments on top of providing a percentual readout at the same time. It's all the information necessary to utilize the capacitor effectively. Could it use a bit less room on the UI? Yes. Is it bad design to the point of cluttering up my screen? No.
I've have yet to see a replacement to the overview which is both functional and provides all the information I need to make decisions effectively. Remember, this implementation has to scale to hundreds of objects on the overview, not just 1v1 elite PvP. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29033
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 12:48:05 -
[3346] - Quote
That cone is just one part of the ways to replace overview. Don't worry, I have fleet engagements in mind, and as a result it also scales down to just 1 target.
The point of bringing up the UI is an overall game design goal of making EVE accessible to all players. Experienced and novice, uniboxers and multiboxers.
A basic game design strategy is balancing things to equal the best strategy, or item, or gameplay mechanic. Recently this was done to recons to bring them up to par with the Falcon. Doing the same thing to multiboxing would require bringing one-client players to the same level of efficiency as multiboxed clients.
What was done with ISBoxer was the opposite, in this case--the most effective thing was brought down.
It might sound like a good move, but it still leaves the gap between a single-client player and a multiboxing player. So in the interest of good balance and addressing what EVE is... uniboxers need some type of buff. This rule announcement should be complemented with more in-client support.
I'm assuming we can agree that EVE has condoned multiboxing long enough to consider multiboxing part of its identity.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Lexxy Roxx
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 15:05:08 -
[3347] - Quote
Hello
after i send a Ingame Petition and i cant get clarification i now try here to get clarification.
I'm using a G19 Keybord and using a function key to let my drones engage the target or coming back to my drone hangar. Is that ok ? |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29092
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 15:44:16 -
[3348] - Quote
yeah that's fine.
Rain6637 wrote:Just got a GM response to a support ticket, and it says binding a G-key to F1 through F8 is legal. I was also referred to this post
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Lexxy Roxx
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 16:01:53 -
[3349] - Quote
THX |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4623
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 16:05:05 -
[3350] - Quote
Binding one key to one key, that's fine.
Binding one key to press multiple, that's less fine.
https://twitter.com/Fuzzysteve/status/545972376115376130 See the response from CCP Random.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4854
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 16:13:12 -
[3351] - Quote
Well according to Rain's GM response, pressing multiple is fine too. Perhaps as a CSM member you might be able to let CCP know that as it currently stands there's enormous confusion over what is and isn't allowed, and while historically it seems multiple keybinds were fine, there now seems to be confusion around that even within their own GM team. It looks like depending on who gets a look at your case, legality will vary.
At the end of the day, CCP can ban whatever they want to ban, and the majority of us will be fully willing to follow those rules, but both we and they need to actually know where we stand to do that.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4623
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 16:22:15 -
[3352] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Well according to Rain's GM response, pressing multiple is fine too. Perhaps as a CSM member you might be able to let CCP know that as it currently stands there's enormous confusion over what is and isn't allowed, and while historically it seems multiple keybinds were fine, there now seems to be confusion around that even within their own GM team. It looks like depending on who gets a look at your case, legality will vary. At the end of the day, CCP can ban whatever they want to ban, and the majority of us will be fully willing to follow those rules, but both we and they need to actually know where we stand to do that.
Given that Random is part of the security team, and what he's said later on in that thread, I'd err on the side of caution.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4856
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 16:28:44 -
[3353] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Given that Random is part of the security team, and what he's said later on in that thread, I'd err on the side of caution. As would I, but then you have varying levels of erring, and you're back to there being potential unfairness where some people are doing what another person would consider over the line yet not getting punished. All of it still doesn't change that there is far too much confusion and far too little communication going on with this whole change. Many valid questions have been raised regarding this change, but if we raise petitions, we told to post here, and if we post here we're ignored. Surely you can understand why that would be frustrating?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
309
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 16:30:31 -
[3354] - Quote
The only concrete statement from CCP is this flowchart they released, while its a bit laughable at its obscurity, its the most solid thing they have ever released.
https://i.imgur.com/FGst7B5.png
So, based on that chart, if your not sending the same "data" to multiple clients at the same exact time, you are fine.
If I hit F1-F8 to one client at a time, I am not breaking any rules as far as that chart states. If I hit F1 to 5 clients at the same exact time I would be.
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4856
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 16:39:29 -
[3355] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:The only concrete statement from CCP is this flowchart they released, while its a bit laughable at its obscurity, its the most solid thing they have ever released. https://i.imgur.com/FGst7B5.png
So, based on that chart, if your not sending the same "data" to multiple clients at the same exact time, you are fine. If I hit F1-F8 to one client at a time, I am not breaking any rules as far as that chart states. If I hit F1 to 5 clients at the same exact time I would be. Indeed, yet the comment from Steve's twitter link would appear to go against that - confusion.
Pressing F1 - F8 is also a funny one, because if I were firing 8 ungrouped modules for example I'd use 8 fingers to press those buttons simultaneously or at the very least one hand 4 then 4. It would be indistinguishable from a keyboard with a multi-key binding.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4623
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 16:43:48 -
[3356] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:The only concrete statement from CCP is this flowchart they released, while its a bit laughable at its obscurity, its the most solid thing they have ever released. https://i.imgur.com/FGst7B5.png
So, based on that chart, if your not sending the same "data" to multiple clients at the same exact time, you are fine. If I hit F1-F8 to one client at a time, I am not breaking any rules as far as that chart states. If I hit F1 to 5 clients at the same exact time I would be.
Actually wasn't a CCP release. Just a CCP retweet of something they liked. you'll find it in this thread, by someone else, before it came up.
And it's only to do with the broadcasting ban.
Multikey press for one key would come under the macro ban.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
310
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 16:49:27 -
[3357] - Quote
If this is so concrete in CCP's mind, why dont they sit down and answer questions?
Why do people send in petitions and not get different answers from what you above interpreted CCP's acutal stance to be?
Why do games like WOW, LOTOR, KOTOR support multiboxing, G-key remapping, ISBoxer etc and have 10x the subscribers but CCP decides that advanced multiboxing is too powerful (my words) and instead of changing game mechanics threaten to ban people who cross this extremely vague line.
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29106
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 17:02:36 -
[3358] - Quote
I don't like this situation one bit.
If they're going to ban over G-keys, they need to allow modules share the same shortcut.
Or expand shortcuts to include a rack of modules.
CCP, you need to buff clients in the way of inner- and inter-client module activation.
Quote:Greetings, GM Mace here. We apologize for the delay in this response, but we are currently seeing a heavy load of incoming support tickets which has resulted in a slower response time than normal. We appreciate your patience. As this is not an automation of gameplay this would not be considered violation under the new terms. More information on such key input can be found in the following post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=117249#post117249
If you have further questions, please let us know. Best regards, GM Mace CCP Customer Support | EVE Online | DUST 514
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
148
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 19:27:52 -
[3359] - Quote
BliShadowandLight wrote:If this is so concrete in CCP's mind, why dont they sit down and answer questions?
Why do people send in petitions and get different answers from what you above interpreted CCP's acutal stance to be?
Is it impossible for CCP "Someone" to spend an hour talking to us about this? I hear CCP employees on podcasts every other week for hours talking about everything else, whats the deal?
Why do games like WOW, LOTOR, KOTOR support multiboxing, G-key remapping, ISBoxer etc and have 10x the subscribers but CCP decides that advanced multiboxing is too powerful (my words) and instead of changing game mechanics threaten to ban people who cross this extremely vague line.
Let's take the games one at a time.
WoW - My understanding is that Blizzard screwed over ISBoxer users big time by taking the /follow command out of battlegrounds. They didn't give any notice. They just did it. At least CCP gave ISBoxer users 5 weeks before making the change to enforcing Section 6A3 more aggressively.
LOTOR - I've never heard of this game. Are you referring to Lord of the Rings Online? That is a free-to-play game. Stating that LotRO has 10 times the subscribers as EVE is silly.
KOTOR - Knights of the Old Republic isn't even an MMORPG, so I don't know why you are referring to this game. Unless to referencing Star Wars: The Old Republic. That game maybe has 500,000 subscribers, based on news reports. However, in EA's Q2 2015 report in November (their financial year begins on 1 July), they indicated that SWTOR was one of the games that was decreasing in revenue. Once again, claiming that a free-to-play game like SWTOR has 10 times the subscriptions as EVE is silly.
Also, we won't mention a much bigger game, Guild Wars 2, that has banned the use of multiboxing software like ISBoxer. Guild Wars 2 definitely has more players than EVE.
Sorry, but seeing you butcher facts about these games just kicked off my OCD
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
570
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 19:52:20 -
[3360] - Quote
WoW still allows multiboxing even in the battlegrounds. It's much harder without the /follow command, but you just have to be very precise, or do what Swifty did with a single DPS and a single healer/tank in 2v2.
Seriously, stop referring to 6A3. It never covered multiboxing behavior, it always was on a per-toon basis, and Falcon knew this when he made the original post or else he would have brought it up. This was not a case of "ISBoxers earn too much ISK" because then they would have had to swing at market traders. This was a case of carebears and whiners complaining to CCP that they don't want to expend any effort in this game to think of counters or to propose changes to the game, so they want CCP to take away someone else's toys.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
|
|
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
311
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 20:01:39 -
[3361] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Bli ShadowandLight wrote:If this is so concrete in CCP's mind, why dont they sit down and answer questions?
Why do people send in petitions and get different answers from what you above interpreted CCP's acutal stance to be?
Is it impossible for CCP "Someone" to spend an hour talking to us about this? I hear CCP employees on podcasts every other week for hours talking about everything else, whats the deal?
Why do games like WOW, LOTOR, KOTOR support multiboxing, G-key remapping, ISBoxer etc and have 10x the subscribers but CCP decides that advanced multiboxing is too powerful (my words) and instead of changing game mechanics threaten to ban people who cross this extremely vague line. Let's take the games one at a time.
Let me say I only play EVE, but from watching the various news / forums etc I dont know of any major MMO that has come out against multiboxing / ISBoxer etc. There are a few examples of complicated macros being banned or ill-informed GM's making mistakes and then being corrected (GW2).
WOW - Offers fully customize-able UI, allows macro usage, ISBoxers are fine and follow in battlegrounds is easily worked around http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/49047-Follow-In-Battlegrounds-Broken-After-5-2 // http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/51263-BG-follow-MKIII-using-Brew-pup-%28isboxer-setup%29?highlight=%2Ffollow+mkIII
Guild Wars 2 - Your flat our wrong from what my research can find. Allows Multiboxing (with a few cavets on macro usage) one of a dozen plus videos showing how to do it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6ASeCK9gaY , has a semi active community on isboxer and
while there were issues in the past with people getting banned, the clarified ruling is as long as your not using a vague term of "Macros" its fine. https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/2dinom/dual_accounts/ The only issue is that there is no /follow command in GW2 making multiboxing harder.
LOTOR - as stated its very popular, some reports putting it in the top 5 MMO's out. News on subscription numbers and profits are harder to come by for recent data, but its apparently doing quite well. The new movies should help it quite abit. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/32322/Turbine_Lord_of_the_Rings_Online_Revenues_Tripled_As_FreeToPlay_Game.php . As for Multiboxing its very much allowed, a simple google search will show that.
SWTOR (sorry not KOTOR) - Fully supported with no known issues AFAIK.
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4856
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 20:05:36 -
[3362] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:WoW - My understanding is that Blizzard screwed over ISBoxer users big time by taking the /follow command out of battlegrounds. They didn't give any notice. They just did it. At least CCP gave ISBoxer users 5 weeks before making the change to enforcing Section 6A3 more aggressively. Funnily enough, this is exactly what we are talking about here though. Blizzard made a gamplay change because they identified gameplay mechanics which made it easier to multibox and wanted to make a change. What they didn't do was ban a single type of multibox input as if that would fix everything.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
148
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 20:20:09 -
[3363] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Rosewalker wrote:WoW - My understanding is that Blizzard screwed over ISBoxer users big time by taking the /follow command out of battlegrounds. They didn't give any notice. They just did it. At least CCP gave ISBoxer users 5 weeks before making the change to enforcing Section 6A3 more aggressively. Funnily enough, this is exactly what we are talking about here though. Blizzard made a gamplay change because they identified gameplay mechanics which made it easier to multibox and wanted to make a change. What they didn't do was ban a single type of multibox input as if that would fix everything.
Actually, what Blizzard did was make a move against bots in battlegrounds and the side effect that impacted ISBoxer users was something "they were okay with."
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
571
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 20:27:17 -
[3364] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Actually, what Blizzard did was make a move against bots in battlegrounds and the side effect that impacted ISBoxer users was something "they were okay with."
WoW has always had an anti-bot policy with a very good team behind it. They also employ a veritable army of GMs of multiple tiers to investigate incoming reports. I can't imagine they needed to remove the /follow command due to bots with such a support infrastructure in their corner. But Lucas is still correct in that they changed how the game works before resorting to outright bans and tantrums.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
148
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 20:36:46 -
[3365] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Guild Wars 2 - Your flat our wrong from what my research can find. Allows Multiboxing (with a few cavets on macro usage) one of a dozen plus videos showing how to do it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6ASeCK9gaY , has a semi active community on isboxer and while there were issues in the past with people getting banned, the clarified ruling is as long as your not using a vague term of "Macros" its fine. https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/2dinom/dual_accounts/ The only issue is that there is no /follow command in GW2 making multiboxing harder.
Really? There is a reason that Lax removed Guild Wars 2 from the list of games that ISBoxer supports. He doesn't want to support the use of ISBoxer in any game where using it would violate the games EULA/ToS. Using mulitboxing software was fine for the first few months, then ArenaNet cracked down.
I only mentioned LotRO and SW:TOR because 1) I was curious if those were actually the games you were referencing, and 2) Your claims that they have 10 times the subscriptions that EVE has, is silly.
As for WoW, you were claiming that CCP should act just like Blizzard. That would include not talking to ISBoxer users and doing what they please, no matter how much it inconveniences ISBoxer users? Because you claim that the input broadcast ban is just an inconvenience, which would make it just like Blizzard removing the /follow command.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
572
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 20:47:33 -
[3366] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:That would include not talking to ISBoxer users and doing what they please, no matter how much it inconveniences ISBoxer users?
Sorry, what planet are you on where they didn't already do this? They have always treated us like second-class people with no voice. Whenever we lost ships to server disconnects, we had to explain why we lost a certain number and not all, or all and not a certain number. We had to sit there and watch as Rorquals and Vindicators and other ships got magic-wanded back into existence. We've had to sit here and defend random attacks from forum trolls posting duplicate threads at times, only being locked when the multiboxers fought back in the threads. And now, CCP's absolute refusal to sit down with ISBoxers regarding this change until AFTER it gets implemented. This change was posted on Nov 25. Requests for a sit-down with CCP went out on or around Nov 26th and 27th. CCP agreed, after running off on vacation, to sit down and talk on Jan 1. The fact that they actually agreed to sit down and talk is a small miracle in my mind, but I'm not about to lick their boots because they deigned to sit down with their customers and talk.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
312
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 20:51:04 -
[3367] - Quote
when / where is CCP having this sitdown?
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
|
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
312
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 20:57:16 -
[3368] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:Guild Wars 2 - Your flat our wrong from what my research can find. Allows Multiboxing (with a few cavets on macro usage) one of a dozen plus videos showing how to do it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6ASeCK9gaY , has a semi active community on isboxer and while there were issues in the past with people getting banned, the clarified ruling is as long as your not using a vague term of "Macros" its fine. https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/2dinom/dual_accounts/ The only issue is that there is no /follow command in GW2 making multiboxing harder. Really? There is a reason that Lax removed Guild Wars 2 from the list of games that ISBoxer supports. He doesn't want to support the use of ISBoxer in any game where using it would violate the games EULA/ToS. Using mulitboxing software was fine for the first few months, then ArenaNet cracked down. I only mentioned LotRO and SW:TOR because 1) I was curious if those were actually the games you were referencing, and 2) Your claims that they have 10 times the subscriptions that EVE has, is silly. As for WoW, you were claiming that CCP should act just like Blizzard. That would include not talking to ISBoxer users and doing what they please, no matter how much it inconveniences ISBoxer users? Because you claim that the input broadcast ban is just an inconvenience, which would make it just like Blizzard removing the /follow command.
GW2 / ISBoxer is supported, there is just extremely vague responses from GW2 devs. The ONLY thing that ISBoxer did was remove input duplication as a default, since no one can seemingly get an answer from GW2 on if its allowed or not. Do some searching, there are a half dozen posts of people banned then unbanned for multiboxing. They only seem to have a hard line on Macroing which they dont really clarify (see a trend?)
LOTOR is harder to find numbers for.
As for SWTOR they have stated over 1m people log in monthly who are subscribers, 1.7m are free-to-play users. (They then state there is 500k subs, so I am a bit confused). In total, it appears over 2m people are active in SWTOR. EVE might have 500k subscribers in total, maybe, but since we cant get any data from CCP...
http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/14/6001503/star-wars-the-old-republic-2014-players-ea-bioware
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
167
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 22:43:39 -
[3369] - Quote
Why can't people just accept what the player-base, the CSM, & CCP have decided and move on ? 'AFK' farming isn't respected by the majority and it is being made more difficult to do. Nuff said. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4859
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 22:51:36 -
[3370] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:As for WoW, you were claiming that CCP should act just like Blizzard. That would include not talking to ISBoxer users and doing what they please, no matter how much it inconveniences ISBoxer users? Because you claim that the input broadcast ban is just an inconvenience, which would make it just like Blizzard removing the /follow command. Actually, what I'm saying is that CCP should address gameplay where gameplay is the problem. The issues with things like mining go way beyond broadcasting, the core issue is that the gameplay is barely gameplay. It requires next to no interaction, and so controlling a huge number of characters is a simple task. I've seen 20 miners controlled by a single player with no tools used. ISBoxer is simply a method of controlling characters without RSI. Removing broadcasting won't fix the issue, so it's simply a kick in the teeth to a group of players who by their very nature are extremely dedicated for no real benefit.
Bethan Le Troix wrote:Why can't people just accept what the player-base, the CSM, & CCP have decided and move on ? 'AFK' farming isn't respected by the majority and it is being made more difficult to do. Nuff said. Nothing is happening to AFK farming.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
573
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 22:56:21 -
[3371] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:Why can't people just accept what the player-base, the CSM, & CCP have decided and move on ? 'AFK' farming isn't respected by the majority and it is being made more difficult to do. Nuff said.
AFKTar is still allowed. AFK Carrier ratting is still fine. AFK mining is still fine. ISBoxer does not allow a player to go AFK and earn ISK any faster than the game mechanics allow another player to. There are very few ISBoxers who earn their ISK AFKTar or AFK Carrier ratting as you can earn much more ISK sitting behind the keyboard controlling your clients.
The playerbase is a court of public opinion, one which has labored under the false impression that ISBoxer is a botting software that allows a player ti earn ISK while the program continues to operate.
The CSM hasn't bothered posting any reasoning or arguments regarding the change. Progodlegend's trolling and insults earlier in the thread makes me think twice about his competency as a CSM member if all he can do is fling ****. Mike Azariah has been extremely tight-lipped, and Steve contradicts himself and GMs in his posts, and refuses to clarify anything other than to throw his weight around.
CCP made the announcement, and other than a few devs responding to "yes men", absolutely refused to commend on anything regarding ISBoxer, which makes me think that they aren't so sure themselves about this issue or else they would have presented supporting evidence or even an argument before hiding behind the "we're on vacation" flag.
Your post is completely off topic and only illustrates the general public's lack of knowledge regarding ISBoxer.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29127
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 23:53:16 -
[3372] - Quote
I'm satisfied with petitions as the reason why. I just think there's also a separate issue of multi-client support.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
298
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 00:25:07 -
[3373] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:Why can't people just accept what the player-base, the CSM, & CCP have decided and move on ? 'AFK' farming isn't respected by the majority and it is being made more difficult to do. Nuff said.
You might want to look at what the coming change actually does. Reality is, this change on its own is fairly harmless and will have very little if any affect on game play.
My concern is, CCP will be inundated with complaints of - "All his characters have similar names - He is 'bot' mining ice belts". This in turn could lead to innocent people being banned, simply because they have good hardware, good internet and can manage multiple chars quickly and efficiently.
What is really needed here is for CCP to state the goals of the change. Making change for the sake of change is not very professional, treating your paying customers like mushrooms is not very professional.
If nothing else by CCP being professional and disclosing what the aims and or reasons for the change are, would stop all the speculation, rumors and misconceptions. It would also fit in with CCP's stated policy of including the player base in game development.
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
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4624
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 00:27:40 -
[3374] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:The CSM hasn't bothered posting any reasoning or arguments regarding the change
It's something which was discussed at length, at the summer summit, in the security session.
Quote:Steve contradicts himself and GMs in his posts, and refuses to clarify anything other than to throw his weight around.
I'm hardly 'throwing my weight around'. Bear in mind, all I can do is post what my opinion is. I can't 'clarify' CCP's position, because I don't work for CCP, and I can't speak for them.
In my last post, I pointed at a tweet from a member of the security team, which provides some clarity on using bindings on macro keys, which bind multiple key presses to a single macro key. That's not me contradicting a GM. That's me pointing at a ruling by someone.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
573
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 00:44:40 -
[3375] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:The CSM hasn't bothered posting any reasoning or arguments regarding the change It's something which was discussed at length, at the summer summit, in the security session.
Woopyshit. Just because something's discussed by a bunch of people who were kept in the dark regarding the jump changes, and were completely ignored regarding the wormhole changes, doesn't mean that it was discussed with both sides of the issue, or that indeed CCP would have listened to the CSM.
Steve Ronuken wrote:Quote:Steve contradicts himself and GMs in his posts, and refuses to clarify anything other than to throw his weight around. I'm hardly 'throwing my weight around'. Bear in mind, all I can do is post what my opinion is. I can't 'clarify' CCP's position, because I don't work for CCP, and I can't speak for them. In my last post, I pointed at a tweet from a member of the security team, which provides some clarity on using bindings on macro keys, which bind multiple key presses to a single macro key. That's not me contradicting a GM. That's me pointing at a ruling by someone.
I was more regarding to your earlier posts in the thread where you attempted to use your position as a CSM to talk down to other players who would defend multiboxing, participating in a argument from authority fallacy at the same time.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Sophia Electra
ArK's Armada
ArK Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 01:35:53 -
[3376] - Quote
Should make an anti-afk thing which logs you out of game to stop cloaky campers for 12 hours. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
299
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 02:02:17 -
[3377] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:The CSM hasn't bothered posting any reasoning or arguments regarding the change It's something which was discussed at length, at the summer summit, in the security session. Quote:Steve contradicts himself and GMs in his posts, and refuses to clarify anything other than to throw his weight around. I'm hardly 'throwing my weight around'. Bear in mind, all I can do is post what my opinion is. I can't 'clarify' CCP's position, because I don't work for CCP, and I can't speak for them. In my last post, I pointed at a tweet from a member of the security team, which provides some clarity on using bindings on macro keys, which bind multiple key presses to a single macro key. That's not me contradicting a GM. That's me pointing at a ruling by someone.
And there in a nutshell is the WHOLE problem.. There is no official clarification from CCP (unless random twitter posts are considered "official")
CCP need to step up and put this issue to bed by making an "Official" announcement as to what is and isn't legal post January 1st.
The way things stand now, I could technically be banned just for using the window manager provided by my OS.
The "we're going to be monitoring the situation and will make appropriate changes as needed" just isn't going to cut it here. This is a huge and important issue that needs to be dealt with in a professional way via open, comprehensive communication.
CCP actively encourage multi box, multi character play. Give us an idea as to how this fits in with this change, what further restrictions are likely to be placed on multi boxers if this change does not produce the desired result.
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
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
797
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 07:24:21 -
[3378] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:The CSM hasn't bothered posting any reasoning or arguments regarding the change It's something which was discussed at length, at the summer summit, in the security session. Quote:Steve contradicts himself and GMs in his posts, and refuses to clarify anything other than to throw his weight around. I'm hardly 'throwing my weight around'. Bear in mind, all I can do is post what my opinion is. I can't 'clarify' CCP's position, because I don't work for CCP, and I can't speak for them. In my last post, I pointed at a tweet from a member of the security team, which provides some clarity on using bindings on macro keys, which bind multiple key presses to a single macro key. That's not me contradicting a GM. That's me pointing at a ruling by someone. And there in a nutshell is the WHOLE problem.. There is no official clarification from CCP (unless random twitter posts are considered "official") CCP need to step up and put this issue to bed by making an "Official" announcement as to what is and isn't legal post January 1st. The way things stand now, I could technically be banned just for using the window manager provided by my OS. The "we're going to be monitoring the situation and will make appropriate changes as needed" just isn't going to cut it here. This is a huge and important issue that needs to be dealt with in a professional way via open, comprehensive communication. CCP actively encourage multi box, multi character play. Give us an idea as to how this fits in with this change, what further restrictions are likely to be placed on multi boxers if this change does not produce the desired result.
I'll give you one worse: you can get banned for having a sound card and a microphone as you can transmit voice data to multiple client at the same time; this is input multiplication. Be sure to turn off Eve voice on all but one client! |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6515
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 08:20:06 -
[3379] - Quote
I heard that moa is planning to report us all as isboxers. Some kind of alliance mail that was noticed on eveskunk.
Sigh, I guess our 0.0 dream ends, somehow...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
798
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 09:30:23 -
[3380] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:I heard that moa is planning to report us all as isboxers. Some kind of alliance mail that was noticed on eveskunk.
Sigh, I guess our 0.0 dream ends, somehow...
Quote:THEY HAVE 5 MORE DAYS IS BOXING. THEN WE WILL BE REPORTING TO CCP EVERY GOONIE IS BOXER EVERY DAY TILL ALL THESE MOTHER ******* ARE BANNED!
Too bad they don't actually understand what is allowed in Jan 1st and what isn't. |
|
|
Klorrak
Necrotic Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 09:44:56 -
[3381] - Quote
I honestly don't see a any grey area. All you have to do is ask yourself "Am I using any 3rd party program to automate what i'm doing giving me an advantage over what a normal player can do?" if the answer is yes. Bam there you go, its bannable. Stop over thinking it.
I don't agree with there 2 strike program though. It takes a full week for a petition to actually go through. I personally feel they should flag your account first, send you an email/ingame mail of the possible infraction as your first, that would give you time to contact them an explain the situation. Then it would enter the 2 strike thing.
The market is about to go crazy so be ready everyone! |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4860
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 10:17:30 -
[3382] - Quote
Klorrak wrote:I honestly don't see a any grey area. All you have to do is ask yourself "Am I using any 3rd party program to automate what i'm doing giving me an advantage over what a normal player can do?" if the answer is yes. Bam there you go, its bannable. Stop over thinking it.
I don't agree with there 2 strike program though. It takes a full week for a petition to actually go through. I personally feel they should flag your account first, send you an email/ingame mail of the possible infraction as your first, that would give you time to contact them an explain the situation. Then it would enter the 2 strike thing.
The market is about to go crazy so be ready everyone! Except using broadcasting isn't even automating what you do, yet we know for a fact that broadcasting is banned. It doesn't even give you an advantage over "normal" players. A "normal" player with 10 accounts for example is more effective than an ISBoxer with 8. Character to character, there is no advantage, it's simply a reduction in RSI inducing clicks that the terrible UI requires.
And no, the market for the most part has done it's crazy. I'm sure there will be a bit more speculation, but many people who were going to not sub in January would have already stopped, so if there was going to be an enormous change, it would have already happened. The only thing that happens tomorrow is that CCP gets so inundated with idiots reporting every group of characters they see that legitimate support issues will be delayed.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Klorrak
Necrotic Industries
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 10:36:57 -
[3383] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Klorrak wrote:I honestly don't see a any grey area. All you have to do is ask yourself "Am I using any 3rd party program to automate what i'm doing giving me an advantage over what a normal player can do?" if the answer is yes. Bam there you go, its bannable. Stop over thinking it.
I don't agree with there 2 strike program though. It takes a full week for a petition to actually go through. I personally feel they should flag your account first, send you an email/ingame mail of the possible infraction as your first, that would give you time to contact them an explain the situation. Then it would enter the 2 strike thing.
The market is about to go crazy so be ready everyone! Except using broadcasting isn't even automating what you do, yet we know for a fact that broadcasting is banned. It doesn't even give you an advantage over "normal" players. A "normal" player with 10 accounts for example is more effective than an ISBoxer with 8. Character to character, there is no advantage, it's simply a reduction in RSI inducing clicks that the terrible UI requires. And no, the market for the most part has done it's crazy. I'm sure there will be a bit more speculation, but many people who were going to not sub in January would have already stopped, so if there was going to be an enormous change, it would have already happened. The only thing that happens tomorrow is that CCP gets so inundated with idiots reporting every group of characters they see that legitimate support issues will be delayed.
except broadcasting can do more then what a normal player can do in PVP, but not in other aspects of the game. Sure for mining its much more efficient to manually do everything but controlling your own fleet gives u a huge advantage. People may say its not true but it does give you an advantage. The entire picture needs to be looked at not just one side.
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
318
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 10:56:16 -
[3384] - Quote
A reminder:
[quote]10. Posting of private CCP communication is prohibited.
The posting of private communication between the Game Masters, EVE Team members, Moderators, Administrators of the forums and forum users is prohibited. CCP respect the right of our players to privacy and as such you are not permitted to publicize private correspondence (including support ticket responses and emails) received from any member of CCP staff.[/quote
I have removed part of a post that violated this rule.
ISD Decoy
Lieutenant Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29136
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 11:04:57 -
[3385] - Quote
oh wow. OK I was mistaken.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
798
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 11:15:15 -
[3386] - Quote
Klorrak wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Klorrak wrote:I honestly don't see a any grey area. All you have to do is ask yourself "Am I using any 3rd party program to automate what i'm doing giving me an advantage over what a normal player can do?" if the answer is yes. Bam there you go, its bannable. Stop over thinking it.
I don't agree with there 2 strike program though. It takes a full week for a petition to actually go through. I personally feel they should flag your account first, send you an email/ingame mail of the possible infraction as your first, that would give you time to contact them an explain the situation. Then it would enter the 2 strike thing.
The market is about to go crazy so be ready everyone! Except using broadcasting isn't even automating what you do, yet we know for a fact that broadcasting is banned. It doesn't even give you an advantage over "normal" players. A "normal" player with 10 accounts for example is more effective than an ISBoxer with 8. Character to character, there is no advantage, it's simply a reduction in RSI inducing clicks that the terrible UI requires. And no, the market for the most part has done it's crazy. I'm sure there will be a bit more speculation, but many people who were going to not sub in January would have already stopped, so if there was going to be an enormous change, it would have already happened. The only thing that happens tomorrow is that CCP gets so inundated with idiots reporting every group of characters they see that legitimate support issues will be delayed. except broadcasting can do more then what a normal player can do in PVP, but not in other aspects of the game. Sure for mining its much more efficient to manually do everything but controlling your own fleet gives u a huge advantage. People may say its not true but it does give you an advantage. The entire picture needs to be looked at not just one side.
Advantage in a small subset of PvP? Sure. Automation? Nope.
Both sides of the discussion have been rpesented multiple times, people who don't understand the discussion are th eones causing pages and pages of off-topic bickering. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4862
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 11:49:09 -
[3387] - Quote
Klorrak wrote:except broadcasting can do more then what a normal player can do in PVP, but not in other aspects of the game. Sure for mining its much more efficient to manually do everything but controlling your own fleet gives u a huge advantage. People may say its not true but it does give you an advantage. The entire picture needs to be looked at not just one side. The only thing it can do is allow 1 person to control 1 fleet, which drone assigning can also do. A fleet of ISBoxer characters will (and have been proven to) lose to an equivalent fleet of real players, because broadcasting is blind. Individual circumstance is not taken into account, and you really can't maneuver using it. Character to character, there is no advantage. Does a guy with 10 characters have an advantage over a guy with 2? Of course, but that's regardless of whether ISBoxer is used or not.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
573
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 12:21:45 -
[3388] - Quote
Klorrak wrote:except broadcasting can do more then what a normal player can do in PVP, but not in other aspects of the game. Sure for mining its much more efficient to manually do everything but controlling your own fleet gives u a huge advantage. People may say its not true but it does give you an advantage. The entire picture needs to be looked at not just one side.
I know of exactly two instances where an ISBoxer fleet *MAY* have a negligible advantage over a non-ISBoxed fleet, but there are also negatives.
1) Alpha fleet (null blobs/brawls)
2) Ganking (including small-gang here)
*cue wall of text*
For alpha fleets, targeting and movement are real problems. ISBoxer's broadcasting function has somewhere around a 1/2 second delay to it. Normally it isn't noticeable as EVE runs in 1 second ticks, but when you're attempting to lock multiple fleet broadcasts, or even continuously locking a stream, it quickly falls apart and you start getting split DPS and aggro, which undermines the fleet's strengths. Additionally, maneuvering on the battlefield is tricky. Even a simple orbit command on an FC quickly compounds issues once the FC is head-shotted, and attempting to switch back to the fleet overview, scroll till you find a name and pray that each window didn't unsynch, and then perfectly right-click and hit "orbit" is a headache and inevitably causes some to either burn off in random directions, or to orbit the wrong person, quickly leading to a dead ship and a free pod express. ECM and Damps also wreck havoc.
For ganking, there's two subsets. Talos (DPS for the rest of the post) ganking, and Tornado (alpha for the rest) ganking.
In DPS ganking, you bring Catalysts, Talos, and other blaster ships that put out damage over time. These boats are generally used for freighter ganks and mining hull ganks. The fleet needs to chew through the ship's EHP before everyone's killed by CONCORD. It's generally used in lower-security status systems where the CONCORD blob takes time to appear after an initial spawn.
This type of ganking is easily defeated / hindered by someone with a Griffin with ECM, someone close enough with high enough alpha or DPS to destroy the gankers' ships before they can finish their work, or someone who can bump the DPS boats away in time. Additionally, the ISBoxer would have trouble maneuvering each ship into optimal range without messing with the transversal of the other ships, getting his pods away in time, and dealing with double-clicking F1 and ECM. Not to mention remote repair modules.
For Alpha ganking, people usually use Tornados to deal damage before a target or his friends have a chance to react; whether that be a purple Golem undocking, or a battleship in an incursion fleet. In the Golem's case, you want to kill it before it can turn it's tank on, or cycle a booster. For the battleship, you want to avoid it catching reps. Usually used in higher security systems, where you might not get a second shot.
This type of ganking is easily defeated by the target's use of extra buffer and resist, the target applying transversal against the ganker's guns, and the use of insta-undocks. Extra buffer/resist force the gankers to use extra ships. Higher transversal reduces incoming damage, and 1400s have **** tracking. And insta-undocks reduce the ganker's opportunities to actually gank.
To sum up the wall of text: HTFU, and stop asking for CCP to hand everything to you on a silver platter. The mechanics are there for you to use to counter ISBoxers, but you must use them in order for them to work.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Miomeifeng Alduin
Lithonauts Inc.
49
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 14:54:38 -
[3389] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Klorrak wrote:except broadcasting can do more then what a normal player can do in PVP, but not in other aspects of the game. Sure for mining its much more efficient to manually do everything but controlling your own fleet gives u a huge advantage. People may say its not true but it does give you an advantage. The entire picture needs to be looked at not just one side. To sum up the wall of text: HTFU, and stop asking for CCP to hand everything to you on a silver platter. The mechanics are there for you to use to counter ISBoxers, but you must use them in order for them to work.
And so both sides come to an agreement: the other side needs to HTFU while the own side needs to have nothing changed :D
I'll repressent the other side here for a moment: HTFU and stop asking CCP to hand everything to you on a silver platter. The mechanics are there for you to use ISBoxer without broadcasting, but you aren't allowed to use broadcasting again. Have fun ;) |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29155
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 16:03:52 -
[3390] - Quote
There is conflicting info regarding G-keys, from GMs and tweets and forum posts. Some guidelines predate this thread. I think a special use case Dev blog is needed.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
|
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
12
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 16:21:07 -
[3391] - Quote
ISBoxers are asking ccp to reverse the change not get handed anything on a silver platter. The fact that so many people think it gives you an unfair advantage is ridiculous. You are all clearly incapable of objectively looking at and understanding what ISBoxer does for people with multiple accounts. It's not the win button you all think it is.
Does having 10 accounts give you a PvP advantage? Sure against numbers at least moderately lesser than yours. We dunked a 20 man isboxer fleet this week with 13 guys. What's worse for the isboxer fleet is that most of your accounts are going to lose their pods because you lack the ability to micromanage your accounts.
There is nothing that needs fixing in this system because there is a tiny subset of scenarios where an ISBoxer fleet is as good as a player fleet and a much much larger number where it isn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAOLCWNF_NM
This change does nothing good for the game.
ISBoxers will still do their thing albeit a bit less efficiently.
With less character control ISBoxers will be less inclined to put their fleet into PvP to get raped like in the video above.
Enjoy your win. It's not as big of a deal as you think it is. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6516
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 16:30:55 -
[3392] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:ISBoxers are asking ccp to reverse the change not get handed anything on a silver platter.
KC Kamikaze wrote:What's worse for the isboxer fleet is that most of your accounts are going to lose their pods because you lack the ability to micromanage your accounts.
At least no more clone upgrade costs anymore.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29155
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 16:37:26 -
[3393] - Quote
Thanks, that made me laugh. Not ISBoxing, 2014 is still a net-positive year for me, mostly due to med clone costs.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
12
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 16:44:25 -
[3394] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:
At least no more clone upgrade costs anymore.
Definitely a good thing. I think about 85% of the changes CCP make I agree with for the most part. The wormhole mechanics changes were a real bastard to lower class holes while high class holes it made a lot better. I moved out of my c2-c3 because of them. I see no benefit to the broadcasting ban though for anyone. |
STORMTROOPER301
OPERATION BLACKLIST
BLACKLISTED OPERATIONS
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 16:57:21 -
[3395] - Quote
Up until now this has been my favorite game. Now CCP is dumbing things down and nerfing things that are sucessful. If you keep listining to crybabys and changing the game to make them happy, pretty soon those will be the only people playing this game. Eve has always been a game with the safety turned off. It sucks to see you guys ruin this game for so many people that have planned out what they want to do, and have taken lots of time and money out of thier lives to do so. This move makes CCP the biggest scammer in eve. |
Sol Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
1646
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 17:20:01 -
[3396] - Quote
All these selfish people who always only see their own interests
and never care about anything else but themselves.
Disgusting freaks.
The amount of bullshit some people's minds come up with
just to feel justified in whining, raging or crying about this change is flabbergasting.
Most of you people who complain about this lack any decency,
or dignity, or understanding of this game beyond your small scope you call "viewpoint".
It's no loss at all when you are gone.
Ladies of New Eden YC 117 Calendar by Indahmawar Fazmarai
Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1622
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 18:48:14 -
[3397] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: *snipped out post I don't care about*
I'm quoting you for your signature. I watched the fan fest stream and was physically at vegas, so proof that they said nothing was changing for multiboxers?
And even if they did say that, they did not lie. I multibox, I use 3 accounts off a single instance of eve, I alt tab and manually control every account. The removal of input broadcast changes absolutely nothing for me. So by definition of what muliboxing is, there is no lie. So... proof? Cause frankly... you are wrong or don't understand the word "MultiBox"
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
15
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 19:01:06 -
[3398] - Quote
Sol Project wrote:All these selfish people who always only see their own interests
and never care about anything else but themselves.
Disgusting freaks.
The amount of bullshit some people's minds come up with
just to feel justified in whining, raging or crying about this change is flabbergasting.
Most of you people who complain about this lack any decency,
or dignity, or understanding of this game beyond your small scope you call "viewpoint".
It's no loss at all when you are gone.
There are plenty of reasons reasons to oppose this change that have merit.
1. The DEVs said there would be no change to multiboxing then changed their minds. - People have spent a lot of time and money in developing a multiboxing system that allows them to play eve the way they want to. (Sandbox Remember?) To be approved to do this and then go back on that is very bad form.
2. I think we can all agree that you can't pilot multiple accounts with the efficiency that you can pilot one and the difficulty increases exponentially the more accounts you use. Sure an ISBoxer can do more than a single player ... he's paid and worked for the ability to do that the same as anyone else can. Just because you have no desire to do this is irrelevant. Sandbox right?
3. The people who are bitching about it have no valid grounds to *****. Oh that multiboxer with teh bombers got me waaa waaa. Lets be crybabies and petition ccp for all our lossmails. If you got bombed I guess you weren't vigilant enough to avoid it, but no it's not your fault it's that isboxer who did more work and preparation while you were blindly ratting away then you can even comprehend.... Or.... oh this multiboxer is clearing all the ore sites or combat sites. He should have to fleet with other people and not do it solo.. you don't like it form your own damn fleet with other people and wardec them or if you sniveling bears ever come out of highsec just take matters into your own hands. Sandbox rules right?
It's ok ... you whine and cry enough ccp will make the rest of us conform to what you want and we will still always be better than you so you will continue to petition and whine and cry at every opportunity. This game is like the burning crusade expansion of WoW .. hard as **** and unforgiving... by the time you are done whining and crying we will have pandas and faceroll content in every corner. You will get what you want and we will move on to another game. Fortunately we are not there yet and I sincerely hope that CCP moves away from this sandbox for toddlers mentatity and puts the game back in the real players control. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
574
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 20:08:10 -
[3399] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:I'm quoting you for your signature. I watched the fan fest stream and was physically at vegas, so proof that they said nothing was changing for multiboxers?
And even if they did say that, they did not lie. I multibox, I use 3 accounts off a single instance of eve, I alt tab and manually control every account. The removal of input broadcast changes absolutely nothing for me. So by definition of what muliboxing is, there is no lie. So... proof? Cause frankly... you are wrong or don't understand the word "MultiBox"
Sorry, I forgot to tell people to record everything they saw and heard. Next time, I'll be sure to have people bring hidden microphones and button cams.
From someone attempting to make the same argument earlier:
Nolak Ataru wrote:"Multiboxing" encompasses ISBoxers. ISBoxers, by definition, use multiple accounts. All ISBoxers are multiboxers, but not all multiboxers are ISBoxers.
Seriously, stop treating ISBoxers as second class people.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4865
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 20:09:25 -
[3400] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote: *snipped out post I don't care about* I'm quoting you for your signature. I watched the fan fest stream and was physically at vegas, so proof that they said nothing was changing for multiboxers? And even if they did say that, they did not lie. I multibox, I use 3 accounts off a single instance of eve, I alt tab and manually control every account. The removal of input broadcast changes absolutely nothing for me. So by definition of what muliboxing is, there is no lie. So... proof? Cause frankly... you are wrong or don't understand the word "MultiBox" To be fair, you being an unaffected multiboxer means nothing is changing for *some* multiboxers.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
312
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 20:21:59 -
[3401] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:DaReaper wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote: *snipped out post I don't care about* I'm quoting you for your signature. I watched the fan fest stream and was physically at vegas, so proof that they said nothing was changing for multiboxers? And even if they did say that, they did not lie. I multibox, I use 3 accounts off a single instance of eve, I alt tab and manually control every account. The removal of input broadcast changes absolutely nothing for me. So by definition of what muliboxing is, there is no lie. So... proof? Cause frankly... you are wrong or don't understand the word "MultiBox" To be fair, you being an unaffected multiboxer means nothing is changing for *some* multiboxers.
Idk about other EVE multiboxers, but im spending days setting up new "processes"... partially because im anal
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1623
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 20:24:55 -
[3402] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:DaReaper wrote:I'm quoting you for your signature. I watched the fan fest stream and was physically at vegas, so proof that they said nothing was changing for multiboxers?
And even if they did say that, they did not lie. I multibox, I use 3 accounts off a single instance of eve, I alt tab and manually control every account. The removal of input broadcast changes absolutely nothing for me. So by definition of what muliboxing is, there is no lie. So... proof? Cause frankly... you are wrong or don't understand the word "MultiBox" Sorry, I forgot to tell people to record everything they saw and heard. Next time, I'll be sure to have people bring hidden microphones and button cams. From someone attempting to make the same argument earlier: Nolak Ataru wrote:"Multiboxing" encompasses ISBoxers. ISBoxers, by definition, use multiple accounts. All ISBoxers are multiboxers, but not all multiboxers are ISBoxers. Seriously, stop treating ISBoxers as second class people.
pssh, lots of people were filming.
and second, ISBoxers are not a citizen of anything. And you can still use ISBoxer with no problem. You just can't unse input boardcast. Thus, Multiboxing is not changing, just the way you were is. That's the difference. By definition, I am correct.
This is the equivlant of saying that because Dr, Who is cancled that all geeks are being punished.. no, only Dr. Who fans are punished, the rest will shrugs it off.
Welcome to eve, Adapt or die, HTFU and if you cancle accounts you can contract me your stuff, i'll keep it safe for you.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1623
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 20:26:08 -
[3403] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:DaReaper wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote: *snipped out post I don't care about* I'm quoting you for your signature. I watched the fan fest stream and was physically at vegas, so proof that they said nothing was changing for multiboxers? And even if they did say that, they did not lie. I multibox, I use 3 accounts off a single instance of eve, I alt tab and manually control every account. The removal of input broadcast changes absolutely nothing for me. So by definition of what muliboxing is, there is no lie. So... proof? Cause frankly... you are wrong or don't understand the word "MultiBox" To be fair, you being an unaffected multiboxer means nothing is changing for *some* multiboxers.
No, again, nothing changes for multiboxers, not a damn thing. Something is changing for inuput broadcasters who multiboxed. But that is not the same thing. By definition of what a multiboxer is I am correct.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1623
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 20:34:55 -
[3404] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:Sol Project wrote:All these selfish people who always only see their own interests
and never care about anything else but themselves.
Disgusting freaks.
The amount of bullshit some people's minds come up with
just to feel justified in whining, raging or crying about this change is flabbergasting.
Most of you people who complain about this lack any decency,
or dignity, or understanding of this game beyond your small scope you call "viewpoint".
It's no loss at all when you are gone. There are plenty of reasons reasons to oppose this change that have merit. 1. The DEVs said there would be no change to multiboxing then changed their minds. - People have spent a lot of time and money in developing a multiboxing system that allows them to play eve the way they want to. (Sandbox Remember?) To be approved to do this and then go back on that is very bad form. 2. I think we can all agree that you can't pilot multiple accounts with the efficiency that you can pilot one and the difficulty increases exponentially the more accounts you use. Sure an ISBoxer can do more than a single player ... he's paid and worked for the ability to do that the same as anyone else can. Just because you have no desire to do this is irrelevant. Sandbox right? 3. The people who are bitching about it have no valid grounds to *****. Oh that multiboxer with teh bombers got me waaa waaa. Lets be crybabies and petition ccp for all our lossmails. If you got bombed I guess you weren't vigilant enough to avoid it, but no it's not your fault it's that isboxer who did more work and preparation while you were blindly ratting away then you can even comprehend.... Or.... oh this multiboxer is clearing all the ore sites or combat sites. He should have to fleet with other people and not do it solo.. you don't like it form your own damn fleet with other people and wardec them or if you sniveling bears ever come out of highsec just take matters into your own hands. Sandbox rules right? It's ok ... you whine and cry enough ccp will make the rest of us conform to what you want and we will still always be better than you so you will continue to petition and whine and cry at every opportunity. This game is like the burning crusade expansion of WoW .. hard as **** and unforgiving... by the time you are done whining and crying we will have pandas and faceroll content in every corner. You will get what you want and we will move on to another game. Fortunately we are not there yet and I sincerely hope that CCP moves away from this sandbox for toddlers mentatity and puts the game back in the real players control.
1) so? Who owns the game? Who makes the rules? It doesn't matter if someone spent a billion dollars making a program to work with eve and then ccp said 'no worry we don't want you to that' This argument is stupid. This is like you owning a house with a lot of land, some guy decides 'well you are not using this section of your land, so i'll build a house here' For whatever reason you did not notice till the done and you tell him 'no get off my land' the argument 'but I spent xxx amount making the house.." means jack. You do not own eve, CCP does, they are lords and gods. They can do whatever the hell they want, we just play here. And proof that they said they were not changing multiboxing? Cause I have not seen or heard any. And again Multiboxing is not changing. So there is no lie.
2) again, how much the multiboxer paid is irrelviant. A Bot pays a lot for that program or for someone to make said program, should they be allowed to bot? A RMT pays a lot of money to setup websites so he can sell his crap, should he be allowed to? A car theif pays for the equipment and the skill to steal your car, should you just let him? That's the point. It does not matter how much time or money someone put into something. This is CCP's game. Last I checked you don't own CCP. Thus your opinion means nothing.
3) once again... Do you own ccp? They make the rules, and they decided that input broadcast was bad for the game. That all there is to it. End of discussion.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4865
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 20:42:36 -
[3405] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:DaReaper wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote: *snipped out post I don't care about* I'm quoting you for your signature. I watched the fan fest stream and was physically at vegas, so proof that they said nothing was changing for multiboxers? And even if they did say that, they did not lie. I multibox, I use 3 accounts off a single instance of eve, I alt tab and manually control every account. The removal of input broadcast changes absolutely nothing for me. So by definition of what muliboxing is, there is no lie. So... proof? Cause frankly... you are wrong or don't understand the word "MultiBox" To be fair, you being an unaffected multiboxer means nothing is changing for *some* multiboxers. No, again, nothing changes for multiboxers, not a damn thing. Something is changing for inuput broadcasters who multiboxed. But that is not the same thing. By definition of what a multiboxer is I am correct. There is far too much stupid in your posts.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
574
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 20:43:58 -
[3406] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Sorry, I forgot to tell people to record everything they saw and heard. Next time, I'll be sure to have people bring hidden microphones and button cams. pssh, lots of people were filming. and second, ISBoxers are not a citizen of anything. And you can still use ISBoxer with no problem. You just can't use input broadcast. Thus, Multiboxing is not changing, just the way you were is. That's the difference. By definition, I am correct. This is the equivlant of saying that because Dr, Who is cancled that all geeks are being punished.. no, only Dr. Who fans are punished, the rest will shrugs it off. Welcome to eve, Adapt or die, HTFU and if you cancel accounts you can contract me your stuff, i'll keep it safe for you.
I highlighted a word you might find interesting.
The irony coming from your post is so strong I could use it to make a longsword. This was never about ISBoxer itself being banned, despite what the trolls and the ill-informed would like you to think. This was about input broadcasting. And as I said before (which you ever-so-quickly ignored) ISBoxers ARE BY DEFINITION MULTIBOXERS. Therefore, anything which affects ISBoxers and people who use input broadcasting software affects multiboxers via set-of-value rules.
Quote:This is the equivalent of saying that because Dr Who is canceled, geeks are being punished.
Fixed your earlier statement and removed strawman argument. An even better statement would be something like "Because Star Trek is being cancelled, geeks are being hurt" but even that's iffy.
And lastly, you tell me to HTFU when this entire change was brought about by whiners such as yourself complaining instead of adapting. Again, the irony here is strong. I've not complained in my posts. My fellow players and I presented arguments as to why this change should not occur, only to be met with strawman arguments, trolling, appeals to authority, attempts to bring emotion into this, using arguments to attack ISBoxing while excusing station trading, and an endless stream of "umad?", "stop crying", and no-true-scotsman fallacies. If anyone needs to HTFU, it's the whiners and the trollers.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1624
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 20:49:46 -
[3407] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:DaReaper wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Sorry, I forgot to tell people to record everything they saw and heard. Next time, I'll be sure to have people bring hidden microphones and button cams. pssh, lots of people were filming. and second, ISBoxers are not a citizen of anything. And you can still use ISBoxer with no problem. You just can't use input broadcast. Thus, Multiboxing is not changing, just the way you were is. That's the difference. By definition, I am correct. This is the equivlant of saying that because Dr, Who is cancled that all geeks are being punished.. no, only Dr. Who fans are punished, the rest will shrugs it off. Welcome to eve, Adapt or die, HTFU and if you cancel accounts you can contract me your stuff, i'll keep it safe for you. I highlighted a word you might find interesting. The irony coming from your post is so strong I could use it to make a longsword. This was never about ISBoxer itself being banned, despite what the trolls and the ill-informed would like you to think. This was about input broadcasting. And as I said before (which you ever-so-quickly ignored) ISBoxers ARE BY DEFINITION MULTIBOXERS. Therefore, anything which affects ISBoxers and people who use input broadcasting software affects multiboxers via set-of-value rules. Quote:This is the equivalent of saying that because Dr Who is canceled, geeks are being punished. Fixed your earlier statement and removed strawman argument. An even better statement would be something like "Because Star Trek is being cancelled, geeks are being hurt" but even that's iffy. And lastly, you tell me to HTFU when this entire change was brought about by whiners such as yourself complaining instead of adapting. Again, the irony here is strong. I've not complained in my posts. My fellow players and I presented arguments as to why this change should not occur, only to be met with strawman arguments, trolling, appeals to authority, attempts to bring emotion into this, using arguments to attack ISBoxing while excusing station trading, and an endless stream of "umad?", "stop crying", and no-true-scotsman fallacies. If anyone needs to HTFU, it's the whiners and the trollers.
Please go through my post history and find a single instance where I 'whined' about isboxer. You won't, cause frankly I never cared. If you wanted to spend tons of cash on a program that ccp never officially said was good or bad then that was your choice. 99% of my post dealing with ISBoxer was telling whiners that as long as ccp says its ok, then they need to stop whining and HTFU. The rules they are changed, so now its your turn to adapt. Its that damn simple. And I still argue that and while isboxers are multiboxers the term "multiboxing is changing" is invalid. As its not. A single subsect is, the entire thing is not. So again, still wrong.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Sol Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
1710
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 20:56:31 -
[3408] - Quote
Selfishness over and over.
If isboying stays you all will leave as soon as there are mostly isboxers left playing.
Not that they could keep the game alive anyway.
No one cares about you, because you only care about yourselves.
You do not care about the game at all.
When people stop joining this game because most people are multiboxing
this game is doomed. You do not care at all about this fact.
Even 1000 isboxing accounts gone is a drop in the bucket compared to the
long time damage you people do to the integrity of the reality of this game.
Does anyone consider how it looks to have "karl heinz001" to "karlheinz100" in local?
No.
Does anyone of you care about how it looks to have dozens of toons look equal?
No.
Does anyone of you care that you do not actually provide content in an equal manner
as the same amount of real people would?
No.
Do you care about the impression this creates for people who aren't playing yet?
No.
Your only arguments are based on selfishness.
You are no loss.
Go compensate your lack of self worth somewhere else.
Bye bye... you won't be missed!
Ladies of New Eden YC 117 Calendar by Indahmawar Fazmarai
Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1624
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 20:57:53 -
[3409] - Quote
Sol Project wrote:Selfishness over and over.
If isboying stays you all will leave as soon as there are mostly isboxers left playing.
Not that they could keep the game alive anyway.
No one cares about you, because you only care about yourselves.
You do not care about the game at all.
When people stop joining this game because most people are multiboxing
this game is doomed. You do not care at all about this fact.
Even 1000 isboxing accounts gone is a drop in the bucket compared to the
long time damage you people do to the integrity of the reality of this game.
Does anyone consider how it looks to have "karl heinz001" to "karlheinz100" in local?
No.
Does anyone of you care about how it looks to have dozens of toons look equal?
No.
Does anyone of you care that you do not actually provide content in an equal manner
as the same amount of real people would?
No.
Do you care about the impression this creates for people who aren't playing yet?
No.
Your only arguments are based on selfishness.
You are no loss.
Go compensate your lack of self worth somewhere else.
Bye bye... you won't be missed!
Exactly, I have not seen or heard a single argument for why input broadcast is good for the game and why it should say, besides "I paid xxx and it was fine last year..."
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Marsha Mallow
1820
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 21:04:23 -
[3410] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:It's ok ... you whine and cry enough ccp will make the rest of us conform to what you want and we will still always be better than you so you will continue to petition and whine and cry at every opportunity. This game is like the burning crusade expansion of WoW .. hard as **** and unforgiving... by the time you are done whining and crying we will have pandas and faceroll content in every corner. You will get what you want and we will move on to another game. Fortunately we are not there yet and I sincerely hope that CCP moves away from this sandbox for toddlers mentatity and puts the game back in the real players control.
The funny thing is, no-one has really been whining and crying over this topic other than you and a handful of others. Most of the wider playerbase aren't all that interested either way (other than sniggering at the hysterical and ineffectual tantrum).
There wasn't even a concerted 'campaign' from the playerbase to ban ISboxing, despite this wierd victim mentality you have. Every whine thread about the topic that I can recall seeing in the last few months has been slapped down by forumites because CCP had stated their postition and weren't budging on it. For whatever reason they've decided to change that, and given it's a bold step in a series of bold steps, did you actually expect anything other than cheering?
For those of us unaffected there are no negative effects (irrelevant scrubs got backhanded, news at 11, ohhh maybe plex prices will drop etc). No offense, but... I quite like CCP, even though they are a bit daft (maybe because they are). You are not particularly likeable. I'd work on that when attempting to get sympathy. They generally act in the best interests of their game, and since I like their game, I'll support them. You act in your interests, rant on and on, then threaten to quit. And have a massive tantrum when everyone else laughs.
You're a bunch of semi legal botting farmer peasant scumbags who deserve nothing, have earned nothing but contempt, and deserve a smack in the chops. Don't think for a second the comments made here have helped your cause, you just publically immoliated yourselves. You brought this on yourselves btw by smugging too loudly about a practice which is at heart, cheating. Those smug youtube vids encrouraged fringe groups to jump on the fail train and abuse the crap out of it while they could. Interestingly, they aren't whining.
Those of you who have posted 200+ times in this thread, with reasonably articulate arguments, are basically deranged.
GF scrubs o7
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
574
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 21:06:28 -
[3411] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:This is like you owning a house with a lot of land, some guy decides 'well you are not using this section of your land, so i'll build a house here' For whatever reason you did not notice till the done and you tell him 'no get off my land' the argument 'but I spent xxx amount making the house.." means jack.
Technically, no. Since you didn't stop him when he was building the house, he now owns that house. By not telling him or forcing him to stop, you basically gave consent. Very interesting part of the law.
DaReaper wrote:2) again, how much the input broadcaster paid is irrelviant. A Bot pays a lot for that program or for someone to make said program, should they be allowed to bot? A RMT pays a lot of money to setup websites so he can sell his crap, should he be allowed to? A car theif pays for the equipment and the skill to steal your car, should you just let him? That's the point. It does not matter how much time or money someone put into something. This is CCP's game. Last I checked you don't own CCP. Thus your opinion means nothing. And I've ran 5 accounts in wormhole sites at the same time with no issues, by alt tabing, so your point is what?
Great strawman. Really had me going for a bit. A more accurate thing though would be if something like PYFA was a paid program, and then CCP, after years of saying it was OK with years of Devs backing it up, suddenly turned around and banned it. Sure, it's their game and they can do what they want, but to ban without any argument, evidence, or reasoning is fairly bad PR, not to mention the bad message it sends to anyone else. Just because I do not own CCP, does not mean my opinions are invalid. Stop attempting to silence us.
DaReaper wrote:3) once again... Do you own CCP? They make the rules, and they decided that input broadcast was bad for the game. That all there is to it. End of discussion.
Do you? Who are you to tell us what to do? Who are you to tell us to stop talking, or to leave? If it was truly "end of discussion" this thread would have been locked after the first post.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4866
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 21:07:12 -
[3412] - Quote
Sol Project wrote:If isboxing stays you all will leave as soon as there are mostly isboxers left playing.
Not that they could keep the game alive anyway. Because obviously the past few years with ISBoxer being allowed, clearly EVE died, right? And more income, that's definitely a terrible idea for CCP!
Sol Project wrote:When people stop joining this game because most people are multiboxing
this game is doomed. You do not care at all about this fact. Prove this actually happens on scale. I guarantee more players leave because of gankers and scammers than multiboxers.
Seriously, be a better troll at least.
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
4866
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 21:17:10 -
[3413] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:The funny thing is, no-one has really been whining and crying over this topic other than you and a handful of others. Most of the wider playerbase aren't all that interested either way (other than sniggering at the hysterical and ineffectual tantrum). I'm sorry, you must be new. Welcome to the EVE Forums. If you look around, you'll see pretty much weekly posts with people whining about people multiboxing. Usually they were met by the same trolls who now troll this thread and the usual "HTFU". Apparently it's not HTFU anymore, it's "whine louder so we can cater to you more easily".
Marsha Mallow wrote:For those of us unaffected there are no negative effects (irrelevant scrubs got backhanded, news at 11, ohhh maybe plex prices will drop etc). No offense, but... I quite like CCP, even though they are a bit daft (maybe because they are). You are not particularly likeable. I'd work on that when attempting to get sympathy. They generally act in the best interests of their game, and since I like their game, I'll support them. You act in your interests, rant on and on, then threaten to quit. And have a massive tantrum when everyone else laughs. Except the obvious downsides, where there will definitely be non-broadcasters banned, there will be a mass influx of support tickets from idiots that can't tell the difference between broadcast an manual, and there will be more changes in the future which will put even more players and gameplay at risk. I know, I know, slippery slope, right? Well the fact remains that often small changes really do lead to larger ones.
Marsha Mallow wrote:\You're a bunch of semi legal botting farmer peasant scumbags who deserve nothing, have earned nothing but contempt, and deserve a smack in the chops. Don't think for a second the comments made here have helped your cause, you just publically immoliated yourselves. You brought this on yourselves btw by smugging too loudly about a practice which is at heart, cheating. Those smug youtube vids encrouraged fringe groups to jump on the fail train and abuse the crap out of it while they could. Interestingly, they aren't whining. So no the reality comes out. You have no idea how ISBoxing actually works (it's absolutely nothing like botting, not even remotely) and you have some stick up you're ass about multiboxers. "Waah waah waah, you're all scumbags waah". Grow up kid.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Marsha Mallow
1820
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 21:35:00 -
[3414] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: Grow up kid.
You first
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29200
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 22:46:56 -
[3415] - Quote
release-levels of anticipation, right hurr.
(this is going to be so bad)
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
ashley Eoner
387
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 23:09:39 -
[3416] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:release-levels of anticipation, right hurr.
(this is going to be so bad)
I've set skill queues and logged off for good. Accounts will run out this month. I'll watch the forums to see how many innocents are being banned.
While I can run stuff without the multiplex/repeater ability I'm just not confident in CCP's ability to fairly enforce this new rule. |
Kireek Amblecrown
Rhongomiant Legion Industries
The Explicit Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 00:40:34 -
[3417] - Quote
Multiboxer here.
The change isn't going to be that big of a deal to miners with 10 or less accounts. Those that are crying about it are babies, and I don't mind if they quit the game. My only concern is the way CCP is going to handle reports/bans, especially if folks who aren't broadcasting keys get banned just for using multiple accounts.
Time will tell. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6516
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 02:34:18 -
[3418] - Quote
Kireek Amblecrown wrote:My only concern is the way CCP is going to handle reports/bans, especially if folks who aren't broadcasting keys get banned just for using multiple accounts.
Time will tell.
If you get banned or whatever don't come here to tell us about it on your boosting alt.
Because doubtless a bunch of people will just disappear regardless of playing by the rules or whatever, not that there's any way to find out officially.
ashley Eoner wrote:I'll watch the forums to see how many innocents are being banned.
While I can run stuff without the multiplex/repeater ability I'm just not confident in CCP's ability to fairly enforce this new rule.
You better be F5ing this really fast because doubtless any thread will be deleted by isd
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29204
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 03:43:10 -
[3419] - Quote
The part that worries me is the incongruence between GM and other CCP guidance. I'm not going to martyr myself and try the F1-F8 smartbomb thing. Nnnnoep.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
Requiem Eternal
74
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 10:33:43 -
[3420] - Quote
lol, allready People raging in local at me.. 3 accounts not that hard to multibox to put it that way. lol. No brodcasting thingy here :D doing all afther the rules :) he says he got in fraps'etc. and that i warped trought the gate at ''exsactly same time'' ... well. idk what to say. |
|
|
Nidal Fervor
State War Academy
Caldari State
51
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 11:00:39 -
[3421] - Quote
As a multiboxer who hates isboxer and all input broadcasting, I'd just like to make one point.
If you see a fleet of characters warping from gate to gate all at the same time, you don't need to cheat to do this. Warp gang to stargate, and then right click stargate and select jump on each character. Simple. |
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
Requiem Eternal
74
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 12:40:15 -
[3422] - Quote
Nidal Fervor wrote:As a multiboxer who hates isboxer and all input broadcasting, I'd just like to make one point.
If you see a fleet of characters warping from gate to gate all at the same time, you don't need to cheat to do this. Warp gang to stargate, and then right click stargate and select jump on each character. Simple.
was that one meant for me in any way? (i dont say it was or anything) or did you just say it to everyone? :P
edit:huh. |
BrundleMeth
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
356
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 13:59:31 -
[3423] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:So now the reality comes out. You have no idea how ISBoxing actually works (it's absolutely nothing like botting, not even remotely) and you have some stick up you're ass about multiboxers. "Waah waah waah, you're all scumbags waah". Grow up kid.
I was never really interested in ISBoxer before. But with all the sniveling and whining going on, I think I'm gonna give it a try....
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
Requiem Eternal
74
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 15:15:36 -
[3424] - Quote
BrundleMeth wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:So now the reality comes out. You have no idea how ISBoxing actually works (it's absolutely nothing like botting, not even remotely) and you have some stick up you're ass about multiboxers. "Waah waah waah, you're all scumbags waah". Grow up kid. I was never really interested in ISBoxer before. But with all the sniveling and whining going on, I think I'm gonna give it a try....
hehe :) i hope you find it enjoyable :P o.o
(like, fun) anyway, i have never multiboxed for isk, or stuff like that... but becous i just liked it, (tought it was fun) so Yeah. (just to say, never said anyone did or did not say) hehe :D
And i wish you an happy New year :) |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29213
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 16:04:17 -
[3425] - Quote
Nidal Fervor wrote:As a multiboxer who hates isboxer and all input broadcasting, I'd just like to make one point.
If you see a fleet of characters warping from gate to gate all at the same time, you don't need to cheat to do this. Warp gang to stargate, and then right click stargate and select jump on each character. Simple.
click the gate in overview, press D while in warp. it takes after you land.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Miomeifeng Alduin
Lithonauts Inc.
49
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 18:47:49 -
[3426] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Nidal Fervor wrote:As a multiboxer who hates isboxer and all input broadcasting, I'd just like to make one point.
If you see a fleet of characters warping from gate to gate all at the same time, you don't need to cheat to do this. Warp gang to stargate, and then right click stargate and select jump on each character. Simple. click the gate in overview, press D while in warp. it takes after you land.
I think you mean press D + click the gate. Just D doesn't do anything (just tested it to be sure that nothing changed). |
Josef Djugashvilis
2854
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 19:50:49 -
[3427] - Quote
Well, did the sky fall in?
This is not a signature.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29214
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 20:08:13 -
[3428] - Quote
Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Nidal Fervor wrote:As a multiboxer who hates isboxer and all input broadcasting, I'd just like to make one point.
If you see a fleet of characters warping from gate to gate all at the same time, you don't need to cheat to do this. Warp gang to stargate, and then right click stargate and select jump on each character. Simple. click the gate in overview, press D while in warp. it takes after you land. I think you mean press D + click the gate. Just D doesn't do anything (just tested it to be sure that nothing changed).
been using it for years. fleet warp, and on each client select the gate in overview, and press d. repeat.
not only that, but if you click the wrong gate and press d, after you land the ship will warp to the wrong gate and jump.
pressing control+space while in warp cancels the command. it's like hot locking, except hot docking/jumping.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
ashley Eoner
389
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 20:34:21 -
[3429] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Kireek Amblecrown wrote:My only concern is the way CCP is going to handle reports/bans, especially if folks who aren't broadcasting keys get banned just for using multiple accounts.
Time will tell. If you get banned or whatever don't come here to tell us about it on your boosting alt. Because doubtless a bunch of people will just disappear regardless of playing by the rules or whatever, not that there's any way to find out officially. ashley Eoner wrote:I'll watch the forums to see how many innocents are being banned.
While I can run stuff without the multiplex/repeater ability I'm just not confident in CCP's ability to fairly enforce this new rule. You better be F5ing this really fast because doubtless any thread will be deleted by isd
That is true but I prefer to stick to the word of people I know and trust over some random dude on the eve forums. I know people who will continue their boxing endeavors post jan 1st. Those are the ones I will be watching.
For gate to gate I would use fleet warp. For gate usage I would use the D+click on each client. |
Miomeifeng Alduin
Lithonauts Inc.
50
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 21:41:00 -
[3430] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Nidal Fervor wrote:As a multiboxer who hates isboxer and all input broadcasting, I'd just like to make one point.
If you see a fleet of characters warping from gate to gate all at the same time, you don't need to cheat to do this. Warp gang to stargate, and then right click stargate and select jump on each character. Simple. click the gate in overview, press D while in warp. it takes after you land. I think you mean press D + click the gate. Just D doesn't do anything (just tested it to be sure that nothing changed). been using it for years. fleet warp, and on each client select the gate in overview, and press d. repeat. not only that, but if you click the wrong gate and press d, after you land the ship will warp to the wrong gate and jump. pressing control+space while in warp cancels the command. it's like hot locking, except hot docking/jumping. as soon as the FC says "gate is green" or "jump on contact" the client gets the d
Strange. Unless its something which only works with fleetwarp. tried multiple times, but i can't get it to work:
-initiate warp.
-while in warp press D.
-hang at 0 at the destination gate because no warp happens.
On my client, i can't use the hotkeys without clicking a target while pressing the hotkey. (been one of my major problems with the system. Is it a setting somewhere which i haven't found yet maybe? |
|
|
Alana Packham
Wardec Solutions
5
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 22:25:16 -
[3431] - Quote
1 post by CCP
over 3000 posts by people who probably don't even play the game.
PVP'ers are upset because they are being killed. Don't quite get that, no matter how drunk I get.
No new EULA, no update to the EULA, not even a mention on the login screen.
Is the OP still even working for CCP?
If this is an actual serious post..
I'm a multi-box miner who only came to this game to be able to use multiple accounts, I use multi-box software for fleet set-ups and moving the fleet, plus all the irritating things like opening 16 cargo bays, getting most of them to show the ore hold, launching drones and all the other pain in the arse things (like clicking on 16 'the server will be shutting down' 3 times in an hour). Selecting roids, moving ships around inside belts and mining I do individually.
For me that was the main point of this game.
Now unfortunately because people who play the PVP side of the game are getting shot (thought that was a part of PVP (and don't say there are more of them then us, try being ganked by 15 cats every hour of the day)) the miners are yet again to suffer.
What was an interesting mining setup is to be turned into a series of pointless endless mouse clicks.
Ice mining, Ore mining, surviving gankers (and pointing out they are useless wankers), hauling ore, refining, shipping mats, maybe some indy, bit of PVE missioning. All of that is gone as by the time I get my fleets to where I want them and start mining I am so bored I play something else.
And I can't figure out why the EULA change. The game became what it is by allowing things to happen. Cutting massive aspects out of the game (this change is a massive aspect to me if not to you) can only limit it even further, the term sandbox died a long, long time ago.
But I'm gonna stay until I get suspended, the way this is going it will be probably for 2 accounts being logged in within a 500 mile radius of each other but I'll be here until then.
Then after my suspension I'm gonna jettison my huge collection of PLEX into space 1 at a time and shoot them, then buy up all the spare PLEX in the game and shoot them, that'll probably be the most satisfaction this game will have to offer by that time.
I suppose the other option would be to join a PVP guild, spend all day every day camped on a gate with 40 other people just in case someone comes through, but no one will, as all that will be left by then are gate campers, gankers and bots.
So I think not, if I want PVP I'll play a PVP game, not an alleged sandbox that offers a mix of PVP and PVE where you can do whatever you want, unless it's anything you want.
apologies for the rambling, truncated post as I'm trying to write it while drunk and remembering how much fun WOT can be if you have no worries about 'friendly fire'.
btw can we please have a new promotional video entitled 'I was there the day EVE died'?
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3044
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 23:08:28 -
[3432] - Quote
1) Eve will not die. Those players who left due to the scourge of multicasters will come back.
2) Its not just the PvP players complaining. Its also the miners and PvE players.
Ice miners do not like seeing the spawns vacuumed up in minutes by multicaster fleets.
Ore miners do not like seeing belts vacuumed up in minutes by multicaster fleets.
All miners do not like dieing to one player using multicasting to control 15 gank cats.
Incursion runners do not like seeing sites done by one player multicasting a fleet.
When the game becomes "Use multicasting, or you are irrelevant", its time for a change.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Alana Packham
Wardec Solutions
6
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 23:36:36 -
[3433] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:1) Eve will not die. Those players who left due to the scourge of multicasters will come back.
2) Its not just the PvP players complaining. Its also the miners and PvE players.
Ice miners do not like seeing the spawns vacuumed up in minutes by multicaster fleets.
Ore miners do not like seeing belts vacuumed up in minutes by multicaster fleets.
All miners do not like dieing to one player using multicasting to control 15 gank cats.
Incursion runners do not like seeing sites done by one player multicasting a fleet.
When the game becomes "Use multicasting, or you are irrelevant", its time for a change.
1) Players who come back usually complain non-stop and find another reason to leave.
2) Any miner who is out of a venture and does not want to multi-account is not a gamer: they are playing while in work, to avoid talking to their partner or playing another game while 'mining' in EVE.
There are very few Ice miners left as the isk in Ice mining died a few patches ago, those that are left multi account (see 2)
Ore miners who watch a belt being sucked up by someone else are afkers who complain afterwards. Finding a system and belts that are 'all yours' is a part of ore mining everyone goes through, unless they want to be spoon fed.
In my very vast experience of gankers most are not multi-accounter's. If those that attack you are, think hard about why.
Never multi-accounted in my time in incursions, but everyone in the game has the option to multi-account, CCP offer cheap deals to do so, it is a part of the game they want. If incursion runners don't like it - DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT - fly in, kill their basilisks, Scimitars or whatever they use and watch them die. Or just sit there crying 'It's not fair.'
The game is not "Use multicasting, or you are irrelevant", never said that.
My mining setup is multi-accounted and as long as I mine always will be, that is what I enjoy and a rule change is gonna destroy that.
Every person who uses multi-accounting software has major weaknesses, in a game like this those should be found and used against them instead of CCP having to change rules.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
575
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 23:42:22 -
[3434] - Quote
In no relevant order:
1) Belts have always gotten "sucked up" whether it be a corp or alliance mining op, a botter, an ISBoxed fleet, or anyone who ran 20 accounts BEFORE ISBoxer became a thing. When Hulks first came out, belts were cleared in minutes because everyone and their mother rushed out and mined in the same small areas before they spread out like they are today.
2) If you're using 15 catalysts to gank a single mining boat, even a skiff, you're doing it wrong. I have never seen such a KM, and I would wager that any KM of the sort was either those few idiots with A-type invulns on their skiff, or was practice for the latest wave of CODE gankers.
3) If you have a purple Vindicator, YOU. WILL. GET. GANKED. Stop blaming the relatively few ISBox gankers for it. They can earn far more ISK via VGs than they could ganking because after the second or third gank, fleets will dock up and stand down, depriving the gankers of targets.
4) This game has never been "use multicasting, or you are irrelevant". If you want proof, join a low-sec PVP corp, fit out a Falcon, or a Arazu, or a Curse, and tell me you aren't relevant when you start brawling another gang. Or join a WH corp, and bring out a Bhaalgorn or a neut Legion if you want to feel relevant. Better yet, join a null alliance as a scout / prober, and tell me if you don't feel relevant with a 500+ man Tempest blob waiting for you to scan down the enemy fleet. Don't lecture me on "irrelevance" in a time of roaming Aeons and Avatars taking gates with impunity.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29223
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 02:22:23 -
[3435] - Quote
Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Nidal Fervor wrote:As a multiboxer who hates isboxer and all input broadcasting, I'd just like to make one point.
If you see a fleet of characters warping from gate to gate all at the same time, you don't need to cheat to do this. Warp gang to stargate, and then right click stargate and select jump on each character. Simple. click the gate in overview, press D while in warp. it takes after you land. I think you mean press D + click the gate. Just D doesn't do anything (just tested it to be sure that nothing changed). been using it for years. fleet warp, and on each client select the gate in overview, and press d. repeat. not only that, but if you click the wrong gate and press d, after you land the ship will warp to the wrong gate and jump. pressing control+space while in warp cancels the command. it's like hot locking, except hot docking/jumping. as soon as the FC says "gate is green" or "jump on contact" the client gets the d Strange. Unless its something which only works with fleetwarp. tried multiple times, but i can't get it to work: -initiate warp. -while in warp press D. -hang at 0 at the destination gate because no jump happens. On my client, i can't use the hotkeys without clicking a target while pressing the hotkey. (been one of my major problems with the system. Is it a setting somewhere which i haven't found yet maybe?
I always wait til i'm in warp.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
ESN Seeker
The Scope
Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 02:23:36 -
[3436] - Quote
Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:
Strange. Unless its something which only works with fleetwarp. tried multiple times, but i can't get it to work:
-initiate warp.
-while in warp press D.
-hang at 0 at the destination gate because no jump happens.
On my client, i can't use the hotkeys without clicking a target while pressing the hotkey. (been one of my major problems with the system. Is it a setting somewhere which i haven't found yet maybe?
Try this:
Initiate warp.
While in warp, left-click on destination gate -- this selects it.
Press D.
|
Miomeifeng Alduin
Lithonauts Inc.
50
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 04:51:30 -
[3437] - Quote
ESN Seeker wrote:Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:
Strange. Unless its something which only works with fleetwarp. tried multiple times, but i can't get it to work:
-initiate warp.
-while in warp press D.
-hang at 0 at the destination gate because no jump happens.
On my client, i can't use the hotkeys without clicking a target while pressing the hotkey. (been one of my major problems with the system. Is it a setting somewhere which i haven't found yet maybe?
Try this: Initiate warp. While in warp, left-click on destination gate -- this selects it. Press D.
With the extra click it actually works. Thanks for that hint (and Rain6637 too). Still find it strange that i have to select the gate a second time while in warp to actually get it to register, but i'll use which works :) |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29224
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 05:59:22 -
[3438] - Quote
inactive clients are like that for everything. most of the time. if you have a target locked, you have to click once to make the client the active one, then click the locked target to select it.
This is without ISBoxer. I don't know how ISBoxer behaves.
There's also this
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
575
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 06:11:31 -
[3439] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:inactive clients are like that for everything. most of the time. if you have a target locked, you have to click once to make the client the active one, then click the locked target to select it. This is without ISBoxer. I don't know how ISBoxer behaves. saving a click is nice, but not worth $50/ year. hate recurring fees for helper programs. There's also this
There are cracks for it and other replicating software.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29224
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 06:23:22 -
[3440] - Quote
not my style.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
|
|
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
Cube Alliance
90
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 07:52:18 -
[3441] - Quote
i think i have a few weeks left on my subscriptions, so i mean, maybe i'll log in and manually multibox incursions for a bit just to harvest rage from people thinking im using isboxer.
Random note about isboxer - a few days after i resubbed i saw this post and asked for a refund from isboxer - knowing i probably wouldnt get it. But they did refund me, which was cool.
Then i used that money to resub to wow XD XD (though to be fair, not going to sub beyond one month since i dont feel like buying the expansion) |
Nidal Fervor
State War Academy
Caldari State
52
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 09:36:58 -
[3442] - Quote
Battle Cube wrote:i think i have a few weeks left on my subscriptions, so i mean, maybe i'll log in and manually multibox incursions for a bit just to harvest rage from people thinking im using isboxer.
Random note about isboxer - a few days after i resubbed i saw this post and asked for a refund from isboxer - knowing i probably wouldnt get it. But they did refund me, which was cool.
Then i used that money to resub to wow XD XD (though to be fair, not going to sub beyond one month since i dont feel like buying the expansion)
Battle Cube, Isn't this the locus fleet who mines with over 50 skiffs at once? |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
576
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 09:42:18 -
[3443] - Quote
Nidal Fervor wrote:Battle Cube, Isn't this the locus fleet who mines with over 50 skiffs at once?
He's a multiboxer for incursions. You're thinking of TheWiz or one of the Borg variants.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
Cube Alliance
91
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 09:52:38 -
[3444] - Quote
Nidal Fervor wrote:Battle Cube wrote:i think i have a few weeks left on my subscriptions, so i mean, maybe i'll log in and manually multibox incursions for a bit just to harvest rage from people thinking im using isboxer.
Random note about isboxer - a few days after i resubbed i saw this post and asked for a refund from isboxer - knowing i probably wouldnt get it. But they did refund me, which was cool.
Then i used that money to resub to wow XD XD (though to be fair, not going to sub beyond one month since i dont feel like buying the expansion) Battle Cube, Isn't this the locus fleet who mines with over 50 skiffs at once?
as nolak said, im an incursion runner. I used to run 10 vindicators in HQs (usually 1 paid, 9 unpaid support dps) for incursion communities. |
Atuesuel
Mithril.
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 09:58:58 -
[3445] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Playing with multiple accounts at the same time has a long history within EVE Online, and has always been permitted. There are various ways to do it, and since thereGÇÖs been a lot of discussion surrounding what is and isnGÇÖt allowed, weGÇÖd like to clarify a few terms and exactly how the EULA and our Policies must be interpreted and how some things are shifting.
[/i]
I've been waiting for this to happen, i have three accounts and 3 installs and 3 screens and have all ways input all there commands manually. ive all ways said isboxer is an unfair thing and if people want to only do one set of instructions they should make friends. |
Bridie McBride
FocusPoint
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 13:21:54 -
[3446] - Quote
Battle Cube wrote:i think i have a few weeks left on my subscriptions, so i mean, maybe i'll log in and manually multibox incursions for a bit just to harvest rage from people thinking im using isboxer.
Random note about isboxer - a few days after i resubbed i saw this post and asked for a refund from isboxer - knowing i probably wouldnt get it. But they did refund me, which was cool.
Then i used that money to resub to wow XD XD (though to be fair, not going to sub beyond one month since i dont feel like buying the expansion)
Thank you very much for the heads up. I'm pleasantly surprised they are refunding, I am asking for the same thing, for teh same reasons. I paid for a product and it is no longer usable the way it was sold, so want refund, unfortunately.
07 |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
233
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 16:55:37 -
[3447] - Quote
Alana Packham wrote:1 post by CCP
over 3000 posts by people who probably don't even play the game.
PVP'ers are upset because they are being killed. Don't quite get that, no matter how drunk I get.
No new EULA, no update to the EULA, not even a mention on the login screen.
Is the OP still even working for CCP?
If this is an actual serious post..
I'm a multi-box miner who only came to this game to be able to use multiple accounts, I use multi-box software for fleet set-ups and moving the fleet, plus all the irritating things like opening 16 cargo bays, getting most of them to show the ore hold, launching drones and all the other pain in the arse things (like clicking on 16 'the server will be shutting down' 3 times in an hour). Selecting roids, moving ships around inside belts and mining I do individually.
For me that was the main point of this game.
Now unfortunately because people who play the PVP side of the game are getting shot (thought that was a part of PVP (and don't say there are more of them then us, try being ganked by 15 cats every hour of the day)) the miners are yet again to suffer.
What was an interesting mining setup is to be turned into a series of pointless endless mouse clicks.
Ice mining, Ore mining, surviving gankers (and pointing out they are useless wankers), hauling ore, refining, shipping mats, maybe some indy, bit of PVE missioning. All of that is gone as by the time I get my fleets to where I want them and start mining I am so bored I play something else.
And I can't figure out why the EULA change. The game became what it is by allowing things to happen. Cutting massive aspects out of the game (this change is a massive aspect to me if not to you) can only limit it even further, the term sandbox died a long, long time ago.
But I'm gonna stay until I get suspended, the way this is going it will be probably for 2 accounts being logged in within a 500 mile radius of each other but I'll be here until then.
Then after my suspension I'm gonna jettison my huge collection of PLEX into space 1 at a time and shoot them, then buy up all the spare PLEX in the game and shoot them, that'll probably be the most satisfaction this game will have to offer by that time.
I suppose the other option would be to join a PVP guild, spend all day every day camped on a gate with 40 other people just in case someone comes through, but no one will, as all that will be left by then are gate campers, gankers and bots.
So I think not, if I want PVP I'll play a PVP game, not an alleged sandbox that offers a mix of PVP and PVE where you can do whatever you want, unless it's anything you want.
apologies for the rambling, truncated post as I'm trying to write it while drunk and remembering how much fun WOT can be if you have no worries about 'friendly fire'.
btw can we please have a new promotional video entitled 'I was there the day EVE died'?
Thanks for proving a point I made god knows how many pages back..
The one where I pointed out that these stupid sized fleets wouldn't exist if it wasn't for these programmes.
You just admitted that you can't control all those accounts manually so the only reason you have them is thanks to ISBoxer.
Good riddance. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29228
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 16:59:56 -
[3448] - Quote
Kinda agree. Multiboxing filled a need for stimulation and brain CPU load, and ISBoxer would have negated that.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
576
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 19:49:23 -
[3449] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Thanks for proving a point I made god knows how many pages back..
The one where I pointed out that these stupid sized fleets wouldn't exist if it wasn't for these programmes.
You just admitted that you can't control all those accounts manually so the only reason you have them is thanks to ISBoxer.
Good riddance.
You really can't speak. A 2012 toon and you don't know about the old mining fleets pre-input broadcasting. I'm a 2012 toon as well and I've seen the pictures of the massive mining fleets before ISBoxer became a thing. Just because one player doesn't want to put up with the bullshit anymore does not magically do-away with all the other fleets that were around.
Rain6637 wrote:Kinda agree. Multiboxing filled a need for stimulation and brain CPU load, and ISBoxer would have negated that.
Spoken like someone who hasn't read any of the other posts in the thread, and who hasn't tried it themselves. As an incursion ISBoxer I had to keep track of 8 clients in HQs. That means keeping track of their locked targets, their location, speed, cap, ammo, shield, aggro, scripted modules, drones, wave number, ships on field, and probably more.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
234
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 20:06:40 -
[3450] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:Thanks for proving a point I made god knows how many pages back..
The one where I pointed out that these stupid sized fleets wouldn't exist if it wasn't for these programmes.
You just admitted that you can't control all those accounts manually so the only reason you have them is thanks to ISBoxer.
Good riddance. You really can't speak. A 2012 toon and you don't know about the old mining fleets pre-input broadcasting. I'm a 2012 toon as well and I've seen the pictures of the massive mining fleets before ISBoxer became a thing. Just because one player doesn't want to put up with the bullshit anymore does not magically do-away with all the other fleets that were around. Rain6637 wrote:Kinda agree. Multiboxing filled a need for stimulation and brain CPU load, and ISBoxer would have negated that. Spoken like someone who hasn't read any of the other posts in the thread, and who hasn't tried it themselves. As an incursion ISBoxer I had to keep track of 8 clients in HQs. That means keeping track of their locked targets, their location, speed, cap, ammo, shield, aggro, scripted modules, drones, wave number, ships on field, and probably more.
As a 2012 toon, it does beg the question..
What exactly were they using?
Macros, bots, some other programme? I dunno.
Ok I have no idea how long ISBoxer has been around as I don't go to play a game and instantly look for a cheat (programme to do the work for me ).
Oh..before anyone mentions it again..I don't care how much your programmes cost. Or how long they took/take to set up either.
But in late 2012 I was at a meet where this very situation was mentioned and discussed with CCP reps and it was on their minds then.
It really is a pity that it took so long for them to act...but then again there have been a few staff changes and upheavals.
|
|
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
460
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 20:20:12 -
[3451] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:
What exactly were they using?
Macros, bots, some other programme? I dunno.
It is easily possible to manage 20 or more clients manually if all you are doing is mining. It is possible to run Vanguards with 10-12 manually if you pick the right setup and tank like TDF. It is just barely possible to make a semi-decent bomb run manually, though you end up with an added second or so of stagger time.
It is much easier to do all of these things with broadcasting, but well within the realm of the possible to do manually. Now, solo HQS and assaults? not so much. Solo 154 toon mining fleet (which is the largest single boxer I have heard of, 3 maxed wings of miners with a siege booster and a mining booster in each wing, but usually spreads across 3 systems and leaves the siege booster offline) Not so much. Run a gank? sure, if you like turning EVE into a twitch game called "how fast can I mash the fire button"
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
234
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 20:41:16 -
[3452] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:
What exactly were they using?
Macros, bots, some other programme? I dunno.
It is easily possible to manage 20 or more clients manually if all you are doing is mining. It is possible to run Vanguards with 10-12 manually if you pick the right setup and tank like TDF. It is just barely possible to make a semi-decent bomb run manually, though you end up with an added second or so of stagger time. It is much easier to do all of these things with broadcasting, but well within the realm of the possible to do manually. Now, solo HQS and assaults? not so much. Solo 154 toon mining fleet (which is the largest single boxer I have heard of, 3 maxed wings of miners with a siege booster and a mining booster in each wing, but usually spreads across 3 systems and leaves the siege booster offline) Not so much. Run a gank? sure, if you like turning EVE into a twitch game called "how fast can I mash the fire button"
I think you hit the nail on the head.."It is much easier to do all of these things with broadcasting"
Players don't want to work that hard to do it manually, they want an easy life..just as irl.
So now it's much less intrusive on their phone time if they get something to do it for them.
There was a guy whining about this a few pages back because he was going to get ISBoxer to help with his second account..TWO accounts and players can't be arsed to alt/tab or, like me click on the other window to switch to it, and god forbid they have to actually then click within the second or even third window.
It's easy mode for bone idle players, thats all. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
462
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 20:46:35 -
[3453] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:James Baboli wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:
What exactly were they using?
Macros, bots, some other programme? I dunno.
It is easily possible to manage 20 or more clients manually if all you are doing is mining. It is possible to run Vanguards with 10-12 manually if you pick the right setup and tank like TDF. It is just barely possible to make a semi-decent bomb run manually, though you end up with an added second or so of stagger time. It is much easier to do all of these things with broadcasting, but well within the realm of the possible to do manually. Now, solo HQS and assaults? not so much. Solo 154 toon mining fleet (which is the largest single boxer I have heard of, 3 maxed wings of miners with a siege booster and a mining booster in each wing, but usually spreads across 3 systems and leaves the siege booster offline) Not so much. Run a gank? sure, if you like turning EVE into a twitch game called "how fast can I mash the fire button" I think you hit the nail on the head.."It is much easier to do all of these things with broadcasting" Players don't want to work that hard to do it manually, they want an easy life..just as irl. So now it's much less intrusive on their phone time if they get something to do it for them. There was a guy whining about this a few pages back because he was going to get ISBoxer to help with his second account..TWO accounts and players can't be arsed to alt/tab or, like me click on the other window to switch to it, and god forbid they have to actually then click within the second or even third window. It's easy mode for bone idle players, thats all.
It was actually fairly essential to my prefered form of making isk. I ran 70 clients in 2 seperate incursion HQ fleets. It goes from being "tough, but doable" to flatly impossible with this change. Rather than seeing any sort of fix to the underlying reasons I wanted to do this thing, they simply pulled the software support that let me do this with only the risks inherent in the content, not a high level of risk from UI overload and C3 issues.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29240
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 21:18:35 -
[3454] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Kinda agree. Multiboxing filled a need for stimulation and brain CPU load, and ISBoxer would have negated that. Spoken like someone who hasn't read any of the other posts in the thread, and who hasn't tried it themselves. As an incursion ISBoxer I had to keep track of 8 clients in HQs. That means keeping track of their locked targets, their location, speed, cap, ammo, shield, aggro, scripted modules, drones, wave number, ships on field, and probably more.
Yes, I know. I do all of those things too. You make this too easy for me.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation
DemSal Unlimited
2219
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 21:19:13 -
[3455] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:
It was actually fairly essential to my prefered form of making isk. I ran 70 clients in 2 seperate incursion HQ fleets. It goes from being "tough, but doable" to flatly impossible with this change. Rather than seeing any sort of fix to the underlying reasons I wanted to do this thing, they simply pulled the software support that let me do this with only the risks inherent in the content, not a high level of risk from UI overload and C3 issues.
70 clients? Simultaneously?
When Eve was named an MMO 'massively multiplayer' did not mean what you had to be, all by yourself.
Heavens to Betsy
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
462
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 21:32:15 -
[3456] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:James Baboli wrote:
It was actually fairly essential to my prefered form of making isk. I ran 70 clients in 2 seperate incursion HQ fleets. It goes from being "tough, but doable" to flatly impossible with this change. Rather than seeing any sort of fix to the underlying reasons I wanted to do this thing, they simply pulled the software support that let me do this with only the risks inherent in the content, not a high level of risk from UI overload and C3 issues.
70 clients? Simultaneously? When Eve was named an MMO 'massively multiplayer' did not mean what you had to be, all by yourself. Heavens to Betsy m
There were 3 other people intricately involved in this. One person running a single ship, and 2 running 2 each, and me splitting my income from this with them after we hit the price of plex for the month. It was multiplayer, but on a limited scale, both to ensure competence in a fairly nastily stacked against us setup (Lowsec HQs) and to ensure trustworthiness before running a fairly deeply scary amount of isk in ships around hostile space where inaction is all it takes to kill each other.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
576
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 21:56:36 -
[3457] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Kinda agree. Multiboxing filled a need for stimulation and brain CPU load, and ISBoxer would have negated that. Spoken like someone who hasn't read any of the other posts in the thread, and who hasn't tried it themselves. As an incursion ISBoxer I had to keep track of 8 clients in HQs. That means keeping track of their locked targets, their location, speed, cap, ammo, shield, aggro, scripted modules, drones, wave number, ships on field, and probably more. Yes, I know. I do all of those things too. You make this too easy for me.
You do it on a single client. Now try it on 10.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29241
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 22:14:17 -
[3458] - Quote
um. wut.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
Cube Alliance
94
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 22:16:24 -
[3459] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Kinda agree. Multiboxing filled a need for stimulation and brain CPU load, and ISBoxer would have negated that.
i completely disagree. There is no extra stimulation from doing the same action on every client manually. The stimulation comes from the micromanaging of things that need to be micromanaged, and thats still incredibly necessary.
People think that isboxing is just like playing one client, but it controls how ever many.... but there is a lot of micromanaging. Isboxers' broadcast feature made playing less tedius on things that dont require thought (like undocking, etc)
in this way, you could isbox a larger number of ships than you could manually due to time constraint of manually doing actions that are tedius, and have more micromanaging at that higher scale. For example - shield broadcasting, in position, ship positioning, repositioning for best dps, etc in incursions.
its more fun to micromanage 10 ships isboxed than it is to manually fly 4-6 which has less micromanaging |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
578
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 22:19:11 -
[3460] - Quote
To put this as gently as I can, don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes.
In other, more simpler words that I hope you can understand, don't hate one something and make irrational, unsupported statements until you try it yourself.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29241
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 22:24:32 -
[3461] - Quote
does it have to be 10 clients, or am I allowed to use my whole gang.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
578
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 22:30:39 -
[3462] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:does it have to be 10 clients, or am I allowed to use my whole gang.
You may use however many you like. Let me know when you're going to run your VG or HQ wing so I may watch.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29243
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 22:38:44 -
[3463] - Quote
nah i don't mess with small money. held down sum C5 cap escalations tho, with support. does that count
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
64
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 22:52:52 -
[3464] - Quote
tip for the wise.... dont tell, ask, show people how to do things.. ;) they're going to get nerfed as more people whine about it as they dont know how to do it (properly) |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29243
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 22:53:45 -
[3465] - Quote
oh i'm retired. I got out before the NPC kill API change, and then the frigate holes... no thanks.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
ESN Seeker
The Scope
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 22:55:38 -
[3466] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:does it have to be 10 clients, or am I allowed to use my whole gang.
Moaaaar monitors!
Bonus for touch-screens! |
Gembert Wolt
Gembert Wolt Corporation
8
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 23:33:50 -
[3467] - Quote
I would like to clear one question. May I use voice control application to control only one ship I fly? I play only with one character and would like to control ship via my voice just for pleasure. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29244
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 23:44:16 -
[3468] - Quote
this is an excellent idea.
(3.1k post snipe)
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Miomeifeng Alduin
Lithonauts Inc.
50
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 23:56:48 -
[3469] - Quote
Gembert Wolt wrote:I would like to clear one question. May I use voice control application to control only one ship I fly? I play only with one character and would like to control ship via my voice just for pleasure.
Does your voice control software do 1 action, or multiple actions per command? 1 input = 1 action: you're fine. It's really not that hard if you actually read what's allowed. |
Marsha Mallow
1827
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 00:58:43 -
[3470] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:To put this as gently as I can, don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. In other, more simpler words that I hope you can understand, don't hate one something and make irrational, unsupported statements until you try it yourself.
If that 'man' is a gibbering hysterical lunatic, shouldn't we try to respond in the same vein? Or are you suggesting that we should all actually take up Isboxing so that we can share your pain and be equally outraged, patronising and pedantic?
You're really winning this argument btw, gj
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
579
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 01:33:01 -
[3471] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:To put this as gently as I can, don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. In other, more simpler words that I hope you can understand, don't hate one something and make irrational, unsupported statements until you try it yourself. If that 'man' is a gibbering hysterical lunatic, shouldn't we try to respond in the same vein? Or are you suggesting that we should all actually take up Isboxing so that we can share your pain and be equally outraged, patronising and pedantic? You're really winning this argument btw, gj
Insulting me instead of addressing my points. Typical.
I have never gibbered or acted hysterical. If anyone has been gibbering, it would be the raving horde that wants CCP to limit the gameplay of everyone until we can only play an hour a day. All you've done is attacked me and my fellow ISBoxers and proven to CCP that you are the lunatics.
I'm not demanding you use ISBoxer. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy and general attitudes that the anti-ISBoxer crowd engages in, namely, engaging in a bandwagon fallacy, not bothering to do any research, attacking one part of the game using reasons that can be used against other parts of the game, attempting to censor what we have to say, and generally attacking anyone, such as myself, who would attempt to have a reasonable discourse regarding the changes.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1696
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 05:19:45 -
[3472] - Quote
Atuesuel wrote:...i have three accounts and 3 installs and 3 screens and have all ways input all there commands manually.
What is the advantage of using three installations rather than one to multi box? Is this a performance thing or a settings retention thing?
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Atuesuel
Mithril.
4
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 06:10:41 -
[3473] - Quote
Next will have to the cloaky afker, there should be a away icon on there local would all so work in channel when your trying to talk to some one something like the old MSN messenger you get set away when there is no keyboard or mouse command after 10mins |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29247
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 06:32:28 -
[3474] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Atuesuel wrote:...i have three accounts and 3 installs and 3 screens and have all ways input all there commands manually. What is the advantage of using three installations rather than one to multi box? Is this a performance thing or a settings retention thing?
I started using separate installs after some crashes would wipe all my settings. With separate installs the damage is compartmentalized. It also allows each client to hold different settings.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
1698
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 06:40:49 -
[3475] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Zappity wrote:Atuesuel wrote:...i have three accounts and 3 installs and 3 screens and have all ways input all there commands manually. What is the advantage of using three installations rather than one to multi box? Is this a performance thing or a settings retention thing? I started using separate installs after some crashes would wipe all my settings. With separate installs the damage is compartmentalized. It also allows each client to hold different settings.
Thanks, I'll experiment.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29248
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 06:44:28 -
[3476] - Quote
If you have big updates and you care about the download, uncheck the option in the first launcher "delete patches after use." That way the update file remains in the install folder and you can copy paste it over to the rest of the installs and not have to download it several times. This only works if you keep your clients updated together, of course.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Atuesuel
Mithril.
4
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 07:21:11 -
[3477] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Zappity wrote:Atuesuel wrote:...i have three accounts and 3 installs and 3 screens and have all ways input all there commands manually. What is the advantage of using three installations rather than one to multi box? Is this a performance thing or a settings retention thing? I started using separate installs after some crashes would wipe all my settings. With separate installs the damage is compartmentalized. It also allows each client to hold different settings. Thanks, I'll experiment.
yeah i just find them more stable, plus ones on steam. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29250
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 07:27:01 -
[3478] - Quote
it's annoying when I forget that my Sisi install is shared, and I close the last client with high graphics settings or such, then every.single.one is on high graphics settings the next startup.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Atuesuel
Mithril.
5
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 07:31:31 -
[3479] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:it's annoying when I forget that my Sisi install is shared, and I close the last client with high graphics settings or such, then every.single.one is on high graphics settings the next startup.
Lol know that felling, that's the plus of havering different installs and you don't have to swap usernames the only thing i wish they did is remember passwords so you don't have to type them in all the time. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29250
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 08:02:20 -
[3480] - Quote
With G-keys, you can bind your password string followed by "Enter."
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4877
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 10:09:52 -
[3481] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:If you have big updates and you care about the download, uncheck the option in the first launcher " delete patches after use." That way the update file remains in the install folder and you can copy paste it over to the rest of the installs and not have to download it several times. This only works if you keep your clients updated together, of course. You don;t need to separate installations anymore, so this isn't needed. They fixed the issues that caused those.
If you did still want to do it, you can still actually do it with 1 installation. Install it to like C:\EVE, then create NTFS junction from that folder C:\EVE2, C:\EVE3, etc. Then when you update 1, they all update but the settings sill split out.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29251
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 10:18:30 -
[3482] - Quote
yeah, that sounds complicated and I'd rather just keep it simple.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2854
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 11:30:39 -
[3483] - Quote
Nolak Ataru said '...I have never gibbeerd or acted hysterical...'
He also said '...and proven to CCP that you are the lunatics...'
On a more serious note, I did say before that the whole thing seems to be much ado about nothing.
So either the limited changes CCP have made to the rules governing the use of ISboxer have not really impacted on the play-style of ISboxers, or they have, in which case CCP probably did the right thing.
This is not a signature.
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
Requiem Eternal
76
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 11:36:41 -
[3484] - Quote
Having multiple screens can be an advantage, having better data mouse can be an advantage, having more sp can be an advantage. I remember that People ''cried'' in some other games that i have played that the people who killed them was using gaming mouses.. it's like, lol.. Having multiple Manufacturing characters in eve is an advantage. a lot is an advantage.. having a good computer that don't lag is an advantage, having a good internet is an advantage.. etc etc.lol |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
579
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 11:48:21 -
[3485] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Nolak Ataru said '...I have never gibbeerd or acted hysterical...'
He also said '...and proven to CCP that you are the lunatics...'
On a more serious note, I did say before that the whole thing seems to be much ado about nothing.
So either the limited changes CCP have made to the rules governing the use of ISboxer have not really impacted on the play-style of ISboxers, or they have, in which case CCP probably did the right thing.
Still don't see where I ranted and raved about "the Man is keepin me down" (very heavily paraphrased with the help of two screwdrivers).
I've admitted that this will stop the HQ solo runners. I'll also admit it will stop the 50-man bombing runs from the larger fleets. But anyone who's dedicated enough will and has found a way to continue multiboxing. Scroll wheel down bound to F1, scroll wheel up bound to left click, and ta-da.
If CCP wanted to do the right thing, they would've balanced the game instead of immediately pulling out the banhammer.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2854
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 12:03:01 -
[3486] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Nolak Ataru said '...I have never gibbeerd or acted hysterical...'
He also said '...and proven to CCP that you are the lunatics...'
On a more serious note, I did say before that the whole thing seems to be much ado about nothing.
So either the limited changes CCP have made to the rules governing the use of ISboxer have not really impacted on the play-style of ISboxers, or they have, in which case CCP probably did the right thing. Still don't see where I ranted and raved about "the Man is keepin me down" (very heavily paraphrased with the help of two screwdrivers). I've admitted that this will stop the HQ solo runners. I'll also admit it will stop the 50-man bombing runs from the larger fleets. But anyone who's dedicated enough will and has found a way to continue multiboxing. Scroll wheel down bound to F1, scroll wheel up bound to left click, and ta-da. If CCP wanted to do the right thing, they would've balanced the game instead of immediately pulling out the banhammer.
On a purely personal level, as I have said before, I want everybody and their alts to ISbox very large mining fleets to keep down the costs of the raw materials I need for my production of T1 rigs etc.
This means that on a personal level, I am not for, or against ISboxing in terms of whether or not it is bad or good for the game as a whole.
I leave that for CCP to decide.
This is not a signature.
|
BrundleMeth
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
361
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 12:55:13 -
[3487] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Atuesuel wrote:...i have three accounts and 3 installs and 3 screens and have all ways input all there commands manually. What is the advantage of using three installations rather than one to multi box? Is this a performance thing or a settings retention thing? All this talk about Alt-Tab to use other clients. This is in no way true Multi Boxing, just Multi Clients. The word BOX refers to a separate computer not a separate client. I can truly Multi Box with 4 complete and separate PC's. None of this crappy Alt tabbling goofiness...
|
ESN Seeker
The Scope
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 16:40:58 -
[3488] - Quote
BrundleMeth wrote:Zappity wrote:Atuesuel wrote:...i have three accounts and 3 installs and 3 screens and have all ways input all there commands manually. What is the advantage of using three installations rather than one to multi box? Is this a performance thing or a settings retention thing? All this talk about Alt-Tab to use other clients. This is in no way true Multi Boxing, just Multi Clients. The word BOX refers to a separate computer not a separate client. I can truly Multi Box with 4 complete and separate PC's. None of this crappy Alt tabbling goofiness...
There is something in what you say, but it gets complicated nowadays, what with multiple virtual machines within a single BOX, or even multiple separate nodes within a single box, such as SuperMicro TwinPro |
BrundleMeth
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
361
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 17:49:26 -
[3489] - Quote
ESN Seeker wrote:BrundleMeth wrote:Zappity wrote:Atuesuel wrote:...i have three accounts and 3 installs and 3 screens and have all ways input all there commands manually. What is the advantage of using three installations rather than one to multi box? Is this a performance thing or a settings retention thing? All this talk about Alt-Tab to use other clients. This is in no way true Multi Boxing, just Multi Clients. The word BOX refers to a separate computer not a separate client. I can truly Multi Box with 4 complete and separate PC's. None of this crappy Alt tabbling goofiness... There is something in what you say, but it gets complicated nowadays, what with multiple virtual machines within a single BOX, or even multiple separate nodes within a single box, such as SuperMicro TwinPro
Yes...
I like however how I can glance at each monitor very quickly...
Nolak Ataru wrote:To put this as gently as I can, don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes.
Or gone on a date wearing his panties... |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
579
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 20:16:51 -
[3490] - Quote
BrundleMeth wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:To put this as gently as I can, don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. Or gone on a date wearing his panties...
Whatever floats your boat.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
|
|
Atuesuel
Mithril.
6
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 01:13:18 -
[3491] - Quote
BrundleMeth wrote:Zappity wrote:Atuesuel wrote:...i have three accounts and 3 installs and 3 screens and have all ways input all there commands manually. What is the advantage of using three installations rather than one to multi box? Is this a performance thing or a settings retention thing? All this talk about Alt-Tab to use other clients. This is in no way true Multi Boxing, just Multi Clients. The word BOX refers to a separate computer not a separate client. I can truly Multi Box with 4 complete and separate PC's. None of this crappy Alt tabbling goofiness...
WRONG!!!
Multiboxing refers to playing as multiple separate characters simultaneously in an MMORPGs. This can either be achieved by using multiple separate machines to run the game or by running multiple separate instances of the game. and if you have as many screens as you do toons you don't need to alt tab. your builds must be pretty crappy to have to use 4 |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29255
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 01:19:48 -
[3492] - Quote
I got a laptop, a surface pro, my main desktop, and a friend's comp that I've been fixing for about a year.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Myrkul Nightshade
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 17:42:09 -
[3493] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Nolak Ataru said '...I have never gibbeerd or acted hysterical...'
He also said '...and proven to CCP that you are the lunatics...'
On a more serious note, I did say before that the whole thing seems to be much ado about nothing.
So either the limited changes CCP have made to the rules governing the use of ISboxer have not really impacted on the play-style of ISboxers, or they have, in which case CCP probably did the right thing. Still don't see where I ranted and raved about "the Man is keepin me down" (very heavily paraphrased with the help of two screwdrivers). I've admitted that this will stop the HQ solo runners. I'll also admit it will stop the 50-man bombing runs from the larger fleets. But anyone who's dedicated enough will and has found a way to continue multiboxing. Scroll wheel down bound to F1, scroll wheel up bound to left click, and ta-da. If CCP wanted to do the right thing, they would've balanced the game instead of immediately pulling out the banhammer. On a purely personal level, as I have said before, I want everybody and their alts to ISbox very large mining fleets to keep down the costs of the raw materials I need for my production of T1 rigs etc. This means that on a personal level, I am not for, or against ISboxing in terms of whether or not it is bad or good for the game as a whole. I leave that for CCP to decide.
Yet at the same time miners will be happy to be getting paid more.
The trouble with a game that allows multiple kinds of fun is that no one course of action ever makes everyone equally happy.
As for me, I'll just be glad to be able to go into Jita and not have to go through the list of spammers setting them each to "block" "block" "block"..... only to have a new spammer pop up. Or is that use of macros still allowed? (God I hope not.) |
ashley Eoner
390
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 20:00:09 -
[3494] - Quote
Ctrl paste still works fine.. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3048
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 17:42:48 -
[3495] - Quote
Any news of any actual bannings?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
ashley Eoner
390
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 18:16:05 -
[3496] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Any news of any actual bannings?
None that I've heard of. While I've been running my non repeater VG fleet I've definitely noticed a drop in people running VGs. I haven't actually ran into another boxer.
EDIT: Curiosity got the better of me so I ended up running some VGs.javascript:__doPostBack('forum$ctl00$Preview','') |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
579
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 22:45:19 -
[3497] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Any news of any actual bannings? None that I've heard of. While I've been running my non repeater VG fleet I've definitely noticed a drop in people running VGs. I haven't actually ran into another boxer. EDIT: Curiosity got the better of me so I ended up running some VGs.javascript:__doPostBack('forum$ctl00$Preview','')
From a discussion with a few friends, a few of them are moving to C4/5/6 and running solo cap ops there. A few others are going to continue VGs, and someone had just brought up the idea of heading to a quiet nullsec and running a fleet of AFKTars before I accidentally clicked "yes" to Windows Update.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
BrundleMeth
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
364
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 01:30:02 -
[3498] - Quote
Atuesuel wrote:BrundleMeth wrote:Zappity wrote:Atuesuel wrote:...i have three accounts and 3 installs and 3 screens and have all ways input all there commands manually. What is the advantage of using three installations rather than one to multi box? Is this a performance thing or a settings retention thing? All this talk about Alt-Tab to use other clients. This is in no way true Multi Boxing, just Multi Clients. The word BOX refers to a separate computer not a separate client. I can truly Multi Box with 4 complete and separate PC's. None of this crappy Alt tabbling goofiness... WRONG!!! Multiboxing refers to playing as multiple separate characters simultaneously in an MMORPGs. This can either be achieved by using multiple separate machines to run the game or by running multiple separate instances of the game. and if you have as many screens as you do toons you don't need to alt tab. your builds must be pretty crappy to have to use 4
No, I have LOTS of money and like LOTS of Gear... You know nothing about what I build or HAVE to do or WANT to do...and I'm still right I don't care what you believe... |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
579
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 02:09:38 -
[3499] - Quote
BrundleMeth wrote:No, I have LOTS of money and like LOTS of Gear... You know nothing about what I build or HAVE to do or WANT to do...and I'm still right I don't care what you believe...
His first sentence was a direct quote from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-boxing
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
BrundleMeth
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
364
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 11:11:15 -
[3500] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:BrundleMeth wrote:No, I have LOTS of money and like LOTS of Gear... You know nothing about what I build or HAVE to do or WANT to do...and I'm still right I don't care what you believe... His first sentence was a direct quote from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-boxing
So what? Wikipedia's can easily be challenged on ideas rather than facts...
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
579
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 11:30:31 -
[3501] - Quote
BrundleMeth wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:BrundleMeth wrote:No, I have LOTS of money and like LOTS of Gear... You know nothing about what I build or HAVE to do or WANT to do...and I'm still right I don't care what you believe... His first sentence was a direct quote from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-boxing So what? Wikipedia's can easily be challenged on ideas rather than facts...
So challenge it. I don't see any bias or anything that would make one question the validity of the statements. The only reason both he and I chose WP over something like the OED is because the OED does not have an entry on multiboxing.
e: Additionally, I fail to see how this would be construed as an "idea" over a "fact".
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4878
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 12:30:59 -
[3502] - Quote
BrundleMeth wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:BrundleMeth wrote:No, I have LOTS of money and like LOTS of Gear... You know nothing about what I build or HAVE to do or WANT to do...and I'm still right I don't care what you believe... His first sentence was a direct quote from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-boxing So what? Wikipedia's can easily be challenged on ideas rather than facts... In the past, multiboxing did refer to multiple PCs, hence the term. Now that PCs are able to more effectively multitask and that leaps and bounds have been made in the area of virtualisation, multiboxing refers to running multiple clients regardless of hardware setup.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6517
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 18:18:10 -
[3503] - Quote
Just start an edit war then.
Perhaps we need a new update regarding multiboxing and the definitions of it
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
579
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 18:27:03 -
[3504] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Just start an edit war then.
Perhaps we need a new update regarding multiboxing and the definitions of it
I can see the headlines now... "Horde of angry gamers makes 500k edits to wikipedia in the space of a day, focused on a single article, "Multiboxing"".
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
Cube Alliance
95
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 03:53:06 -
[3505] - Quote
You know, honestly, I've been surprised that this is the route they took regarding input multiplexing and multiboxing.
I would have expected them to add THEIR OWN multiboxing tools or control system, seeing as most eve players own more than one account, and that they try to sell extra accounts to people.
i am curious about future developments regarding multiboxing and 3rd party tools.... |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29300
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 03:59:27 -
[3506] - Quote
I'll agree with you there. I've started F&I threads about it.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
581
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 07:16:28 -
[3507] - Quote
Battle Cube wrote:You know, honestly, I've been surprised that this is the route they took regarding input multiplexing and multiboxing. [//quote]
Likewise, but for different reasons.
[quote=Battle Cube]i am curious about future developments regarding multiboxing and 3rd party tools....
Wanna lay a wager on that? Cuz I ain't giving good odds on that subject.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
ashley Eoner
390
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 22:53:15 -
[3508] - Quote
My favorite part about this rule change is how a large portion of the population now believes that multiboxing in general is illegal. I've been active because my accounts have four days left so I don't have anything to lose (active while following the rule change with only one command going to one client at a time).
I've had several people tell me I was breaking the rules and at least one fellow who was going to report me for multiboxing.. Oh joy |
Nightlund Audeles
Freighters Under Construction Support Services
Bloodline.
92
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 23:11:41 -
[3509] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:RIP those 20 accounts, mining sucks anyways.
Don't hate because without mining, you would be pod spinning in station. :P |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6519
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 08:51:45 -
[3510] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:My favorite part about this rule change is how what seems to be a fairly large portion of the population now believes that multiboxing in general is illegal. I've been active because my accounts have four days left so I don't have anything to lose (active while following the rule change with only one command going to one client at a time).
I've had several people tell me I was breaking the rules and at least one fellow who was going to report me for multiboxing.. Oh joy
You should keep playing and see what happens :)
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
|
BrundleMeth
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
365
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 11:13:07 -
[3511] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:BrundleMeth wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:BrundleMeth wrote:No, I have LOTS of money and like LOTS of Gear... You know nothing about what I build or HAVE to do or WANT to do...and I'm still right I don't care what you believe... His first sentence was a direct quote from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-boxing So what? Wikipedia's can easily be challenged on ideas rather than facts... So challenge it. I don't see any bias or anything that would make one question the validity of the statements. The only reason both he and I chose WP over something like the OED is because the OED does not have an entry on multiboxing. e: Additionally, I fail to see how this would be construed as an "idea" over a "fact".
I use this comparison. I multi BOX with my 3 girlfriends...No ALT-TAB there, I need 3 separate pieces of hardware for this experience. It's very tiring...
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
581
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 18:25:07 -
[3512] - Quote
So.... you're cheating on them?
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6519
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 03:46:00 -
[3513] - Quote
BrundleMeth wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:BrundleMeth wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:BrundleMeth wrote:No, I have LOTS of money and like LOTS of Gear... You know nothing about what I build or HAVE to do or WANT to do...and I'm still right I don't care what you believe... His first sentence was a direct quote from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-boxing So what? Wikipedia's can easily be challenged on ideas rather than facts... So challenge it. I don't see any bias or anything that would make one question the validity of the statements. The only reason both he and I chose WP over something like the OED is because the OED does not have an entry on multiboxing. e: Additionally, I fail to see how this would be construed as an "idea" over a "fact". I use this comparison. I multi BOX with my 3 girlfriends...No ALT-TAB there, I need 3 separate pieces of hardware for this experience. It's very tiring...
A fatigue-type mechanic, perhaps
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
1908
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 16:52:37 -
[3514] - Quote
BrundleMeth wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:BrundleMeth wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:BrundleMeth wrote:No, I have LOTS of money and like LOTS of Gear... You know nothing about what I build or HAVE to do or WANT to do...and I'm still right I don't care what you believe... His first sentence was a direct quote from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-boxing So what? Wikipedia's can easily be challenged on ideas rather than facts... So challenge it. I don't see any bias or anything that would make one question the validity of the statements. The only reason both he and I chose WP over something like the OED is because the OED does not have an entry on multiboxing. e: Additionally, I fail to see how this would be construed as an "idea" over a "fact". I use this comparison. I multi BOX with my 3 girlfriends...No ALT-TAB there, I need 3 separate pieces of hardware for this experience. It's very tiring...
How do you have three arms? |
Enigmatic Raider
Event Horizon Consecution
Dredd - The Purification Project
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 19:30:20 -
[3515] - Quote
Didn't read very much and was severely confused if using isboxer for mining was banned?
That's the only thing I need to know
No intentions for pvp |
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
318
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 20:11:09 -
[3516] - Quote
no its not banned, you just cannot send the same command to more then 1 client at at time (input duplication, so turn off broadcasting).
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
|
Enigmatic Raider
Event Horizon Consecution
Dredd - The Purification Project
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 03:01:29 -
[3517] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:no its not banned, you just cannot send the same command to more then 1 client at at time (input duplication, so turn off broadcasting).
Thenk you so much. Now i can yell at CCP for not dumbing it down . lolz |
Bluespot85
Cherry Popper Mining Company
14
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 20:54:00 -
[3518] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Playing with multiple accounts at the same time has a long history within EVE Online, and has always been permitted. There are various ways to do it, and since thereGÇÖs been a lot of discussion surrounding what is and isnGÇÖt allowed, weGÇÖd like to clarify a few terms and exactly how the EULA and our Policies must be interpreted and how some things are shifting. Over the last few weeks we have gone through an internal review process to clarify what exactly the EULA and ToS require in terms of input automation, input multiplexing and input broadcasting. This is the result of that review process and an outline of how we will interpret things going forward. Firstly weGÇÖd like to go over a few terms. MultiboxingMultiboxing refers to playing as multiple separate characters, simultaneously, across a number of accounts, either by using multiple computers to run the game, or by using a number of instances of EVE on a single computer. Uses for multiboxing range from scouts in PvP to gang boosting, support and ECM alts, as well as extra characters for hauling, mining and many other applications. Based on our EULA and Policies we would like to clarify that multiboxing is allowed.Input AutomationInput 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 Broadcasting & Input MultiplexingInput Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game. Going ForwardAs of 15th of March 2013 we have been policing input automation based on a two-strike policy GÇó1st strike for input automation is a 30 day ban GÇó2nd strike for input automation is a permanent ban Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy. Based on the discussion in this area and our will to be more clear and concise with the community regarding this part of our rules, we have decided to also apply this two-strike policy to prohibited forms of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing as of January 1st 2015.We would like to add, however, that we will not be taking action retroactively and will only be policing this policy as of January 1st, 2015.Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation. This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to: GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe GÇóInteraction with other characters Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience: GÇóEVE Online client settings GÇóWindow positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment) GÇóThe login process NOTE: Please keep in mind that using the same password for multiple accounts as well as storing your password in a third party tool or script which helps you to automate the login process can increase the risk of account theft and hacking drastically. It is strongly recommended that you do not engage in this type of activity.We are closely monitoring all game events for suspicious activity suggesting illicit behaviors, including Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing. We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe. If you are uncertain about your Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing use-case, please get in contact with us, as we would prefer to work with members of the community to come to an amicable resolution. We will also follow up this statement with further clarifications if needed, based on questions and concerns from the community. TL:DR : Starting from 01.01.2015 the use of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing is limited to activities which do not impact the Eve universe. For more details please refer to the entirety of this announcement.
Any chance you are actually going to enforce this new rule? Or is this going to be like botting and RMT where you enforce it when you can be bothered?
I ask because every ice field is still full of barges all locking on to an ice block at the same time.
|
ashley Eoner
391
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 21:03:51 -
[3519] - Quote
Bluespot85 wrote:
Any chance you are actually going to enforce this new rule? Or is this going to be like botting and RMT where you enforce it when you can be bothered?
I ask because every ice field is still full of barges all locking on to an ice block at the same time.
Report them and get others in the area to report them too.
I know I can lock up targets then spam window change while hitting F1 at the same time. I can damned near start 10 accounts at what looks like the same time with this. So don't be surprised if they don't get banned.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
582
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 21:04:32 -
[3520] - Quote
Bluespot85 wrote:Any chance you are actually going to enforce this new rule? Or is this going to be like botting and RMT where you enforce it when you can be bothered?
I ask because every ice field is still full of barges all locking on to an ice block at the same time.
Most likely, any miner fleet you see has adjusted to the changes and is "toeing the line". You're perfectly welcome to report them, but I wouldn't hold my breath as everyone I've talked to who is staying (over 90%) has adjusted their setup to fit the EULA.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6523
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 22:37:40 -
[3521] - Quote
The joys of only being able to observe the outcome and never knowing what actually happened to lead to it.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6523
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 22:40:06 -
[3522] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Bluespot85 wrote:
Any chance you are actually going to enforce this new rule? Or is this going to be like botting and RMT where you enforce it when you can be bothered?
I ask because every ice field is still full of barges all locking on to an ice block at the same time.
Report them and get others in the area to report them too. I know I can lock up targets then spam window change while hitting F1 at the same time. I can damned near start 10 accounts at what looks like the same time with this. So don't be surprised if they don't get banned.
I see you have already prepared your defense. So if they happen to spot you, they should definitely not waste their time reporting you.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
582
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:10:59 -
[3523] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Bluespot85 wrote:
Any chance you are actually going to enforce this new rule? Or is this going to be like botting and RMT where you enforce it when you can be bothered?
I ask because every ice field is still full of barges all locking on to an ice block at the same time.
Report them and get others in the area to report them too. I know I can lock up targets then spam window change while hitting F1 at the same time. I can damned near start 10 accounts at what looks like the same time with this. So don't be surprised if they don't get banned. I see you have already prepared your defense. So if they happen to spot you, they should definitely not waste their time reporting you.
If you want, I can screenshot the dual-boxing thread where people responded to a "who's quit?" thread by saying they haven't.... I don't know what it would take to convince you.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Nidal Fervor
State War Academy
Caldari State
52
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:19:14 -
[3524] - Quote
Uni-matrix 1 to 50 was in elonaya today with 50 skiffs/procurers all mining at once. is it even possible to control 50 at once without isboxer? |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
582
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:20:13 -
[3525] - Quote
Nidal Fervor wrote:Uni-matrix 1 to 50 was in elonaya today with 50 skiffs/procurers all mining at once. is it even possible to control 50 at once without isboxer?
Yes; multiple computers. However, since ISBoxer is not banned, the question is moot.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1415
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:21:55 -
[3526] - Quote
Ban them all.
The Tears Must Flow
|
Klaus Kanone
DEFCON.
The Initiative.
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:25:50 -
[3527] - Quote
I asked this via Ticket system, the GM told me to ask here "so a DEV could answer it".
Quote:I would like to know how Programms are handled who convert spoken commands into key presses. Like "VoiceAttack" ( http://www.voiceattack.com ) For example when you say "Open Market" the programm sends "ALT-R" to EVE and with that opens the market.
Thank you. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
582
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:57:16 -
[3528] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Ban them all.
I hope the irony of that statement and your signature was not lost on you.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6523
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 04:48:47 -
[3529] - Quote
Nidal Fervor wrote:Uni-matrix 1 to 50 was in elonaya today with 50 skiffs/procurers all mining at once. is it even possible to control 50 at once without isboxer?
Probably?
Would be really fatiguing though.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
472
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 05:12:46 -
[3530] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Nidal Fervor wrote:Uni-matrix 1 to 50 was in elonaya today with 50 skiffs/procurers all mining at once. is it even possible to control 50 at once without isboxer? Probably? Would be really fatiguing though.
Easily, if you don't run mods that push down the cycle time and that particular link. its only about 120APM needed on skiff/procureres without yield mods and the cycle time link.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6523
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 06:52:49 -
[3531] - Quote
Reducing the amount a character mines, so you can use more characters.
Clever.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
822
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 09:01:02 -
[3532] - Quote
Bluespot85 wrote:
Any chance you are actually going to enforce this new rule? Or is this going to be like botting and RMT where you enforce it when you can be bothered?
I ask because every ice field is still full of barges all locking on to an ice block at the same time.
Oh, they are enforcing it and it's effectively simple for them to detect input multicasting or multiplexing with the current system they have.
If they're still there, they might be, I dunno, not using multicasting and doing it manually, e.g. within the EULA. Multiboxing is still fully allowed. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6523
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 12:59:43 -
[3533] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Bluespot85 wrote:
Any chance you are actually going to enforce this new rule? Or is this going to be like botting and RMT where you enforce it when you can be bothered?
I ask because every ice field is still full of barges all locking on to an ice block at the same time.
Oh, they are enforcing it and it's effectively simple for them to detect input multicasting or multiplexing with the current system they have. If they're still there, they might be, I dunno, not using multicasting and doing it manually, e.g. within the EULA. Multiboxing is still fully allowed.
So much for people's expectations that That Terrible XXYY person will suddenly disappear!!
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
582
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 13:13:48 -
[3534] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:So much for people's expectations that That Terrible XXYY person will suddenly disappear!!
Welcome to band-aid solutions.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3067
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 21:41:00 -
[3535] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:So much for people's expectations that That Terrible XXYY person will suddenly disappear!! Welcome to band-aid solutions.
Lets see if That Person still feels like manually running 50 ships a month from now.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
Requiem Eternal
77
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:20:22 -
[3536] - Quote
Nidal Fervor wrote:Uni-matrix 1 to 50 was in elonaya today with 50 skiffs/procurers all mining at once. is it even possible to control 50 at once without isboxer?
Im so glad to read that <3 someone use 50 accounts <3
Edit: lol |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
582
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:50:11 -
[3537] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:So much for people's expectations that That Terrible XXYY person will suddenly disappear!! Welcome to band-aid solutions. Lets see if That Person still feels like manually running 50 ships a month from now.
I'd offer to lay a wager with EVE-Bet, but we'd run into issues of paid gankers and bribes, so I'll just say that I will be here when people start complaining on the forums about boxers in the belts.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
318
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 07:26:56 -
[3538] - Quote
Fraternity and Nulli are sending in mass petitions about me to CCP for using ISBoxer bombers against them...
haha...
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
827
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 08:06:44 -
[3539] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Fraternity and Nulli are sending in mass petitions about me to CCP for using ISBoxer bombers against them...
haha...
Sooo, they didn't figure out that there might be people who are competent enough to bomb you even without input multiplexing? |
Agent Intrepid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 09:29:15 -
[3540] - Quote
I don't like isboxer and think software to help you do things you couldn't normally do or handle is cheating, and I've never used it. A guy is petitioning me for ganking his stationary hyperion with 4 talos.
Multiboxing is banned, he said. Some people are stupid. I've never needed software to multibox, though apparently some people don't understand the difference. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
584
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 13:16:00 -
[3541] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:Fraternity and Nulli are sending in mass petitions about me to CCP for using ISBoxer bombers against them...
haha... Sooo, they didn't figure out that there might be people who are competent enough to bomb you even without input multiplexing?
Hi, welcome to 100 pages ago. We tried to warn CCP about this.
Agent Intrepid wrote:I don't like Isboxer, and I think that software to help you do things you couldn't normally do or handle is cheating,
Alright then, what's your stance on stuff like EFT, or Fuzzworks, or Siggy?
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6523
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 13:39:19 -
[3542] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:Fraternity and Nulli are sending in mass petitions about me to CCP for using ISBoxer bombers against them... Sooo, they didn't figure out that there might be people who are competent enough to bomb you even without input multiplexing? Hi, welcome to 100 pages ago. We tried to warn CCP about this.
Why, did it seem as though CCP thought it would reduce the isboxer petition load?
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Agent Intrepid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 14:08:34 -
[3543] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:Fraternity and Nulli are sending in mass petitions about me to CCP for using ISBoxer bombers against them...
haha... Sooo, they didn't figure out that there might be people who are competent enough to bomb you even without input multiplexing? Hi, welcome to 100 pages ago. We tried to warn CCP about this. Agent Intrepid wrote:I don't like Isboxer, and I think that software to help you do things you couldn't normally do or handle is cheating, Alright then, what's your stance on stuff like EFT, or Fuzzworks, or Siggy?
Don't use them, don't know enough about them to comment. I knew what isboxer was capable of and it was obvious to me it that being able to control 20 or 50 characters with 1 click is a massive in game advantage. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
158
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 14:33:37 -
[3544] - Quote
Agent Intrepid wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:Fraternity and Nulli are sending in mass petitions about me to CCP for using ISBoxer bombers against them...
haha... Sooo, they didn't figure out that there might be people who are competent enough to bomb you even without input multiplexing? Hi, welcome to 100 pages ago. We tried to warn CCP about this. Agent Intrepid wrote:I don't like Isboxer, and I think that software to help you do things you couldn't normally do or handle is cheating, Alright then, what's your stance on stuff like EFT, or Fuzzworks, or Siggy? Don't use them, don't know enough about them to comment. I knew what isboxer was capable of and it was obvious to me it that being able to control 20 or 50 characters with 1 click is a massive in game advantage.
Which is why you are no longer able to do that (control l 20 or 50 characters with 1 click) |
Unimatrix--Zero
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 15:32:04 -
[3545] - Quote
We are the Borg.
Resistance is futile |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
584
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 20:00:10 -
[3546] - Quote
Agent Intrepid wrote:Don't use them, don't know enough about them to comment. I knew what isboxer was capable of and it was obvious to me it that being able to control 20 or 50 characters with 1 click is a massive in game advantage.
Wait, you just contradicted yourself. You claimed to not know enough about EFT or Fuzzworks to make any comment on it, but then turn around and attack ISBoxer for something that people have repeatedly addressed and at the same time ignoring the flaws and disadvantages that ISBoxer has.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Agent Intrepid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 22:38:07 -
[3547] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Agent Intrepid wrote:Don't use them, don't know enough about them to comment. I knew what isboxer was capable of and it was obvious to me it that being able to control 20 or 50 characters with 1 click is a massive in game advantage. Wait, you just contradicted yourself. You claimed to not know enough about EFT or Fuzzworks to make any comment on it, but then turn around and attack ISBoxer for something that people have repeatedly addressed and at the same time ignoring the flaws and disadvantages that ISBoxer has.
No. I know enough about how isboxer allowed you to duplicate commands across many clients, and thus was able to make a judgement that it's cheating, and I made this judgement long before CCP decided to finally outlaw it. CCP seem to agree that isboxer offers too much of an ingame advantage, hence the outlawing of input broadcasting. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
158
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 22:44:49 -
[3548] - Quote
Agent Intrepid wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Agent Intrepid wrote:Don't use them, don't know enough about them to comment. I knew what isboxer was capable of and it was obvious to me it that being able to control 20 or 50 characters with 1 click is a massive in game advantage. Wait, you just contradicted yourself. You claimed to not know enough about EFT or Fuzzworks to make any comment on it, but then turn around and attack ISBoxer for something that people have repeatedly addressed and at the same time ignoring the flaws and disadvantages that ISBoxer has. No. I know enough about how isboxer allowed you to duplicate commands across many clients, and thus was able to make a judgement that it's cheating, and I made this judgement long before CCP decided to finally outlaw it. CCP seem to agree that isboxer offers too much of an ingame advantage, hence the outlawing of input broadcasting.
isboxer still isnt outlawed |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
584
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 23:32:10 -
[3549] - Quote
Agent Intrepid wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Agent Intrepid wrote:Don't use them, don't know enough about them to comment. I knew what isboxer was capable of and it was obvious to me it that being able to control 20 or 50 characters with 1 click is a massive in game advantage. Wait, you just contradicted yourself. You claimed to not know enough about EFT or Fuzzworks to make any comment on it, but then turn around and attack ISBoxer for something that people have repeatedly addressed and at the same time ignoring the flaws and disadvantages that ISBoxer has. No. I know enough about how isboxer allowed you to duplicate commands across many clients, and thus was able to make a judgement that it's cheating, and I made this judgement long before CCP decided to finally outlaw it. CCP seem to agree that isboxer offers too much of an ingame advantage, hence the outlawing of input broadcasting.
So you looked at a single portion of the program and immediately jumped to a conclusion based on nothing more than first impressions and no research. Good job.
The downsides to ISBoxer have been well documented by people and would have been happily explained if you decided to ask one of the boxers.
e: And ISBoxer itself is not outlawed.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Agent Intrepid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 08:20:22 -
[3550] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Agent Intrepid wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Agent Intrepid wrote:Don't use them, don't know enough about them to comment. I knew what isboxer was capable of and it was obvious to me it that being able to control 20 or 50 characters with 1 click is a massive in game advantage. Wait, you just contradicted yourself. You claimed to not know enough about EFT or Fuzzworks to make any comment on it, but then turn around and attack ISBoxer for something that people have repeatedly addressed and at the same time ignoring the flaws and disadvantages that ISBoxer has. No. I know enough about how isboxer allowed you to duplicate commands across many clients, and thus was able to make a judgement that it's cheating, and I made this judgement long before CCP decided to finally outlaw it. CCP seem to agree that isboxer offers too much of an ingame advantage, hence the outlawing of input broadcasting. So you looked at a single portion of the program and immediately jumped to a conclusion based on nothing more than first impressions and no research. Good job. The downsides to ISBoxer have been well documented by people and would have been happily explained if you decided to ask one of the boxers. e: And ISBoxer itself is not outlawed.
Blah blah blah.
Its most gameplay affecting feature was. |
|
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
19
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 14:53:36 -
[3551] - Quote
Quote:Blah blah blah.
Its most gameplay affecting feature was.
ISBoxers most gameplay affecting feature is and has always been VideoFX not broadcasting. You prove the point that you don't know enough about anything involving multiboxing to make an educated assessment. Yours is the blind and biased opinion of the masses who either don't want to multibox at a higher level or can't afford it and so want it banned.
Is it obvious by now that the ban hasn't stopped ISBoxing?
Are all the people who have been cheering for the ban happy now? Has this improved the quality of your gaming time? Are you going to go back to CCP to call for more nerfs?
What's the next step in the anti-isboxer campaign? |
Vampyr3
Blat X
6
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 15:27:58 -
[3552] - Quote
I don't think anyone from CCP would like to risk the legal implications of naming a specific Input Broadcasting method. Firstly, it would seem a direct blow at a specific entity, and secondly, if it were explicitly stated "WASBoxer is banned." some clone of the software would appear and the same problems would happen. This way it kills off any attempt to gain the edge by similar means, regardless of branding.
Just a guess...
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
584
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 18:17:06 -
[3553] - Quote
CCP could have stated that any modifications or programs that interacted with the client were against the EULA. However as it seems the CSM (none of whom has any experience with the program other than "wah my fleet was afk on a planet and got bombed", by the way, and who have provable vested interests in getting rid of the program by presenting a flawed perception of the program to CCP) pushed this onto CCP, they backed themselves into a corner when they did not attempt to communicate with the ISBoxer community regarding the change, and especially when they flat out refused to talk to anyone until after Jan 1.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6523
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 19:42:50 -
[3554] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:Are all the people who have been cheering for the ban happy now? Has this improved the quality of your gaming time? Are you going to go back to CCP to call for more nerfs? What's the next step in the anti-isboxer campaign?
It's constantly peitioning everyone.
No need for more "nerfs" just more bans.
And maybe Updates regarding
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
584
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 20:26:40 -
[3555] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:Are all the people who have been cheering for the ban happy now? Has this improved the quality of your gaming time? Are you going to go back to CCP to call for more nerfs? What's the next step in the anti-isboxer campaign? It's constantly peitioning everyone. No need for more "nerfs" just more bans. And maybe Updates regarding
Except that the ISBoxers out there are following the EULA, so your petitions mean nothing.
And after we ban ISBoxer, shall we ban EFT, EVEMon, Fuzzworks, etc? When do we get limited to a single client for 1 hour a day because someone "might" be better?
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
22
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 20:26:54 -
[3556] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:
It's constantly peitioning everyone.
No need for more "nerfs" just more bans.
And maybe Updates regarding
What?
Who's constantly petitioning everyone? Is CCP petitioning everyone? Are we petitioning CCP? Is ISBoxer filing petitions by broadcasting to everyones accounts?
More bans of what? More ISBoxer features? ISBoxer itself? Anyone running more than one account simultaneously?
Updates regarding what? The price of PLEX? Gas Prices? The weather?
Could you possibly try to be just a little more vague in your statements? |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
22
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 20:52:56 -
[3557] - Quote
I wouldn't worry about CCP banning isboxer. This game is alive because multiboxing EVE is exponentially beneficial to the players so we pay for it. I had 4 accounts before getting ISBoxer. Do you think CCP wants me to unsub those extra accounts? I doubt it. They knew there would be some attrition but ultimately that was a small percentage of ISBoxers and if anything the attention all of this has received may have made more people interested in doing it.
CCP is trying to stop the pleb tears while giving us enough room to still effectively use all our accounts so they still get paid. Not thrilled with the decision, but I'm pretty confident that they will never take the stance of banning multiboxing software for the above reason. |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
169
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 12:08:34 -
[3558] - Quote
At least one of the multiboxers/ ISBoxer users I have been 'monitoring' has not logged on since the ruling was implemented and they had about sixteen accounts. Bloody good news for everyone I say especially for small mining operations. I'm not a miner personally but I say good luck to the small operators in New Eden. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6523
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 12:58:39 -
[3559] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:At least one of the multiboxers/ ISBoxer users I have been 'monitoring' has not logged on since the ruling was implemented and they had about sixteen accounts. Bloody good news for everyone I say especially for small mining operations.
Op success.
Great success, even. This was a triumph, making a post here, great success
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
26
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 17:37:51 -
[3560] - Quote
The fact that pepole take the time to track isboxers in game for no better reason than to monitor their login activities is entertaining. If you are going to spend that kind of effort on it get a fleet together to gank them.
How many people have me on their watch list now as a suspected isboxer? It's always interesting to find out what kind of intel people think they have on you. |
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6524
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 07:16:57 -
[3561] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:The fact that pepole take the time to track isboxers in game for no better reason than to monitor their login activities is entertaining. If you are going to spend that kind of effort on it get a fleet together to gank them.
But that won't have the same effect as what would happen if they were caught using banned features of isboxer and then got banned
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
585
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 07:25:44 -
[3562] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:The fact that pepole take the time to track isboxers in game for no better reason than to monitor their login activities is entertaining. If you are going to spend that kind of effort on it get a fleet together to gank them. But that won't have the same effect as what would happen if they were caught using banned features of isboxer and then got banned
Assuming the boxer would have turned off the features that would have gotten him banned, ganking is the next best thing to disrupting their operations. If you have a problem with someone in a belt, the correct solution is not to sit there wringing your hands, blubbering about "what am I gonna do?". You grab a catalyst, tap a few buddies, and do some damage. This is EVE, a game of actions and consequences, and of building something out of nothing, from the ground up. I can assure you Goonswarm did not become a major null bloc by asking nicely if BoB can please go away, or if the Russians can pretty please not use Tengu fleets. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6524
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 15:14:05 -
[3563] - Quote
It doesn't matter at this point you're talking about people's fantasies.
For example, moa was pretty sure they could get the people camping their home banned for isboxer. Though we didn't even have anyone who used it in any way in the first place down there...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
585
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 15:35:12 -
[3564] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:It doesn't matter at this point you're talking about people's fantasies.
For example, moa was pretty sure they could get the people camping their home banned for isboxer. Though we didn't even have anyone who used it in any way in the first place down there...
And I'm pretty sure the Tooth Fairy exists. Don't make it true, especially if it's Shadowandlight we're talking about as he's shown us a proven way to run bomber wings w/o broadcasting. I would love to see an entire alliance receive a reprimand for false reporting, and I'd love to see the instigator receive a ban for encouraging false reporting. Hopefully it'd cut down on the crazies in local. |
Sgt Bamcis
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 15:56:29 -
[3565] - Quote
Reading is hard and the butthurt floweth. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6524
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 17:41:35 -
[3566] - Quote
A hilarious thread as always
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Steppin Rayzer
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 05:42:46 -
[3567] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:I currently have two main ISBoxer/bot mining fleets I am trying to move on from a system. One comprises two corps with three members & and about a dozen respectively. The other one is a hardcore ISBoxer with eighteen accounts in NPC corps that all log on like a machine gun within milliseconds of each other. They will both be getting a nasty shock come the new year. I can't wait...........
Do you even read, bro?
Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇóEVE Online client settings
GÇóWindow positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
GÇóThe login process |
Steppin Rayzer
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 05:48:48 -
[3568] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Wait - hold on, just thought of something -
G15 and related keyboards are now banned??? They allow one keyboard click to do F1-F8 simultaneously
Although grouping guns in game does the same thing - except smartbombs Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game. Yeah, so that means my Core OS - OSX and my keyboard are both not allowed Kinda sucks, not going to buy windows to run the stinking game I sure as hell won't buy a new keyboard so stupid, if you want to ban isboxer fine, but leave the mac guys out of it
But they don't want to ban ISBoxer. They want to ban BROADCASTING THE SAME COMMANDS TO MULTIPLE CLIENTS AT THE SAME TIME. You can't figure out how NOT to do that on a Mac? |
Alavaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
69
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 18:14:19 -
[3569] - Quote
Steppin Rayzer wrote:Bethan Le Troix wrote:I currently have two main ISBoxer/bot mining fleets I am trying to move on from a system. One comprises two corps with three members & and about a dozen respectively. The other one is a hardcore ISBoxer with eighteen accounts in NPC corps that all log on like a machine gun within milliseconds of each other. They will both be getting a nasty shock come the new year. I can't wait........... Do you even read, bro? Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience: GÇóEVE Online client settings GÇóWindow positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment) GÇó The login process
Yeah! You tell them!
Login all your afk cloakers at once, but you must press the button to cloak individually!!
Loyalty is a virtue, participation brings reward.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
586
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 16:20:37 -
[3570] - Quote
Alavaria wrote:Yeah! You tell them!
Login all your afk cloakers at once, but you must press the button to cloak individually!!
I would be extremely surprised if someone used ISBoxer to AFK cloak anything over than 2 pilots. |
|
|
Dustpuppy
New Eden Ferengi
57
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 16:35:25 -
[3571] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote: ISBoxers most gameplay affecting feature is and has always been VideoFX not broadcasting.
If this would be the case the plex price wouldn't have dropped from 1 billion to 800 million after the announcement of the multicast ban and stay on this level since the change.
Why cancel subscription on plexed accounts if the main feature of something is not touched by a change?
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
586
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 17:15:23 -
[3572] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote: ISBoxers most gameplay affecting feature is and has always been VideoFX not broadcasting. If this would be the case the plex price wouldn't have dropped from 1 billion to 800 million after the announcement of the multicast ban and stay on this level since the change. Why cancel subscription on plexed accounts if the main feature of something is not touched by a change?
Correlation =/= Causation. When it hit 1b, people expected CCP to intervene, so they sold their stocks at 1b and it settled down to 800m. If indeed ISBoxer was the main cause of the high prices and not market traders and hoarders and simple supply/demand, we should have seen PLEX drop to 500m or so. Additionally, I've only seen two multiboxers including myself who stopped out of a group of 13 or so. Now I know we aren't everyone, but still. |
Salem Aivo
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 18:01:26 -
[3573] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Dustpuppy wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote: ISBoxers most gameplay affecting feature is and has always been VideoFX not broadcasting. If this would be the case the plex price wouldn't have dropped from 1 billion to 800 million after the announcement of the multicast ban and stay on this level since the change. Why cancel subscription on plexed accounts if the main feature of something is not touched by a change? Correlation =/= Causation. When it hit 1b, people expected CCP to intervene, so they sold their stocks at 1b and it settled down to 800m. If indeed ISBoxer was the main cause of the high prices and not market traders and hoarders and simple supply/demand, we should have seen PLEX drop to 500m or so. Additionally, I've only seen two multiboxers including myself who stopped out of a group of 13 or so. Now I know we aren't everyone, but still. This.
The Plex price change was speculation, nothing more. The ~1b peak price was also inflated from the normal price, so realistically the actual price dropped from about 880m to 800m and is now back on the rise. |
ashley Eoner
393
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 01:01:32 -
[3574] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote: ISBoxers most gameplay affecting feature is and has always been VideoFX not broadcasting. If this would be the case the plex price wouldn't have dropped from 1 billion to 800 million after the announcement of the multicast ban and stay on this level since the change. Why cancel subscription on plexed accounts if the main feature of something is not touched by a change?
You were getting ripped off. I never paid more then 900m for plex when people were complaining here about it being almost 1b...
Plex prices for me dropped a little. It's unknown how much was because of the change or because of something else. Like Nolak said speculators etc could be the real cause. It's probably a combination of all those things. Maybe CCP dumped some plex off banned accounts. No one that is willing to talk knows for sure.
EDIT : I broke down and extended some of my accounts because of a recent development that has my interest in game. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
589
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 05:27:12 -
[3575] - Quote
Exactly. If PLEX was steady at 800m for a month or so, and *then* CCP banned broadcasting, and you saw PLEX drop, you *might* have an argument. You'd first have to look at any other changes CCP made to the game at the time of the ban, as well as take into account real life situations, as the global market does have an impact on the game. |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
28
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 17:14:55 -
[3576] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote: ISBoxers most gameplay affecting feature is and has always been VideoFX not broadcasting. If this would be the case the plex price wouldn't have dropped from 1 billion to 800 million after the announcement of the multicast ban and stay on this level since the change. Why cancel subscription on plexed accounts if the main feature of something is not touched by a change?
That's right we control the price of plex. For every 100m isk you send me I will drop the price of PLEX on the market by 100m for one week. I'll do this for you because i'm nice ... and because I can. Just be sure when you send me the isk to put "For PLEX" in the reason box. Remember to follow the rules to get your discount PLEX prices!
|
Madchen Sterben
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.23 07:41:16 -
[3577] - Quote
Multi boxers actually read the new rules very carefully.
Minor changes, no big deal.
Multi boxing, still a great choice.
ISboxer, still a great choice.
The overall plan by CCP might be to ban mboxing but it looks like baby steps.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6526
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 05:36:00 -
[3578] - Quote
Madchen Sterben wrote:Multi boxers actually read the new rules very carefully.
Minor changes, no big deal.
Multi boxing, still a great choice.
ISboxer, still a great choice.
Still a great choice, huh.
Really nice :)
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Flash Startraveler
Startravelers
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 15:51:43 -
[3579] - Quote
Falcon brought me here
So i'm just gonna quote a person i generally totally agree with, not all the time but usually... me:
Flash Startraveler aka he's right you are not wrote:I hope i am allowed to post this and dont offend anyone in his or her personal space... People that are not using input broascasting are having problems at the moment ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400578&find=unread ) which is obviously one of the first negative effects on the non ISBoxing community. I dont want to say non multiboxing community cause the considerated changes hit everyone multiboxing or not. There are posts on the forum Klick! that promote new per new regulation LEGAL ways of simplifying the control over several clients at the same time. So as i see it, the recent efforts to prevent players from getting a significant advantage by using the broadcast function of ISBoxer were more or less ineffective. As long a the game itself doesn't force you to do something different to issue the same command on another client, most used example is the entering of a code before you can lauch a bomb, nothing's really gonna change if the boxers dont have a problem with putting in a little bit more effort than before and klick several buttons and not only one. I finance my stuff with incursions and i have seen some small effects on the incursion community since first of January. Some boxers reduced the amount of their clients and some stopped completely, but by far not all. In my humble opinion though, the incursion boxers are not the real problem. Ya i know some hold them responsible for the high plex prices despite loads of facts proving otherwise (for example a presentation a the last fanfest... war was it two years ago?) yadi yadi yada...I see the bigger problems with the PvP boxes. Right, removing the fleetwarp could make it a bit harder but i can imagine just a little bit because issuing the warp command will still be the same on all clients and it will hit a huge amount of players that maybe dont even have a second account to multibox. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
607
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 16:42:08 -
[3580] - Quote
I hope the irony of CCP Falcon responding to us long enough to tell us to use this thread is not lost on anyone here. This is exactly what we were talkin anout, Falcon. You had an opportunity to clear things up with some players, a chance to present a rebuttal to our claims and argument, but instead basically said "yeah we are banning people who are following the EULA."
E: oh and with all due respect, CCP's breach of the EULA was never a topic of this thread, not do we find it "amusing" that you have blown us off. |
|
|
Agent Unknown
Night Theifs
DamnedNation
8
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 17:38:07 -
[3581] - Quote
Flash Startraveler wrote:Falcon brought me hereSo i'm just gonna quote a person i generally totally agree with, not all the time but usually... me: Flash Startraveler aka he's right you are not wrote:I hope i am allowed to post this and dont offend anyone in his or her personal space... People that are not using input broascasting are having problems at the moment ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400578&find=unread ) which is obviously one of the first negative effects on the non ISBoxing community. I dont want to say non multiboxing community cause the considerated changes hit everyone multiboxing or not. There are posts on the forum Klick! that promote new per new regulation LEGAL ways of simplifying the control over several clients at the same time. So as i see it, the recent efforts to prevent players from getting a significant advantage by using the broadcast function of ISBoxer were more or less ineffective. As long a the game itself doesn't force you to do something different to issue the same command on another client, most used example is the entering of a code before you can lauch a bomb, nothing's really gonna change if the boxers dont have a problem with putting in a little bit more effort than before and klick several buttons and not only one. I finance my stuff with incursions and i have seen some small effects on the incursion community since first of January. Some boxers reduced the amount of their clients and some stopped completely, but by far not all. In my humble opinion though, the incursion boxers are not the real problem. Ya i know some hold them responsible for the high plex prices despite loads of facts proving otherwise (for example a presentation a the last fanfest... war was it two years ago?) yadi yadi yada...I see the bigger problems with the PvP boxes. Right, removing the fleetwarp could make it a bit harder but i can imagine just a little bit because issuing the warp command will still be the same on all clients and it will hit a huge amount of players that maybe dont even have a second account to multibox.
That multi-client preview is not against the EULA as all it does is draw the game's screen as an overlay and doesn't affect the game at all. This is very useful if you have more clients than monitors as an example ...or for keeping an eye on that link alt as you pew-pew in lowsec.
I didn't read most of the posts on this thread, but CCP's ban on input broadcasting was pretty clear to me. If you use a tool to mirror commands to multiple clients, it's the CONCORD slammer for you. If you use software to allow you to move the client to a specific place for easier access or have overlays for it, that's legal. I mean, Overwolf and Steam do overlays too, so users with client switchers should be fine. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
608
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 18:36:18 -
[3582] - Quote
Re-read Flash's link. People who have adapted to the current EULA are getting banned. |
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
885
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 18:52:33 -
[3583] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Re-read Flash's link. People who have adapted to the current EULA are getting banned.
Charadrass is a known incursions multiboxer. He's the leader of a German community setup to ISBox.
He claims that 2 out of 4 people that were not even using ISBoxer got banned for input automation. Were they using another input automation program? Were the original 2 using input automation?
All you have is claims from Charadrass (of all people lol if you only knew who this guy was you'd see the hilarity) that friends of his got banned with no evidence.
CCP will not go into the details of the cases I'm sure so what are you really going on or asking here Nolak?
Not today spaghetti.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
609
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 19:09:02 -
[3584] - Quote
Sexy Cakes wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Re-read Flash's link. People who have adapted to the current EULA are getting banned. Charadrass is a known incursions multiboxer. He's the leader of a German community setup to ISBox. He claims that 2 out of 4 people that were not even using ISBoxer got banned for input automation. Were they using another input automation program? Were the original 2 using input automation? All you have is claims from Charadrass (of all people lol if you only knew who this guy was you'd see the hilarity) that friends of his got banned with no evidence. CCP will not go into the details of the cases I'm sure so what are you really going on or asking here Nolak?
I am well aware of Charadrass's reputation and his "vocation" in EVE. I've had lots of contact with the fellow, and do not in this instance believe him to be lying. I would also like to draw your attention to this statement made by another boxer: http://puu.sh/f3SyN.png
I spoke to other incursion boxers, and obtained a first-hand account of what happened by one of the banned people. I'm not on the best of terms with the guy, but again, I don't believe him to be lying as he was one of those involved in the multiboxing brainstorm on ways to work around the broadcast ban.
e: If you mean to insinuate that I am some servant of Charadrass, I'd like to point out that I was one of those who spoke out, rather loudly, against DIN and Charadrass's involvement in the incursion drama last year. |
Dirritat'z Demblin
Stardust Heavy Industries
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 19:17:55 -
[3585] - Quote
Ya... and on the German EVE-Boards he repeated multiple times that his Tec-Ni-Ca-Ly EULA-approved workarrounds that do not broadcast will look like the now banned broadcasting on the Serverside. So, if he indeed is not lying on the subject, then he is at least a bit naive and retardet. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
609
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 19:31:14 -
[3586] - Quote
Dirritat'z Demblin wrote:Ya... and on the German EVE-Boards he repeated multiple times that his Tec-Ni-Ca-Ly EULA-approved workarrounds that do not broadcast will look like the now banned broadcasting on the Serverside. So, if he indeed is not lying on the subject, then he is at least a bit naive and retardet.
Personal attacks aside, the legality of round robin broadcasting has been petitioned and asked multiple times, all with the same answer: Legal. As I said, CCP stated that they cannot tell the difference, which leads me to wonder why, exactly, if they were unable to detect the differences, did they not take me (and other ISBoxers) up on my offer to work with them to target the trouble areas of ISBoxer to do what CCP intended to do with the broadcast ban. |
Dirritat'z Demblin
Stardust Heavy Industries
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 19:51:08 -
[3587] - Quote
It leads me to wonder why one wants to do something that is well known for looking illegal. Well, guess some peeps just like riding razorblades...
And, tbh: Of corse CCP will not tell you how they Identify Bots. If they would the could as well stop searching, since any bot and broadcast-program will then avoid exactly what CCP is looking for. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
609
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 20:07:00 -
[3588] - Quote
We never asked CCP to reveal their exact detection methods. At most, we asked for reassurances from them.
Cache scraping breaks the EULA, yet people do it as it was explicitly allowed. Same with ISBoxing and broadcasting pre Nov24. And before you try to argue it, no, we aren't talking about actual bots that do stuff when you alt-tab or go get a beer from the corner deli. |
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken
Half Massed
101
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 20:08:47 -
[3589] - Quote
The witch hunt continues: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5435888#post5435888 Contact me if you want to know about getting representation for this stupid ****
Check out my Podcast!
CSM X: Candidate - Wormholes, Multiboxing, and New Bro's!
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
262
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 20:23:00 -
[3590] - Quote
God dam... Just Say What the **** is going on CCP. Pick a side. Muliboxers... The care bare solo folks that will never be happy unless there is ZERO risk.
stop wasting our time time.......
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
609
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 20:44:26 -
[3591] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:God dam... Just Say What the **** is going on CCP. Pick a side. Muliboxers... The care bare solo folks that will never be happy unless there is ZERO risk.
stop wasting our time time.......
I'm sure Everlasting Vendetta would like to have a word with you regarding zero risk. You know, the wormhole multibox alliance living in a C5. If there's any carebears whining about wanting zero risk, it's miners and freighter pilots.
We know the risks we take when we start multiboxing. We know we paint a bullseye on our butt when we undock. We accepted that ages ago. |
Josef Djugashvilis
2866
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 20:46:55 -
[3592] - Quote
I do not know if I am impressed or depressed that this thread is still going.
I guess everybody has a right to fight their corner.
This is not a signature.
|
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
2385
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 21:01:00 -
[3593] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:I do not know if I am impressed or depressed that this thread is still going.
I guess everybody has a right to fight their corner.
I figure another couple of months before people learn the new borders or are removed
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken
Half Massed
102
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 21:09:04 -
[3594] - Quote
ya at this point we are basically testing the new electric fence the "rulers" have put in place. Eventually we will forget what sky looks like and just tell our children that the sky was always concrete....
Check out my Podcast!
CSM X: Candidate - Wormholes, Multiboxing, and New Bro's!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
609
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 21:30:47 -
[3595] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:I do not know if I am impressed or depressed that this thread is still going.
I guess everybody has a right to fight their corner. I figure another couple of months before people learn the new borders or are removed m
Hey Mike. Any word from CCP as to Falcon blowing off the promised meeting with the boxers? |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
319
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 22:09:35 -
[3596] - Quote
For some more specifics from CCP Falcon listen here regarding what is and isnt allowed (This was his interview on the GRN show)
http://show.gamingradio.net/podpress_trac/web/181/0/GRNShow250115.mp3
Start at 02:07:45
The basic's I grabbed were
- VideoFX and other features outside Input Duplication is not considered an offense
- Only sending the same command to multiple clients at the same time is what the problem is
- CCP is not going to hold any public discussion on the issue (as far as I can read between the lines)
- If you have any questions on what your doing using multiboxing / ISBoxer or any solution send in a ticket to customer service
- You are reminded you are NOT allowed to share that response to the EVE Community as doing so is against the EULA.
More discussion on EVE Multiboxing can be found here
http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums/36-EVE-Online
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
|
Sugar Smacks
State War Academy
Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 23:50:53 -
[3597] - Quote
I enjoy this topic and the reasoning behind people. You can literally get these people to say ANYTHING to get things to stay the same. Fear is large here, for good reason.
Please name a game scripting of any sort has helped?
Im sure this will take a while.
After your done i will easily show you games scripting has utterly destroyed.
The main reason people leave is "scripting" and "who would want to compete with that".
Now you can say it doesn't hurt anything, well give examples, because we can all see games its utterly devastated.
Having a argument that has no real fact behind it is like a scientist with no balls to stand behind his conclusions.
Next time save yourself the money from school buddy. |
ashley Eoner
394
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 00:06:38 -
[3598] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Sexy Cakes wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Re-read Flash's link. People who have adapted to the current EULA are getting banned. Charadrass is a known incursions multiboxer. He's the leader of a German community setup to ISBox. He claims that 2 out of 4 people that were not even using ISBoxer got banned for input automation. Were they using another input automation program? Were the original 2 using input automation? All you have is claims from Charadrass (of all people lol if you only knew who this guy was you'd see the hilarity) that friends of his got banned with no evidence. CCP will not go into the details of the cases I'm sure so what are you really going on or asking here Nolak? I am well aware of Charadrass's reputation and his "vocation" in EVE. I've had lots of contact with the fellow, and do not in this instance believe him to be lying. I would also like to draw your attention to this statement made by another boxer: http://puu.sh/f3SyN.png
I spoke to other incursion boxers, and obtained a first-hand account of what happened by one of the banned people. I'm not on the best of terms with the guy, but again, I don't believe him to be lying as he was one of those involved in the multiboxing brainstorm on ways to work around the broadcast ban. e: If you mean to insinuate that I am some servant of Charadrass, I'd like to point out that I was one of those who spoke out, rather loudly, against DIN and Charadrass's involvement in the incursion drama last year.
Wow in this very thread many MANY pages ago I called it that CCP was going to have issues determining whether commands are broadcasted or manually inputted.
I run multiple machines with multiple keyboards as I stated before and that is why I was worried. I haven't been hit so far but I haven't done incursions in a while.
Sugar Smacks wrote:I enjoy this topic and the reasoning behind people. You can literally get these people to say ANYTHING to get things to stay the same. Fear is large here, for good reason.
Please name a game scripting of any sort has helped?
Im sure this will take a while.
After your done i will easily show you games scripting has utterly destroyed.
The main reason people leave is "scripting" and "who would want to compete with that".
Now you can say it doesn't hurt anything, well give examples, because we can all see games its utterly devastated.
Having a argument that has no real fact behind it is like a scientist with no balls to stand behind his conclusions.
Next time save yourself the money from school buddy.
You must be in the wrong thread because nothing you said had any relevance to innerspace (the real program's name not isboxer) or any other repeater capable program/setup. I don't even see anything in this thread that would have any relevance to what you are talking about. |
Sugar Smacks
State War Academy
Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 00:48:34 -
[3599] - Quote
Any key commands that lead to automation of playing should be destroyed.
Any key commands that lead to multiple commands from a single source should be destroyed.
Anyone that thinks otherwise has no basis for their argument as only failed games stand behind these decisions.
I still wait to hear of a sucessfull game people were allowed to do this in.
The fact is there is none. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
610
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 00:53:37 -
[3600] - Quote
Sugar Smacks wrote:Please name a game scripting of any sort has helped?
Im sure this will take a while.
After your done i will easily show you games scripting has utterly destroyed.
The main reason people leave is "scripting" and "who would want to compete with that".
Now you can say it doesn't hurt anything, well give examples, because we can all see games its utterly devastated.
Having a argument that has no real fact behind it is like a scientist with no balls to stand behind his conclusions.
Next time save yourself the money from school buddy.
Portal, Portal 2, Half Life, Half Life 2, Halo, Halo 2, and Halo 3 speedruns. I'm no doubt missing millions more, but these were the most memorable as I just went on a minor binge of speedrunning videos.
Check out High Speed Halo, or the Portal 2 Co-Op speedrunning community.
You're one to talk about scientists with no balls. One day back in September or so, I took notice of the number of "ISBoxer too stronk" threads that populated GD. I looked at each thread, then at the poster's KB. 9 times out of 10, they were a carebear or miner who had never had the brilliant idea to pick up a Catalyst and force the ISBoxer to move systems or stand down. It was always someone making a vague threat regarding the health of the game, followed by 4-5 people promptly laughing at the foolishness of the poster. So before you try to tell us we have no balls, look in a mirror, and ask yourself how many times you forced an ISBoxer's fleet to stand down.
We accepted the bullseye we painted on our backs when we multiboxed. We just never expected people to be such cowards and run to mommy instead of thinking of things themselves. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
610
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 01:06:56 -
[3601] - Quote
Sugar Smacks wrote:Any key commands that lead to automation of playing should be destroyed.
Any key commands that lead to multiple commands from a single source should be destroyed.
Anyone that thinks otherwise has no basis for their argument as only failed games stand behind these decisions.
I still wait to hear of a sucessfull game people were allowed to do this in.
The fact is there is none.
I know in Starcraft 2 people bind Logitech macro keys to build a certain building (One "key" for basic / advanced structure, another for the exact structure) or for selecting drones and then the specific unit. In games like CoD or BF4 people bind some of the more complex tricks to the keys. There's no doubt others. |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
320
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 01:34:16 -
[3602] - Quote
WOW has 8m subscribers and allows FULL UI customization, ISBoxer and macros (to an extent as long as your at the keyboard).... EVE might have 500k subs (probably way less, but we cant get any numbers) and has decided that since they are experts in how an MMO should run, they will start banning people who multibox too effectively.
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
31
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 03:12:06 -
[3603] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:WOW has 8m subscribers and allows FULL UI customization, ISBoxer and macros (to an extent as long as your at the keyboard).... EVE might have 500k subs (probably way less, but we cant get any numbers) and has decided that since they are experts in how an MMO should run, they will start banning people who multibox too effectively.
Good points fall on deaf ears around here. Games are balanced based on what the top 5% of players are capable of in the game. Banning broadcasting isn't the right kind of balance.
I think CCP do a lot of things right and that's why the people who can't handle an unforgiving game sub WoW. They lose a lot of money keeping the game true to course and I'm glad they do that. Making games too easy sucks the fun right out of them. Along with all the good decisions they make more than a few bad ones, but all things considered it could be worse. Until it gets a lot worse than this my WoW and SWToR will stay unsubbed...but I don't think it will.
I'd still like to get a response from the ISBoxer haters if they think this change was enough and if they are happy with it would be interesting to know. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
820
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 03:27:20 -
[3604] - Quote
I am glad they are putting in the bans. Going against multiple perfectly timed logistics, snipers and such really sucked.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
31
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 04:04:53 -
[3605] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:I am glad they are putting in the bans. Going against multiple perfectly timed logistics, snipers and such really sucked.
Yep and going against a force larger than your isboxer fleet also sucks because while we may have had a perfectly time alpha exiting a fight is not so easy to do. More often then not when we get in over our heads we lose our whole fleet pods and all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAOLCWNF_NM -- just like this. And this is my video btw. Killing my own kind so to speak lol. |
Sugar Smacks
State War Academy
Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 04:22:53 -
[3606] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:WOW has 8m subscribers and allows FULL UI customization, ISBoxer and macros (to an extent as long as your at the keyboard).... EVE might have 500k subs (probably way less, but we cant get any numbers) and has decided that since they are experts in how an MMO should run, they will start banning people who multibox too effectively.
How you can call WoW pvp is beyond me.
They have 1 pvp server that everyone refuses to play.
Basically there is a small element that has a battlegrounds area that people think is pvp.
If you wish to macro on your pvm game, yea, i don't think anyone will care.
E very other game mentioned is a "throw away game", thats life expectancy is what months?
I wonder why that is?
Next time don't use a game that had to be rereleased 3 times as your statement of legitimacy. |
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken
Half Massed
103
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 05:12:36 -
[3607] - Quote
Sugar Smacks wrote:Any key commands that lead to automation of playing should be destroyed.
Any key commands that lead to multiple commands from a single source should be destroyed.
Anyone that thinks otherwise has no basis for their argument as only failed games stand behind these decisions.
I still wait to hear of a sucessfull game people were allowed to do this in.
The fact is there is none.
Actually the most successful MMO in existence World of Warcraft allows input broadcasting. ISBoxer does not provide any automation, autofire, botting, hacks or other cheating functionality. Top MMORPG publishers including Blizzard Entertainment, Trion Worlds, Sony Online Entertainment, Turbine, NCSoft and others all allow multiboxing with ISBoxer.
Check out my Podcast!
CSM X: Candidate - Wormholes, Multiboxing, and New Bro's!
|
ashley Eoner
394
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 06:15:28 -
[3608] - Quote
Sugar Smacks wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:WOW has 8m subscribers and allows FULL UI customization, ISBoxer and macros (to an extent as long as your at the keyboard).... EVE might have 500k subs (probably way less, but we cant get any numbers) and has decided that since they are experts in how an MMO should run, they will start banning people who multibox too effectively. How you can call WoW pvp is beyond me. They have 1 pvp server that everyone refuses to play. Basically there is a small element that has a battlegrounds area that people think is pvp. If you wish to macro on your pvm game, yea, i don't think anyone will care. E very other game mentioned is a "throw away game", thats life expectancy is what months? I wonder why that is? Next time don't use a game that had to be rereleased 3 times as your statement of legitimacy.
Your hyperbole makes your ignorance extremely stark. There's a lot of PVP servers in WoW. Anyone that has played WoW knows that world pvp is very active. Oh wait you have no idea what WoW is like because either you played it 8 years ago or you just go off what you hear/stereotype. Well Blizzard has made it so that servers now share areas so as to balance out the numbers on both sides. My server has world pvp available at any hour of the day.
Your ignorance continues with your "throw away game" comment. All the games mentioned have been successful in the market place making money for many years. Some of them are actually more popular then Eve.
EDIT : What's funny is my "perfectly timed" logi were all controlled individually without innerspace. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11457
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 06:24:47 -
[3609] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote: Anyone that has played WoW knows that world pvp is very active.
Very actively botted, you mean. Bots comprise 40% or higher of their instanced PvP groups. And they do nothing about it either.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Sugar Smacks
State War Academy
Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 06:28:15 -
[3610] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Sugar Smacks wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:WOW has 8m subscribers and allows FULL UI customization, ISBoxer and macros (to an extent as long as your at the keyboard).... EVE might have 500k subs (probably way less, but we cant get any numbers) and has decided that since they are experts in how an MMO should run, they will start banning people who multibox too effectively. How you can call WoW pvp is beyond me. They have 1 pvp server that everyone refuses to play. Basically there is a small element that has a battlegrounds area that people think is pvp. If you wish to macro on your pvm game, yea, i don't think anyone will care. E very other game mentioned is a "throw away game", thats life expectancy is what months? I wonder why that is? Next time don't use a game that had to be rereleased 3 times as your statement of legitimacy. Your hyperbole makes your ignorance extremely stark. There's tons of PVP servers. Anyone that has played WoW knows that world pvp is very active. Oh wait you have no idea what WoW is like because either you played it 8 years ago or you just go off what you hear. Well Blizzard has made it so that servers now share areas so as to balance out the numbers on both sides. My server has world pvp available at any hour of the day. Your ignorance continues with your "throw away game" comment. All the games mentioned have been successfully in the market place making money for many years. Some of them are actually more popular then Eve.
World pvp like guildwars where its choice to step out of the area so in fact you don't HAVE to pvp its all choice.
A game where pvp is done by choice and the far FAR majority of those numbers of subscribers are people who have 0 interest to ever pvp. Furthermore the entire game is designed so they don't have to, or really they don't require any interaction with others.
You are trying to compare a sandbox game with that is amusing at best.
Why don't you focus on Ultima Onlines story about how it lost over 50% of all shards population after the producer Jeff Skalaski citied "we will not be combating scripting/botting or multiple player inputs". How do you lose 50% of the population on year 13? Games die gradually unless idiots are put in control.
Or more recent lets look at Archeage a sandbox game, once thought to be the game of the year and really thought to possibly destroy EvE. After a bot explosion the dev team decided to do little or nothing and instead to push the pay to win model.
I know how many EvE players that were playing, they literally had mirror guilds to their corps on EvE.
The game died literally overnight land which was being only sold for real money due to its rarity is now so available they are now discussing shard transfers.
Did i mention the game came out in September? They have a PLEX called APEX it sold at release for 40 gold it is now 700 gold and projected by players to cap at 1500.
That inflation is for 5 months.
Its fairly obvious from these playerbases that people feel in a pvp focused game, that they don't wish to have one person running an army of players around, at least not with 1 button gameplay.
Maybe you feel different, but thats you, i assure you. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
611
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 06:53:09 -
[3611] - Quote
In games like WoW, there's very little you can do in terms of disruption of logistics, mining, etc. In EVE, players have the ability to shut down someone else's income for a theoretically indefinite period of time. You can't destroy someone's ship like you can in EVE.
You can't ECM like you can in EVE.
You can't sensor damp like you can in EVE.
You can't neut/nos like you can in EVE.
You can't out-maneuver someone like you can in EVE.
You can't meta-game someone like you can in EVE.
Trying to compare a game as PVP-friendly and varied as EVE to the My Little Pony of World of Warcraft is silly. |
ashley Eoner
394
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 07:54:52 -
[3612] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:ashley Eoner wrote: Anyone that has played WoW knows that world pvp is very active.
Very actively botted, you mean. Bots comprise 40% or higher of their instanced PvP groups. And they do nothing about it either. I'd love to see a bot do WORLD pvp... Notice I said WORLD pvp not instance pvp or bg pvp or arena pvp... WORLD pvp...
Sugar Smacks wrote:
World pvp like guildwars where its choice to step out of the area so in fact you don't HAVE to pvp its all choice.
A game where pvp is done by choice and the far FAR majority of those numbers of subscribers are people who have 0 interest to ever pvp. Furthermore the entire game is designed so they don't have to, or really they don't require any interaction with others.
You are trying to compare a sandbox game with that is amusing at best.
Why don't you focus on Ultima Onlines story about how it lost over 50% of all shards population after the producer Jeff Skalaski citied "we will not be combating scripting/botting or multiple player inputs". How do you lose 50% of the population on year 13? Games die gradually unless idiots are put in control.
Or more recent lets look at Archeage a sandbox game, once thought to be the game of the year and really thought to possibly destroy EvE. After a bot explosion the dev team decided to do little or nothing and instead to push the pay to win model.
I know how many EvE players that were playing, they literally had mirror guilds to their corps on EvE.
The game died literally overnight land which was being only sold for real money due to its rarity is now so available they are now discussing shard transfers.
Did i mention the game came out in September? They have a PLEX called APEX it sold at release for 40 gold it is now 700 gold and projected by players to cap at 1500.
That inflation is for 5 months.
Its fairly obvious from these playerbases that people feel in a pvp focused game, that they don't wish to have one person running an army of players around, at least not with 1 button gameplay.
Maybe you feel different, but thats you, i assure you.
Well the choice when I played recently before the latest expansion was to either open myself to pvp to level or to grind the crap out of the instances....
That's probably why WORLD PVP is so active when I played.
The subscriber numbers shows that the most popular servers in WOW are PVP based.. So clearly the majority of WOW players actually do like their PVP. Now if you have any actual statistics to counter that i"m open to reading them.
You do realize it's entirely possible to play eve for years and have no real interaction with anyone let alone anything resembling pvp right? I did it for a good 6 months when I first came back after the original long break.
I played UO and I don't remember anything about that announcement I do remember trammel and EQ coming along which caused a massive decline in the playerbase. Matter fact I can't find a single example of that statement anywhere on google. Your revisionist history is hilariously wrong. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4957
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 08:46:23 -
[3613] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:I do not know if I am impressed or depressed that this thread is still going.
I guess everybody has a right to fight their corner. I figure another couple of months before people learn the new borders or are removed m Would really help if CCP simply let people know what the borders are rather that forcing people to share GM correspondence behind the scenes, since even if someone is banned he's not allowed to tell others to warn them of where the line was. That's what the dumbest part of all of this is. People would be happy to abide by the rules IF CCP ACTUALLY TOLD PEOPLE WHAT WAS AND WASN'T ALLOWED.
Hey, wait, you're a CSM member. You're supposed to facilitate communication between CCP and it's players. Do your job, otherwise what's the point in having you?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Sugar Smacks
State War Academy
Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 09:12:31 -
[3614] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:I do not know if I am impressed or depressed that this thread is still going.
I guess everybody has a right to fight their corner. I figure another couple of months before people learn the new borders or are removed m Would really help if CCP simply let people know what the borders are rather that forcing people to share GM correspondence behind the scenes, since even if someone is banned he's not allowed to tell others to warn them of where the line was. That's what the dumbest part of all of this is. People would be happy to abide by the rules IF CCP ACTUALLY TOLD PEOPLE WHAT WAS AND WASN'T ALLOWED. Hey, wait, you're a CSM member. You're supposed to facilitate communication between CCP and it's players. Do your job, otherwise what's the point in having you?
I still cant figure out what CSM people do. All of them seem to run on the "you know me" platform and don't post any real ideas.
At least no ideas they want to share to get elected with.
Smells of real world politics and we all know how well those work.
But thats a whole new topic that needs addressing. |
Allowed Input Broadcasting
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 09:27:20 -
[3615] - Quote
With the new rules on input broadcasting in place, I wanted to clarify what is and isn't acceptable use of the broadcasting feature. In the process of doing so I seem to have run into a world of contradictions with the EVE staff I've corresponded with.
First let's look at CCP Falcon's official post from the top of this forum
Falcon wrote:
"Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience"
"If you are uncertain about your Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing use-case, please get in contact with us, as we would prefer to work with members of the community to come to an amicable resolution. We will also follow up this statement with further clarifications if needed, based on questions and concerns from the community."
Falcon clearly states there are allowed forms of input broadcasting and that CCP prefers we contact them for clarification on the matter.
To clarify what is and is not allowed, I sent in a petition with a list of commands in question. That list is as follows
- Opening cargohold
- Opening orehold
- Opening/closing "people/places" window
- Creating a bookmark
- Deleting a bookmark from "people/places" window
- Activating survey scanners
- Managing inventory in station (ex clicking "ship hangar")
- Managing fittings in station (ex fitting module from hangar)
- Clicking "join fleet" when invited
I will now paraphrase the responses I received and will also not include the GM names. This is in order to respect the rules on communications of GM correspondence.
The first response:
First GM wrote:
If a part of the announcement is unclear or unspecific to your usage, we can only recommend you do not engage in any usage that is not directly stated to be allowed
This is in direct contradiction with the statement in the forum thread which asks us to send in a petition in order to discuss any usage which is unclear. Eventually I convinced the GMs of this and they transferred me to an expert.
The expert's response:
Expert GM wrote:
Any kind of input broadcasting to a minimized client is against the rules. Thus it is a violation of the rules if any of those commands are sent to a minimized client.
This is once again in direct contradiction with the statement in the forum thread which clearly states forms of input broadcasting that do not effect the EVE universe are allowed.
And so the situation stands in it's own confusion. Three GMs, each with a different take on the situation of input broadcasting. I've resubmitted the petition, but even if the 4th GM concludes some of those actions are legal, is it worth doing it? How do I know the 5th GM - the one looking at a report against me for input broadcasting - won't instead conclude they are actually illegal and ban me for it? When the GMs are not on board with the same conclusions, we're left with havoc.
There needs to be some real clarity on this, between the GMs and in communication with the users. |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3762
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 10:05:59 -
[3616] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post.
The Rules:
12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.
The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
ashley Eoner
394
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 10:16:54 -
[3617] - Quote
I'm not surprised as this has been a problem with CCP for as long as I can remember. There is a definite consistency problem with enforcement and interpretation of the rules.
Compounding the issue is CCP's desire to not paint themselves into a corner.
EDIT : Rule of unintended consequences and all.. |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
5926
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 10:25:57 -
[3618] - Quote
CCP have create a clear grey area to discourage people from going into a certain direction. If this isn't a hint, I don't know what is.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4958
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 10:46:15 -
[3619] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:CCP have create a clear grey area to discourage people from going into a certain direction. If this isn't a hint, I don't know what is. Of course they don't. that's always been the most ridiculous argument. Creating a grey area simply means more people will do things they are not supposed to and get banned purely because they don't know what they are and are not supposed to do.
Nobody has an issue with following the rules CCP sets, but they have to put actual rules. As it currently stands, players who don't even use multiboxing tools have now been banned and STILL there's no clear answer on what is and isn't allowed. It's no wonder CCP is running a failing business with methods like these and quite frankly I hope mainstream gaming media picks up on it, as it seems the only way to get CCP to actually act is through negative press.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
Cynosural Field Theory.
1511
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 10:58:55 -
[3620] - Quote
Is it true that there were bans for people that multibox and did not even use a ISboxer or any other related software?
It is very common that people use 3-4 accounts in fleets (e.g. Dread, Triage, Super, Covert-ops)
There are some claims on a popular gaming website that are really disturbing.
Can somebody verify or falsify those claims?
TunDraGon is recruiting!
"Also, your boobs [:o] " -á
CCP Eterne, 2012
"When in doubt...make a di++k joke."-áRobin Williams - RIP
|
|
|
Serene Repose
2138
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 11:21:11 -
[3621] - Quote
Every time you create something, there's this tiny percentage of people who think their life's crusade is to circumvent it. Sometimes this is harmless. Sometimes it's just in bad taste. Other times, it's for personal profit or to juke a system. I think it's generous to create a freeware software to enhance games, if done with permission. However, I (and the entire gaming community that doesn't cheat - which is a decided majority) do not agree with third party applications giving people decided advantages in the actual game play.
I've watched videos of people "farming" in WoW using bots. They're presented as though the one doing it is being oh, so clever and smarter than everyone else. Personally, I don't think it's either. I think it's rather infantile and demonstrates a colossal approach to immaturity. It's always struck me - if they don't want to play the game - DON'T. This simple logic seems beyond these people so they can be called neither clever, nor smart. Only intelligent people can be stupid, so that doesn't count. (If an unintelligent person is doing something unintelligent, it's "normal" behavior.)
I don't see this as meat for a crusade with this boxer, third-party application. I do see this handful of people trying to force the issue on the forum here as a significant annoyance, however. Were they attempting similar behavior in a bar, for instance, some of my Harley driving friends might wish to discuss it in the parking lot and there'd be a lot of shouting for MOMMY going on from some precinct or another.
However, the simple fact is due to the nature of the forum, and internet, these people can continue to post their infantile BS and force our ISDs to inspect and lock their posts ad nauseum. This onslaught will never get public opinion on their side. They'll never inject a doubt which turns the playerbase against CCP, and in the end, all they'll do is anger people like ME.
TYVM. Have a nice day.
Treason never prospers. What is the reason?
Why, if it prospers, none dare call it "treason."
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11458
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 11:28:56 -
[3622] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:ashley Eoner wrote: Anyone that has played WoW knows that world pvp is very active.
Very actively botted, you mean. Bots comprise 40% or higher of their instanced PvP groups. And they do nothing about it either. I'd love to see a bot do WORLD pvp... Notice I said WORLD pvp not instance pvp or bg pvp or arena pvp... WORLD pvp...
Yeah, they're in the Ashran world PvP zone too. Tons of them. The worst part is the ones that auto interrupt you, so they're actually better fighters than most human players.
Automation must never be tolerated. Even one step in that direction is one step too many.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
5926
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 11:32:39 -
[3623] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:mainstream gaming media
Those have lost most of their authority if you were following things.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
Flash Startraveler
Startravelers
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 11:53:33 -
[3624] - Quote
Serene Repose wrote:Every time you create something, there's this tiny percentage of people who think their life's crusade is to circumvent it. Sometimes this is harmless. Sometimes it's just in bad taste. Other times, it's to juke a system for personal gain. I think it's generous to create a freeware software to enhance games, if done with permission. However, I (and the entire gaming community that doesn't cheat - which is a decided majority) do not agree with third party applications giving people decided advantages in the actual game play......
And so on
Have you even read what the last problem was that people had? It's not about the ones you called cheaters, its about those who don't cheat and are not using anything but a keyboard, a mouse and possibly more than one monitor but nothing else, no program etc. Right now we want to know where we are in this "grey area" as soon as we use more than one client at one time.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4958
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 12:02:54 -
[3625] - Quote
Eugene Kerner wrote:Is it true that there were bans for people that multibox and did not even use a ISboxer or any other related software? It is very common that people use 3-4 accounts in fleets (e.g. Dread, Triage, Super, Covert-ops) There are some claims on a popular gaming website that are really disturbing. Can somebody verify or falsify those claims? As far as such things can be told, at lest some of those claims are accurate. It's pretty much impossible to proved clear evidence though which is why it's so problematic. Even if CCP were to respond to people's tickets it's not really possible to prove you weren't using tools without CCP coming to your house for a live demo. At this point the safe choice is to deactivate most of your accounts and only use 1 at a time, so multiboxing in general is under serious threat.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
Cynosural Field Theory.
1511
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 12:21:29 -
[3626] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Eugene Kerner wrote:Is it true that there were bans for people that multibox and did not even use a ISboxer or any other related software? It is very common that people use 3-4 accounts in fleets (e.g. Dread, Triage, Super, Covert-ops) There are some claims on a popular gaming website that are really disturbing. Can somebody verify or falsify those claims? As far as such things can be told, at lest some of those claims are accurate. It's pretty much impossible to proved clear evidence though which is why it's so problematic. Even if CCP were to respond to people's tickets it's not really possible to prove you weren't using tools without CCP coming to your house for a live demo. At this point the safe choice is to deactivate most of your accounts and only use 1 at a time, so multiboxing in general is under serious threat.
That makes the game practically unplayable.
TunDraGon is recruiting!
"Also, your boobs [:o] " -á
CCP Eterne, 2012
"When in doubt...make a di++k joke."-áRobin Williams - RIP
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4958
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 12:21:38 -
[3627] - Quote
Serene Repose wrote:I've watched videos of people "farming" in WoW using bots. They're presented as though the one doing it is being oh, so clever and smarter than everyone else. Personally, I don't think it's either. I think it's rather infantile and demonstrates a colossal approach to immaturity. It's always struck me - if they don't want to play the game - DON'T. This simple logic seems beyond these people so they can be called neither clever, nor smart. Only intelligent people can be stupid, so that doesn't count. (If an unintelligent person is doing something unintelligent, it's "normal" behavior.) They do want to play the game, in the way they play it. Honestly, I don't care how you want to play a game. It's irrelevant to me. The problem I have with people like you is that you playing the game your way isn't good enough, you want everyone to play your way or not be allowed to play at all. How about you just mind your own business?
Serene Repose wrote:Were they attempting similar behavior in a bar, for instance, some of my Harley driving friends might wish to discuss it in the parking lot and there'd be a lot of shouting for MOMMY going on from some precinct, or another. So you complain about immaturity, then suggest that people stating their case on a game forum would be beaten up by your biker mate in a bar. Now that right there is hilarious.
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
4958
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 12:24:22 -
[3628] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:mainstream gaming media Those have lost most of their authority if you were following things. Among some gamers, yes. Most "normal" people however will continue to read gaming sites to determine if games are worth playing, and bad publicity is still bad for a game. If IGN put up an article highlighting how badly CCP treat their customers, I'm sure CCP would react.
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
4958
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 12:30:32 -
[3629] - Quote
Eugene Kerner wrote:That makes the game practically unplayable. Not really. I've trained up new traders on 2 of my alt accounts, I'm scrapping faction warfare, 50% of my T1 production, all of my T3 production and consolidating everything down to just 3 accounts and am working on reducing that to just 2. I'm currently already booked up for fanfest again this year, but once fanfest is over I'll be taking a serious look at whether or not EVE is really entertaining me enough to be worth sticking about. CCP seem to be almost completely incapable of communicating with their players, the community is growing more toxic by the day and the new releases leave much to be desired.
I've been enjoying Elite:Dangerous, and as it stands, their teams seems much more able to respond the their community in the right way. The fact that there's no subscription costs is a massive plus too.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
Cynosural Field Theory.
1512
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 12:44:11 -
[3630] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Eugene Kerner wrote:That makes the game practically unplayable. Not really. I've trained up new traders on 2 of my alt accounts, I'm scrapping faction warfare, 50% of my T1 production, all of my T3 production and consolidating everything down to just 3 accounts and am working on reducing that to just 2. I'm currently already booked up for fanfest again this year, but once fanfest is over I'll be taking a serious look at whether or not EVE is really entertaining me enough to be worth sticking about. CCP seem to be almost completely incapable of communicating with their players, the community is growing more toxic by the day and the new releases leave much to be desired. I've been enjoying Elite:Dangerous, and as it stands, their teams seems much more able to respond the their community in the right way. The fact that there's no subscription costs is a massive plus too.
There has to be a better solution than leaving. Everyone I know in this game does multibox. If people I know start to get bans for no reason I will have to re-evaluate though.
I am not plexing my accounts as I do not have time for grinding but whats the use of multiple (payed!) accounts if you can not run them simultaniously? (I am not talking of using software to multibox, but simply running multiple accounts over 1 IP at the same time)
Some official feedback seems to be overdue.
TunDraGon is recruiting!
"Also, your boobs [:o] " -á
CCP Eterne, 2012
"When in doubt...make a di++k joke."-áRobin Williams - RIP
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4958
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 13:38:08 -
[3631] - Quote
Eugene Kerner wrote:There has to be a better solution than leaving. Everyone I know in this game does multibox. If people I know start to get bans for no reason I will have to re-evaluate though.
I am not plexing my accounts as I do not have time for grinding but whats the use of multiple (payed!) accounts if you can not run them simultaniously? (I am not talking of using software to multibox, but simply running multiple accounts over 1 IP at the same time)
Some official feedback seems to be overdue. I'm sure there is a better solution. CCP actually responding to the community when serious questions are raised would be a good start. The thing is I've played EVE (with bits of inactivity) for coming on 10 years now, and I'm fed up with it always being that the solution is just around the corner. Right now they've got everyone into the habit of using multiboxing, have claimed multiboxing is unaffected, then have banned players who are multiboxing without tools and still they refuse to enter into a reasonable discussion about it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
Cosmic Consortium
5720
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 13:58:36 -
[3632] - Quote
Allowed Input Broadcasting wrote:To clarify what is and is not allowed, I sent in a petition with a list of commands in question. That list is as follows
- Opening cargohold
- Opening orehold
- Opening/closing "people/places" window
- Creating a bookmark
- Deleting a bookmark from "people/places" window
- Activating survey scanners
- Managing inventory in station (ex clicking "ship hangar")
- Managing fittings in station (ex fitting module from hangar)
- Clicking "join fleet" when invited
Are any of those:
- Adjusting window size
- Logging in to the game
If the answer is "no", then those actions are not allowed to be broadcast. You know this. Why do you waste GM time with these petitions?
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
Cosmic Consortium
5720
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 14:00:47 -
[3633] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I'm sure there is a better solution. CCP actually responding to the community when serious questions are raised would be a good start.
Asking meaningful questions would be a good start, rather than attempting to flood the GMs with questions and hoping that someone makes a mistake that you can capitalise on.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Flash Startraveler
Startravelers
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 14:16:55 -
[3634] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote: flood the GMs with questions
If noone aswers the questions, they add up and every time you try to start a new thread for a special kind of question it gets locked an you get redirected to this one. They want us to ask, they give no answers. I'm sure they still read this, as they tend to do with every somwhat relevant thread, they just ignore us, which is actually not the way you treat someone that pays for you stuff....
It could be that they are planning something, but if they do it's like the generic EA game. Release something unfinished and finish it on the way. This time the release something, that hurt some people alot and theatens even more, so they start complaining.
The other possibility is that they can't track if someone is input multiplexing or just multiboxing in legal a way and are not sure how to handle it. Reverse the changes would look ridiculous and make a lot of the anti-ISBoxers really angry. But leaving it the way it is right now makes it quite possible for everyone commanding two clients at the same time to get banned, so it can't stay like that. I assume that admitting something like this would take a lot of this earlier mentioned "bad press"
Gé¼: I really like this game and the people who keep it going and evolving, but as it seems, all these NDA's lead to a support that is unable to tell the community what is going on, which leaves us as players a litte helpless, so we start asking questions. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
163
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 14:37:03 -
[3635] - Quote
Eugene Kerner wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Eugene Kerner wrote:That makes the game practically unplayable. Not really. I've trained up new traders on 2 of my alt accounts, I'm scrapping faction warfare, 50% of my T1 production, all of my T3 production and consolidating everything down to just 3 accounts and am working on reducing that to just 2. I'm currently already booked up for fanfest again this year, but once fanfest is over I'll be taking a serious look at whether or not EVE is really entertaining me enough to be worth sticking about. CCP seem to be almost completely incapable of communicating with their players, the community is growing more toxic by the day and the new releases leave much to be desired. I've been enjoying Elite:Dangerous, and as it stands, their teams seems much more able to respond the their community in the right way. The fact that there's no subscription costs is a massive plus too. There has to be a better solution than leaving. Everyone I know in this game does multibox. If people I know start to get bans for no reason I will have to re-evaluate though. I am not plexing my accounts as I do not have time for grinding but whats the use of multiple (payed!) accounts if you can not run them simultaniously? (I am not talking of using software to multibox, but simply running multiple accounts over 1 IP at the same time) Some official feedback seems to be overdue.
and have most of the people you know been banned?
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
Cosmic Consortium
5721
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 14:56:00 -
[3636] - Quote
Flash Startraveler wrote:Mara Rinn wrote: flood the GMs with questions If noone aswers the questions, they add up and every time you try to start a new thread for a special kind of question it gets locked an you get redirected to this one. They want us to ask, they give no answers. I'm sure they still read this, as they tend to do with every somwhat relevant thread, they just ignore us, which is actually not the way you treat someone that pays for you stuff.... It could be that they are planning something, but if they do it's like the generic EA game. Release something unfinished and finish it on the way. This time the release something, that hurt some people alot and theatens even more, so they start complaining. The other possibility is that they can't track if someone is input multiplexing or just multiboxing in legal a way and are not sure how to handle it. Reverse the changes would look ridiculous and make a lot of the anti-ISBoxers really angry. But leaving it the way it is right now makes it quite possible for everyone commanding two clients at the same time to get banned, so it can't stay like that. I assume that admitting something like this would take a lot of this earlier mentioned "bad press"
They want you to ask meaningful questions. You are spamming them with crap. You then complain that they aren't taking you seriously.
The ISBoxer community went to great effort to find ways to work around the broadcasting ban, such as trying to evade their own interpretation of broadcasting and automation by simply using round-robin and delayed keystrokes to pretend they weren't keystroke broadcasting. Then these people complained that they got banned for just "being really fast."
The entire point of the ban was to remove the mechanical advantage.
As far as your speculation of CCP not being able to track if someone is input multiplexing or just multi boxing, there are some very easy metrics that CCP is in a unique position to capture. Anyone who has read up on botting studies in the past will have a good idea of the types of strategies that CCP can employ without engaging in Blizzard-style monitoring of the end-user's computer.
The techniques required will also be capable of a very low false positive rate.
For the meantime, if you are in doubt as to whether some action you trigger in space counts as an in-space action or not (and thus falls under that "don't do this" rule), perhaps consider not doing it. If the action is anything other than logging into the game or adjusting window sizes and position, then I'd suggest that it's a game-affecting action.
Here's how you know if you're multi boxing legitimately: one button press leads to one action in the game.
Here's how you know if you're multi boxing illegitimately: one button press leads to more stuff happening than just one action in the game.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Flash Startraveler
Startravelers
3
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 15:14:07 -
[3637] - Quote
i'm just gonna quote myself (again)
Me wrote:Have you even read what the last problem was that people had? It's not about the ones you called cheaters, its about those who don't cheat and are not using anything but a keyboard, a mouse and possibly more than one monitor but nothing else, no program etc. Right now we want to know where we are in this "grey area" as soon as we use more than one client at one time.
Free your mind from the fact that everyone in here that is against the bans is using ISBoxer... Lots of people multibox in eve. Rumor has it, that some of these innocent people have been banned and as far as my knowledge goes, there are lots if people MULTIBOXING WITHOUT THE USE OF ANY KIND OF PROGRAM BUT ONLY USING THEIR HANDS (i hope this is clear now) which now are threatened of being banned just for commanding more than one client at one time.
We ask meaningful, well thought through questions and as far as we are allowed to talk about stuff without getting censored we try to bring in evidence.
And then theres people like you just throwing in constructive stuff like
"ALL MULTIBOXERS ARE BAD"
and
"IF YOU ARE USING A PROGRAM YOU SHOULD BE BANNED"
Feel free to read what this is all about on the last pages and then comment again
Mara Rinn wrote:The entire point of the ban was to remove the mechanical advantage.
which didn't work out
Mara Rinn wrote:
As far as your speculation of CCP not being able to track if someone is input multiplexing or just multi boxing, there are some very easy metrics that CCP is in a unique position to capture. Anyone who has read up on botting studies in the past will have a good idea of the types of strategies that CCP can employ without engaging in Blizzard-style monitoring of the end-user's computer.
The techniques required will also be capable of a very low false positive rate.
Which is exactly what we don't know, so we can't tell how far you can safely multibox at the moment WITHOUT THE USE OF ANY KIND OF PROGRAM, without getting banned, so we ask Quote:meaningful questions |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4959
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 15:15:52 -
[3638] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I'm sure there is a better solution. CCP actually responding to the community when serious questions are raised would be a good start. Asking meaningful questions would be a good start, rather than attempting to flood the GMs with questions and hoping that someone makes a mistake that you can capitalise on. See, now that's not happening. Someone asks a simple question such as "Will players be banned for using VideoFX?" or "If a manual multiboxer controlling 2 pilots on 2 screens is able to control both pilots too quickly, will he be banned?" the answer to both is apparently "Yes", but it's take people actually being banned to find this out and even then everything has to be secretly shared behind the scenes because telling someone else what you got banned for is also a bannable offsense.
The multiboxing community wanted a nice, straightforward discussion. They consolidated their questions and worries and wanted to put a handful of players together to discuss it with CCP with the outcome being put out as an official response. CCP apparently didn't want that, they simply suggested people raise tickets which they can ignore until they get closed for inactivity.
From the start of this there have been multiple people with very straightforward questions over what this means for their playstyle and how they can adapt to work within the new rules safely without just dropping to one account at a time. CCP don't seem to want to answer though, and now players who supposedly weren't even the target of this change are paying for it.
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
4959
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 15:22:31 -
[3639] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:The ISBoxer community went to great effort to find ways to work around the broadcasting ban, such as trying to evade their own interpretation of broadcasting and automation by simply using round-robin and delayed keystrokes to pretend they weren't keystroke broadcasting. Then these people complained that they got banned for just "being really fast." Round robin isn't broadcasting. And no, the multiboxing community were putting these things forwards as legitimate concerns around how far the ban extended. If CCP wanted to ban all of those things they could simply say "Yes, that is also banned", and people would abide by it. Instead CCP say "you have to ask in a ticket", then in the ticket the GM says "you have to ask in this thread".
I understand that it doesn't affect you and combined with your lack of ability to consider something from someone else's position means you don't care, but the players this affects have for the most part been incredibly reasonable and they have been treated like they don't exist. It's absolutely disgusting customer service.
Mara Rinn wrote:As far as your speculation of CCP not being able to track if someone is input multiplexing or just multi boxing, there are some very easy metrics that CCP is in a unique position to capture. Anyone who has read up on botting studies in the past will have a good idea of the types of strategies that CCP can employ without engaging in Blizzard-style monitoring of the end-user's computer. If that were the case, then manual multiboxer wouldn't be getting banned, and yet...
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Serene Repose
2140
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 16:19:53 -
[3640] - Quote
Flash Startraveler wrote:Serene Repose wrote:Every time you create something, there's this tiny percentage of people who think their life's crusade is to circumvent it. Sometimes this is harmless. Sometimes it's just in bad taste. Other times, it's to juke a system for personal gain. I think it's generous to create a freeware software to enhance games, if done with permission. However, I (and the entire gaming community that doesn't cheat - which is a decided majority) do not agree with third party applications giving people decided advantages in the actual game play......
And so on Have you even read what the last problem was that people had? It's not about the ones you called cheaters, its about those who don't cheat and are not using anything but a keyboard, a mouse and possibly more than one monitor but nothing else, no program etc. Right now we want to know where we are in this "grey area" as soon as we use more than one client at one time. Condescend much? Yeah. I've read what is being posted by a couple of folks in GD...that to which I referred.
Do I get a prize? TYVM.
By the way. You assume a great deal. The overbearing approach you use inspires less than sympathy AND...it's as though you think someone OWES you an answer. I don't. Deal with it.
Treason never prospers. What is the reason?
Why, if it prospers, none dare call it "treason."
|
|
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
163
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 16:27:29 -
[3641] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:The ISBoxer community went to great effort to find ways to work around the broadcasting ban, such as trying to evade their own interpretation of broadcasting and automation by simply using round-robin and delayed keystrokes to pretend they weren't keystroke broadcasting. Then these people complained that they got banned for just "being really fast." Round robin isn't broadcasting. And no, the multiboxing community were putting these things forwards as legitimate concerns around how far the ban extended. If CCP wanted to ban all of those things they could simply say "Yes, that is also banned", and people would abide by it. Instead CCP say "you have to ask in a ticket", then in the ticket the GM says "you have to ask in this thread". I understand that it doesn't affect you and combined with your lack of ability to consider something from someone else's position means you don't care, but the players this affects have for the most part been incredibly reasonable and they have been treated like they don't exist. It's absolutely disgusting customer service. Mara Rinn wrote:As far as your speculation of CCP not being able to track if someone is input multiplexing or just multi boxing, there are some very easy metrics that CCP is in a unique position to capture. Anyone who has read up on botting studies in the past will have a good idea of the types of strategies that CCP can employ without engaging in Blizzard-style monitoring of the end-user's computer. If that were the case, then manual multiboxer wouldn't be getting banned, and yet...
and yet what?
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4962
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 16:47:51 -
[3642] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:and yet what? And yet they are. Keep up.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
163
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 16:50:19 -
[3643] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Lady Rift wrote:and yet what? And yet they are. Keep up.
real proof of this? beyond anecdotal evidence |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
612
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 16:54:22 -
[3644] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Lady Rift wrote:and yet what? And yet they are. Keep up. real proof of this? beyond anecdotal evidence
What exactly would it take to make you believe?
And why is it that whenever people rail against ISBoxer claiming "wah he's got an unfair advantage" while providing no proof, it's "Listen and Believe!" but whenever we try to do something it's met with cries of "SAUCE" and "proof!"? Talk to the people yourself. I've talked to one of those banned firsthand. It was fun, you know, human interaction and all. |
Flash Startraveler
Startravelers
3
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 16:55:49 -
[3645] - Quote
Serene Repose wrote:Condescend much?
Calling people infants and then complain about a likewise answer...
Serene Repose wrote:someone OWES you an answer.
If you dont want to know what the solution for this is, feel free not to visit this thread anymore. And yes, as long as i have to pay for this game to play it, i'd like to know if i can get banned the way i play. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4963
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:03:42 -
[3646] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Lady Rift wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Lady Rift wrote:and yet what? And yet they are. Keep up. real proof of this? beyond anecdotal evidence What exactly would it take to make you believe? And why is it that whenever people rail against ISBoxer claiming "wah he's got an unfair advantage" while providing no proof, it's "Listen and Believe!" but whenever we try to do something it's met with cries of "SAUCE" and "proof!"? Talk to the people yourself. I've talked to one of those banned firsthand. It was fun, you know, human interaction and all. So much this.
Beyond that, if people were to provide proof, they would also be banned as providing the proof is also against the EULA.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
163
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:06:49 -
[3647] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Lady Rift wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Lady Rift wrote:and yet what? And yet they are. Keep up. real proof of this? beyond anecdotal evidence What exactly would it take to make you believe? And why is it that whenever people rail against ISBoxer claiming "wah he's got an unfair advantage" while providing no proof, it's "Listen and Believe!" but whenever we try to do something it's met with cries of "SAUCE" and "proof!"? Talk to the people yourself. I've talked to one of those banned firsthand. It was fun, you know, human interaction and all.
Those are other people. I never railed against isboxer or any other form of mutli broadcasting/input. Most of what people said was damaging the game was anecdotal also. But CCP made a dev blog and starting more enforcing of there rules.
While the ones I've talked to that run more than one account haven't been banned if you want more anecdotal evidence. I personally run my 4 with no problem.
But as of yet the only things that are not anecdotal is that CCP has said they were gong to start enforcing a tiered banning system on something that they don't want in there game.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
613
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:14:56 -
[3648] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:While the ones I've talked to that run more than one account haven't been banned if you want more anecdotal evidence. I personally run my 4 with no problem.
Wait, you're asking your friends, in game, if they have been banned?
I think I found your problem.
Head over to the ISBoxer forum and ask for "Sumeragy". He was one of the leads in getting a setup to work without using straight broadcasting, so the idea that he was banned for "reverting to straight broadcasting" is hilarious, and I giggle whenever I hear it. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
163
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:17:28 -
[3649] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Lady Rift wrote:While the ones I've talked to that run more than one account haven't been banned if you want more anecdotal evidence. I personally run my 4 with no problem. Wait, you're asking your friends, in game, if they have been banned? I think I found your problem. Head over to the ISBoxer forum and ask for "Sumeragy". He was one of the leads in getting a setup to work without using straight broadcasting, so the idea that he was banned for "reverting to straight broadcasting" is hilarious, and I giggle whenever I hear it.
out of game. Unless you think TS is in game. The people I game with not only play eve there are many many other wonderful games out there. |
Kaphrah
Kaphrah Corporation4
31
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:19:42 -
[3650] - Quote
There are a lot of reasons CCP should finally give out some information what is fine and what is forbidden, just using this little story here:
Flying Incursions as usual, our fleet won a contest, people in local start raging about ISBoxer and sh*t, and told me they gonna report me. At this moment, I had a great and big questionmark above my head wtf those guys were thinking, so I posted them plop this one, to show how I play. Guess what, they were happy I posted "evidence" for my multiboxing crime and included it in their petition. (what the actual f***...)
I don't wanna log on some day and find my accounts banned (they usually fly 3-4 logis), just because some tard reported me for input broadcasting/ISBoxing whatever I never even did. Yes, I am able to use those really fast, if you're fast enough, they run even synced cause the server tick is so long.
(For the special snowflakes in this thread: No, there is no software, just 4 normal clients on 2 screens, Inb4 forumwarrior-hightech-CSImiami-pictureanalysis)
Oh btw I used ISBoxer on my laptop cause the screen was too small to use eve in windowed mode, so I needed it for a small videoFX window and a bit of window management, so I asked in a ticket if it was ok. Got told to ask in this thread here, still no answer. |
|
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
239
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:03:21 -
[3651] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I'm sure there is a better solution. CCP actually responding to the community when serious questions are raised would be a good start. Asking meaningful questions would be a good start, rather than attempting to flood the GMs with questions and hoping that someone makes a mistake that you can capitalise on. See, now that's not happening. Someone asks a simple question such as "Will players be banned for using VideoFX?" or "If a manual multiboxer controlling 2 pilots on 2 screens is able to control both pilots too quickly, will he be banned?" the answer to both is apparently "Yes", but it's take people actually being banned to find this out and even then everything has to be secretly shared behind the scenes because telling someone else what you got banned for is also a bannable offsense. The multiboxing community wanted a nice, straightforward discussion. They consolidated their questions and worries and wanted to put a handful of players together to discuss it with CCP with the outcome being put out as an official response. CCP apparently didn't want that, they simply suggested people raise tickets which they can ignore until they get closed for inactivity. From the start of this there have been multiple people with very straightforward questions over what this means for their playstyle and how they can adapt to work within the new rules safely without just dropping to one account at a time. CCP don't seem to want to answer though, and now players who supposedly weren't even the target of this change are paying for it.
Define multiboxing community...
I multibox 3 accounts with no outside help, I have no concerns whatsoever. (I don't remember anyone asking either )
So to pretend to know what the community wants or wanted is really a load of bull.
You go on about THEY consolidated THEIR questions, WHO did? Normal players like me running a few accounts?
Or guys worried about what they are using? |
ashley Eoner
394
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:22:21 -
[3652] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Abrazzar wrote:CCP have create a clear grey area to discourage people from going into a certain direction. If this isn't a hint, I don't know what is. Of course they don't. that's always been the most ridiculous argument. Creating a grey area simply means more people will do things they are not supposed to and get banned purely because they don't know what they are and are not supposed to do. Nobody has an issue with following the rules CCP sets, but they have to put actual rules. As it currently stands, players who don't even use multiboxing tools have now been banned and STILL there's no clear answer on what is and isn't allowed. It's no wonder CCP is running a failing business with methods like these and quite frankly I hope mainstream gaming media picks up on it, as it seems the only way to get CCP to actually act is through negative press.
Yeah when the grey area includes how fast you're allowed to hit hotkeys......
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Yeah, they're in the Ashran world PvP zone too. Tons of them. The worst part is the ones that auto interrupt you, so they're actually better fighters than most human players.
Automation must never be tolerated. Even one step in that direction is one step too many.
That's not what I'm talking about but I will admit that is technically world pvp. It's clear you're trying to be as silly about this as possible because I know you're not too dense to realize I'm talking about PVP out in the regular world including the questing and leveling areas. Not those singular regions that are designed for competition.
No one in this thread is asking for a step towards automation and you know that.
|
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
2387
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:27:57 -
[3653] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:I do not know if I am impressed or depressed that this thread is still going.
I guess everybody has a right to fight their corner. I figure another couple of months before people learn the new borders or are removed m Would really help if CCP simply let people know what the borders are rather that forcing people to share GM correspondence behind the scenes, since even if someone is banned he's not allowed to tell others to warn them of where the line was. That's what the dumbest part of all of this is. People would be happy to abide by the rules IF CCP ACTUALLY TOLD PEOPLE WHAT WAS AND WASN'T ALLOWED. Hey, wait, you're a CSM member. You're supposed to facilitate communication between CCP and it's players. Do your job, otherwise what's the point in having you?
See? You and I disagree on a basic thing, there. People are not willing to abide by the rules, they will begrudgingly strip the rules to the thinnest of edges and then try to lawyer an extra advantage out of them if at all possible.
Or maybe I know meaner people than you do.
So CCP is faced with the dilemma of black and white 'this is the line' or a grey area where they can evaluate things on a case by case basis. You say they did the latter but I think they have been fairly forthcoming in saying 'you multi-broadcast? you gone'. 'you publish private communication with GMs? You gone.' Not too, grey an area, in my opinion.
Doing my job? I am. I am here talking to you and listening. I am following the occasional isboxer thread when it is linked to me.
But.
CSM (contrary to some folks conspiracy theories) has little to do with bannings. We do not oversee that. We discuss the results (after) or the reasons(before) with CCP but we are not the security oversight committee. But I wade through threads like this because I do think it is one of my tasks. To know what the issues are and to be able to discuss them with CCP and with you.
If you want my opinion? Here it is.
If you get banned your name and accused crime is published Name and shame
If the ban is overturned you get an apology. . . and the egg is on CCP's face.
This would bypass all the secrecy and let people know that this is a place where rules are enforced.
I do NOT CARE that they were not enforced before, they ARE NOW. Do not drag up ancient history. Argue your point from todays rules, not yesterdays.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4972
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:39:19 -
[3654] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Define multiboxing community...
I multibox 3 accounts with no outside help, I have no concerns whatsoever. (I don't remember anyone asking either )
So to pretend to know what the community wants or wanted is really a load of bull.
You go on about THEY consolidated THEIR questions, WHO did? Normal players like me running a few accounts?
Or guys worried about what they are using? Well you multibox alone I imagine. By multiboxing community, I mean the larger group of players who multibox and share tactics, setups, generally chat, etc. The guys responsible for putting togheter an incredibly reasonable proposal for a discussion with CCP were from dual-boxing.com for example.
There are plenty of "normal players" like you who also wish CCP to answer some questions. Ones being banned for example.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
614
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:45:33 -
[3655] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:CSM (contrary to some folks conspiracy theories) has little to do with bannings. We do not oversee that. We discuss the results (after) or the reasons(before) with CCP but we are not the security oversight committee. But I wade through threads like this because I do think it is one of my tasks. To know what the issues are and to be able to discuss them with CCP and with you.
The CSM brought this to CCP. You are directly responsible for CCP's false flags, especially AFTER we told you it wouldn't work
If you really wanted to know the issues with this, you would have come to the ISBoxing forums and talked to us. You would have realized from the beginning that stuff like this was going to happen.
CCP has stated that they don't want to create a line, because people will go right up to it but not dare cross. Forgive me for being dense, but isn't that the reason for a freaking line in the sand? If you create a nebulous void, you have people crossing the line that CCP intended to be there. They get banned, they start asking "what did I do wrong?", point to the nebulous void, and say "That was never covered!". CCP in turn stifles all discussion, bans anyone who *may* have entered that nebulous void, and pretends that Everything Is FineGäó. Reminds me of that comic of the dog drinking in a bar that's on fire and his flesh is melting off.
We don't care either that they were enforced before(ok, we care a tiny bit as we have always been open to talking to CCP). We made our changes to compensate for CCP's decision, changes that were agreed upon earlier in the thread to be in line with the new EULA. Now we're getting banned for these false flags. What did you honestly expect when the people who know the program tell you something won't work. If you take your car to a mechanic, and the dude tells you that you can't use duct tape to hold the engine in place, are you going to believe the mechanic, or your redneck cousin who first told you to use duct tape? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4972
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:50:03 -
[3656] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:See? You and I disagree on a basic thing, there. People are not willing to abide by the rules, they will begrudgingly strip the rules to the thinnest of edges and then try to lawyer an extra advantage out of them if at all possible.
Or maybe I know meaner people than you do. No, I'm in agreement that people will probably do this. I just believe those same people will do exactly this whether there's a grey area or not. The only thing adding a grey area does is mean that those other people who are fully willing to abide by the rules are going to get swept up in bans too, and that I don't like.
Mike Azariah wrote:So CCP is faced with the dilemma of black and white 'this is the line' or a grey area where they can evaluate things on a case by case basis. You say they did the latter but I think they have been fairly forthcoming in saying 'you multi-broadcast? you gone'. 'you publish private communication with GMs? You gone.' Not too, grey an area, in my opinion. Grey enough that there are people not using any form of multiboxing software reportedly being banned.
Mike Azariah wrote:Doing my job? I am. I am here talking to you and listening. I am following the occasional isboxer thread when it is linked to me.
But.
CSM (contrary to some folks conspiracy theories) has little to do with bannings. We do not oversee that. We discuss the results (after) or the reasons(before) with CCP but we are not the security oversight committee. But I wade through threads like this because I do think it is one of my tasks. To know what the issues are and to be able to discuss them with CCP and with you. You have little to do with bannings, but you facilitate dialogue between players and CCP. That's pretty much the reason the CSM exists. There are a lot of people here, many with very reasonable questions who are not getting answered. We're told to post tickets, so we do. We then get told to post here, we do that too, then nothing. So yes, do your job. Tell CCP that it's not right to leave players with absolutely nowhere to turn with questions. We really don't care what the answer is, they can ban every piece of software in existence and make us use an EVE OS if they want to (though I'd take it as a kindness if they didn't), but we are paying customers with legitimate concerns and we deserve to be treated as such.
I don't mean to come across as harsh to yourself, I know what you do is voluntary and very demanding, but you are who we are supposed to turn to when CCP is not communicating with us.
Mike Azariah wrote:If you get banned your name and accused crime is published Name and shame
If the ban is overturned you get an apology. . . and the egg is on CCP's face.
This would bypass all the secrecy and let people know that this is a place where rules are enforced.
I do NOT CARE that they were not enforced before, they ARE NOW. Do not drag up ancient history. Argue your point from todays rules, not yesterdays. I'd have no problem with that, and it would certainly give us an idea of what we are not allowed to do rather than trying to guess as we have to now. And I'm happy to abide by today's rules. Most people aren't really sure what today's rules actually are though.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11480
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:55:47 -
[3657] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I'd have no problem with that, and it would certainly give us an idea of what we are not allowed to do rather than trying to guess as we have to now. And I'm happy to abide by today's rules. Most people aren't really sure what today's rules actually are though.
Oh, the ****ing irony.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:23:26 -
[3658] - Quote
From what I can tell so far, CCP is really really trying their very best, a game company dedicated to making their players.....WIN
CCP must really enjoy letting their players WIN Eve
I detest grey areas in any matters, particularly when it is the company, that cannot provide clear concise reasoning to our requests and concerns.
This is the current model for multiboxers using "Hardware or software shenanigans"
1. The worry phase, you read the forum post, 10x better than any idiot in local who goes "lol multibxing is banned hax00rrrzzzz"
You try your best to not panic, and think of a setup that will work for your dreams of the game, (after all, following your ambitions and ultimately succeeding is a juicy part of Eve online)
2. The Setup phase, you have done it, you have developed a setup that will allow your activities, and people on the forums for multiboxing sites all seem to be doing the same, but you still worry and send in a ticket anyways (because you love eve and don't want to be banned......surely CCP will help answer any questions in a non flowchart way....right?)
3. Send the petition in *
4. Response * (redirecting you to this forum post)
5. You reply that the post is very long and no helpful devs have really said anything, no answer, ticket gets shut down from inactivity
6. You send a similar ticket on another account, and you notice there are copy paste blocks of text that are identical
7. Another ticket, another account, just to verify
Yup
The impression (and inb4 rage, but this is just the way thing seem to me) is I continue to receive a communist style government feeling when I read responses such as...
CCP not having a public debate on the matters (see podcast with ccp falcon)
Not being able to share responses (which I understand on a larger scale, but the current situation is in dire need for communication)
Cannot speak on matters of people not using software and yet being banned, until I see proof (oh wait, that's illegal)
TLDR: CCP, make people quit from lack of service, we all win Eve |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
614
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:28:32 -
[3659] - Quote
Guys, you're missing one simple fact of life.
If a guy is going to install a botting software such as GûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûê, and the botting software is directly breaking the EULA even with a nice black line in the sand, he's going to do it no matter how nebulous the grey area is. However, make the grey area nebulous enough to obscure the line, and people will use programs that are just barely crossing the line, or just barely legal. This is (and was) the current situation that CCP is entangled in. |
Marsha Mallow
1883
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:42:51 -
[3660] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Guys, you're missing one simple fact of life.
If a guy is going to install a botting software such as GûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûê, and the botting software is directly breaking the EULA even with a nice black line in the sand, he's going to do it no matter how nebulous the grey area is. However, make the grey area nebulous enough to obscure the line, and people will use programs that are just barely crossing the line, or just barely legal. This is (and was) the current situation that CCP is entangled in.
You could just stop botting, and trying to justify it.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
614
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 01:35:15 -
[3661] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Guys, you're missing one simple fact of life.
If a guy is going to install a botting software such as GûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûê, and the botting software is directly breaking the EULA even with a nice black line in the sand, he's going to do it no matter how nebulous the grey area is. However, make the grey area nebulous enough to obscure the line, and people will use programs that are just barely crossing the line, or just barely legal. This is (and was) the current situation that CCP is entangled in. You could just stop botting, and trying to justify it.
Listen, cupcake. ISBoxer is not botting, no matter how many times you or other people say so on the forums. The software I was referring to was not ISBoxer. The biggest difference between that software and ISBoxer is, is that ISBoxer requires a warm body behind the keyboard to do anything, and botting doesn't. |
ashley Eoner
395
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 03:59:59 -
[3662] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Guys, you're missing one simple fact of life.
If a guy is going to install a botting software such as GûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûê, and the botting software is directly breaking the EULA even with a nice black line in the sand, he's going to do it no matter how nebulous the grey area is. However, make the grey area nebulous enough to obscure the line, and people will use programs that are just barely crossing the line, or just barely legal. This is (and was) the current situation that CCP is entangled in. You could just stop botting, and trying to justify it.
Responded/10
Now go troll some other threads. |
DaReaper
Net 7
1725
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 05:52:52 -
[3663] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Grey enough that there are people not using any form of multiboxing software reportedly being banned..
Only replying to this part:
I have been here long enough to say that most of the time someone says "i was not banned for doing x. i was not even using x" 99% of the time they are lying.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
ashley Eoner
396
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 07:29:23 -
[3664] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Grey enough that there are people not using any form of multiboxing software reportedly being banned.. Only replying to this part: I have been here long enough to say that most of the time someone says "i was not banned for doing x. i was not even using x" 99% of the time they are lying.
I used to think that too till I was banned in a game for something I wasn't doing. I at least give people the benefit of the doubt but always with a healthy dose of skepticism.. |
Marsha Mallow
1884
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 11:29:42 -
[3665] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Marsha Mallow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Guys, you're missing one simple fact of life.
If a guy is going to install a botting software such as GûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûê, and the botting software is directly breaking the EULA even with a nice black line in the sand, he's going to do it no matter how nebulous the grey area is. However, make the grey area nebulous enough to obscure the line, and people will use programs that are just barely crossing the line, or just barely legal. This is (and was) the current situation that CCP is entangled in. You could just stop botting, and trying to justify it. Listen, cupcake. ISBoxer is not botting, no matter how many times you or other people say so on the forums. The software I was referring to was not ISBoxer. The biggest difference between that software and ISBoxer is, is that ISBoxer requires a warm body behind the keyboard to do anything, and botting doesn't.
You made the botting remarks yourself. I've highlighted them, see.
CCP also appear to class 'input automation' as botting:
CCP Falcon wrote:Input Automation refers to actions that are commonly also referred to as botting or macroing.
I could rephrase the question. Why don't you just stop using ISBoxer and trying to justify it?
'Just barely crossing the line' sounds to me like 'I demand the right to cheat and then try to weasel out of it by claiming I didn't know it was cheating, because being told this action will result in a ban simply wasn't clear enough. Give me a list of clear rules so I can actively break all of the ones you forgot to mention. Oh, and I demand an apology, this is an outrage.'
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
247
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 11:38:46 -
[3666] - Quote
From Dirk MacGirk on the DJ BigCountry show on Eve Radio:
Quote:The Word of the Dev:
In the beginning God created the video game. But his creation was formless and empty of social interaction as it was designed for individual players, alone in their bedrooms.
And God said, GÇ£Let there be MMOs,GÇ¥ and there were MMOs. 4 God saw that the MMO was good, and he witnessed the individual players come together to play with one another.
Then God said, GÇ£let there be the sandbox where my creation can be free to choose their path,GÇ¥ and his creation so chose to be free of artificial constraints.
Then God said, GÇ£let the players create multiple accounts and so that my creation can take on the roles of the many.GÇ¥
And the players did expand their subscriptions and with it the labor of their works.
He called these of his creation, multiboxers
God saw all that he had made, and it was good. He looked upon his creation and their multiple accounts and was indeed content.
But the players were not alone with God. Hiding amongst GodGÇÖs other creations were those who would seek to change his sandbox and blaspheme his works.
These fallen angels brought forth new works in order to lure his creation into taking more from the sandbox, but with less effort.
Some spewed forth demonic automation, which was purged by the caretakers of the sandbox. However, other lesser demons, known as the ISBoxerites, sought to hide their works from him by hiding among the multiboxers.
The ISBoxerites hid in the shadows for generations, taking more from the sandbox than was due from their efforts.
And while the caretakers of the sandbox looked the other way, GodGÇÖs creation cried out, GÇ£Lord, why hast thou forsaken us? Why do you allow the work of the heretics to go unpunished, while those most loyal to your Word are forced to labor under your vague law?GÇ¥
And God heard his peopleGÇÖs cry of whoa, and sent forth Archangel Falcon to spread a new word.
No longer would the ISBoxerites and other lesser demons be allowed to take from the farm and from the field more than was equitable to the measure of their labors.
And the ISBoxerites screamed out in rage and **** posts at the lessening of their status in the sandbox.
But God saw that their claims and cries were without merit and denounced them as the unfaithful.
No longer would they be allowed to hide among the multiboxers and no longer would they take more than was their due.
And the ISboxerites were forced to conform or leave the sandbox forever.
This is the word of the Dev GÇô Thanks be to the Dev
source: http://www-origin.twitch.tv/everadiolive/b/616958066
The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
|
Kaphrah
Kaphrah Corporation4
33
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 12:02:41 -
[3667] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Guys, you're missing one simple fact of life.
If a guy is going to install a botting software such as GûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûê, and the botting software is directly breaking the EULA even with a nice black line in the sand, he's going to do it no matter how nebulous the grey area is. However, make the grey area nebulous enough to obscure the line, and people will use programs that are just barely crossing the line, or just barely legal. This is (and was) the current situation that CCP is entangled in. You could just stop botting, and trying to justify it. Listen, cupcake. ISBoxer is not botting, no matter how many times you or other people say so on the forums. The software I was referring to was not ISBoxer. The biggest difference between that software and ISBoxer is, is that ISBoxer requires a warm body behind the keyboard to do anything, and botting doesn't. You made the botting remarks yourself. I've highlighted them, see. CCP also appear to class 'input automation' as botting: CCP Falcon wrote:Input Automation refers to actions that are commonly also referred to as botting or macroing. I could rephrase the question. Why don't you just stop using ISBoxer and trying to justify it? 'Just barely crossing the line' sounds to me like 'I demand the right to cheat and then try to weasel out of it by claiming I didn't know it was cheating, because being told this action will result in a ban simply wasn't clear enough. Give me a list of clear rules so I can actively break all of the ones you forgot to mention. Oh, and I demand an apology, this is an outrage.'
You do realize ISBoxer isn't really needed here? Get one of those logitech usb 20 hotkey boards, modify your windows a bit and there you go. Those people do not broadcast, they ask if their mostly hotkey based very fast working solutions are ok if used in ISBoxer, or if they get banned for 1 command per client at 1 time just because they are too fast (but perfectly following the rules!)
and another guy who did not understand that the isboxers asking stuff here are using exactly the same amount of commands as everybody else is per client. they are just FASTER with it. it can be achieved without isboxer, it is just easier with it.
Gé¼: A wild Kaphrah appeared. Kaphrah used Logic. The Forum is confused. |
Flash Startraveler
Startravelers
4
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 12:46:38 -
[3668] - Quote
Quoteception!!!
Flash Startraveler wrote:i'm just gonna quote myself (again) Me wrote:Have you even read what the last problem was that people had? It's not about the ones you called cheaters, its about those who don't cheat and are not using anything but a keyboard, a mouse and possibly more than one monitor but nothing else, no program etc. Right now we want to know where we are in this "grey area" as soon as we use more than one client at one time. Free your mind from the fact that everyone in here that is against the bans is using ISBoxer... Lots of people multibox in eve. Rumor has it, that some of these innocent people have been banned and as far as my knowledge goes, there are lots if people MULTIBOXING WITHOUT THE USE OF ANY KIND OF PROGRAM BUT ONLY USING THEIR HANDS (i hope this is clear now) which now are threatened of being banned just for commanding more than one client at one time. We ask meaningful, well thought through questions and as far as we are allowed to talk about stuff without getting censored we try to bring in evidence. And then theres people like you just throwing in constructive stuff like "ALL MULTIBOXERS ARE BAD" and "IF YOU ARE USING A PROGRAM YOU SHOULD BE BANNED" Feel free to read what this is all about on the last pages and then comment again
I'm not sure how long it's going to take to make even the last one recognize, the title of this thread is "Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation" and not "Update regarding ISBoxing bottingomgwtfcantbereport".
As it seems that many people see ISBoxers as the source of all the evil things on this planet, feel free not to use it and report everyone that is input broadcasting as it is prohibited. As soon as you are done with that you may continue to rage about those ISBoxers, that are not input broadcasting but using a clever setup to keep their gamplay legal as far as the "rules" specify it but you can't do anything against them except from report them just the same cause they are still evil and you don't care about the GM's having more important stuff to do that reviewing shitloads of "maybe it works" reports..... But wait, there is this ominous not clear definable line where the ISBoxers seem to turn into people who aren't using a program, but are just fast and versed because they practiced alot...and oh darn, you have already reported him because your eyes were still filled with tears of rage, cause this creature dared to log in during your watch.
We are trying to get information about this: What kind of multiboxing is allowed and when are we in danger to get banned even without using a program/using ISBoxer in a way that was approved earlier. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
621
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 13:28:04 -
[3669] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Marsha Mallow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Guys, you're missing one simple fact of life.
If a guy is going to install a botting software such as GûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûê, and the botting software is directly breaking the EULA even with a nice black line in the sand, he's going to do it no matter how nebulous the grey area is. However, make the grey area nebulous enough to obscure the line, and people will use programs that are just barely crossing the line, or just barely legal. This is (and was) the current situation that CCP is entangled in. You could just stop botting, and trying to justify it. Listen, cupcake. ISBoxer is not botting, no matter how many times you or other people say so on the forums. The software I was referring to was not ISBoxer. The biggest difference between that software and ISBoxer is, is that ISBoxer requires a warm body behind the keyboard to do anything, and botting doesn't. You made the botting remarks yourself. I've highlighted them, see. CCP also appear to class 'input automation' as botting: CCP Falcon wrote:Input Automation refers to actions that are commonly also referred to as botting or macroing. I could rephrase the question. Why don't you just stop using ISBoxer and trying to justify it? 'Just barely crossing the line' sounds to me like 'I demand the right to cheat and then try to weasel out of it by claiming I didn't know it was cheating, because being told this action will result in a ban simply wasn't clear enough. Give me a list of clear rules so I can actively break all of the ones you forgot to mention. Oh, and I demand an apology, this is an outrage.'
If I was referring to ISBoxer, the Gûê block would have been replaced with "ISBoxer". As it wasn't, it should have been painfully clear to even Greedy Goblin that I was referring to an outside bot program that was NOT ISBoxer. Input automation is the automation of inputs that no longer require a human to be sitting behind the keyboard pressing buttons. I don't understand how this is not clear. Ford's automatic factories are called "automatic" because the robots can do all the work with a skeleton crew of humans to sit in a booth or walk around making sure the robotic arms didn't weld each other to the frame. |
Marsha Mallow
1884
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 13:31:10 -
[3670] - Quote
Flash Startraveler wrote:And then theres people like you just throwing in constructive stuff like
"ALL MULTIBOXERS ARE BAD"
and
"IF YOU ARE USING A PROGRAM YOU SHOULD BE BANNED"
Some of us do genuinely feel that third party programs which can be used to modify the client and provide gameplay advantages are bad, and the users should be banned. Sorry if that offends you, but it's not an unreasonable attitude and it's probably how the vast majority of players feel. Automation is only one part of the problem, there's also a legitimate concern over P2W mechanics and the effect extreme multiboxing has on the economy.
Flash Startraveler wrote:I'm not sure how long it's going to take to make even the last one recognize, the title of this thread is "Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation" and not "Update regarding ISBoxing bottingomgwtfcantbereport".
I agree. The title should have been: Update regarding botting. There's no difference between at keyboard and AFK botting except to those trying to justify being a grubby little farmer.
Flash Startraveler wrote:As it seems that many people see ISBoxers as the source of all the evil things on this planet, feel free not to use it and report everyone that is input broadcasting as it is prohibited. As soon as you are done with that you may continue to rage about those ISBoxers, that are not input broadcasting but using a clever setup to keep their gamplay legal as far as the "rules" specify it but you can't do anything against them except from report them just the same cause they are still evil and you don't care about the GM's having more important stuff to do that reviewing shitloads of "maybe it works" reports..... But wait, there is this ominous not clear definable line where the ISBoxers seem to turn into people who aren't using a program, but are just fast and versed because they practiced alot...and oh darn,
If you keep screeching in outrage it's not unreasonable for the rest of us to comment that you're a bunch of lunatics who deserve to be banned just for being annoying.
Flash Startraveler wrote:you have already reported him because your eyes were still filled with tears of rage, cause this creature dared to log in during your watch.
This victim mentality you all have seems a bit odd. I got the impression CCP were monitoring client behaviour then issuing bans based upon that. I've not seen anyone announcing a crusade to report multiboxers. If individual players did file excessive reports out of malice, I doubt the GMs would take kindly to it.
Flash Startraveler wrote:We are trying to get information about this: What kind of multiboxing is allowed and when are we in danger to get banned even without using a program/using ISBoxer in a way that was approved earlier.
Perhaps you should read the OP and apply some common sense. There's no outright ban on multiboxing software, but if you use it then continue to control excessive numbers of clients seamlessly giving the appearance of botting behaviour, you might get banned. And it's entirely your own fault, because you chose to do it. No one forced you. Rather than howling about how unfair it is.... maybe you should just stop doing it?
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
|
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
163
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 13:33:02 -
[3671] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Marsha Mallow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Marsha Mallow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Guys, you're missing one simple fact of life.
If a guy is going to install a botting software such as GûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûê, and the botting software is directly breaking the EULA even with a nice black line in the sand, he's going to do it no matter how nebulous the grey area is. However, make the grey area nebulous enough to obscure the line, and people will use programs that are just barely crossing the line, or just barely legal. This is (and was) the current situation that CCP is entangled in. You could just stop botting, and trying to justify it. Listen, cupcake. ISBoxer is not botting, no matter how many times you or other people say so on the forums. The software I was referring to was not ISBoxer. The biggest difference between that software and ISBoxer is, is that ISBoxer requires a warm body behind the keyboard to do anything, and botting doesn't. You made the botting remarks yourself. I've highlighted them, see. CCP also appear to class 'input automation' as botting:quote over limit I could rephrase the question. Why don't you just stop using ISBoxer and trying to justify it? 'Just barely crossing the line' sounds to me like 'I demand the right to cheat and then try to weasel out of it by claiming I didn't know it was cheating, because being told this action will result in a ban simply wasn't clear enough. Give me a list of clear rules so I can actively break all of the ones you forgot to mention. Oh, and I demand an apology, this is an outrage.' If I was referring to ISBoxer, the Gûê block would have been replaced with "ISBoxer". As it wasn't, it should have been painfully clear to even Greedy Goblin that I was referring to an outside bot program that was NOT ISBoxer. Input automation is the automation of inputs that no longer require a human to be sitting behind the keyboard pressing buttons. I don't understand how this is not clear. Ford's automatic factories are called "automatic" because the robots can do all the work with a skeleton crew of humans to sit in a booth or walk around making sure the robotic arms didn't weld each other to the frame.
You are the one that first mentioned isboxer. Marsha Mallow just told you to stop botting not which program to stop using.
|
super hornet
Marwolaeth Hyfryd
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 13:35:23 -
[3672] - Quote
I have never installed any 3rd party programme like Isoboxer.
I think that any 3rd party Intergrated progrmme is bad for the community that effects Live playing.
However i am confused was i reading that you can get banned for Pushing ya hot-keys too fast.
That seems a bit ridiculous imho.
I saw some posts of people slowing down there play for this reason also on this note i would like to know if you did get banned how could you prove that you wasn't using software to get that apology ?
I dont mean to go off in Tangent but on another note i see some guys streaming and some gamers that are exceptionally fast at multitasking and they could get punished for playing too fast.
Just seems a bit Naff to me.
Maybe its due to the fact that there is no Fine line at the moment, and all theese areas should be Elaborated in a Pinned DEV answers questions post. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
621
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 13:36:45 -
[3673] - Quote
I never stated I was botting, and given Marsha's previous comments in this thread, it was clear he had a hate-boner for anyone who uses anything other than EVE Vanilla.
As for the "3rd party programs giving unfair advantage" claims, again, uninstall PYFA and EVEMon, never touch Siggy and Fuzzworks or EVE-Central or any of the manufacturing websites again, and then you can talk.
ISBoxer imposes enough penalties that a five year old should be able to look at an ISBoxer fleet, come up with a strong hard counter, and proceed to wreck face. It is not our fault that people keep trying to use a screwdriver to pound nails. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4987
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 13:44:54 -
[3674] - Quote
super hornet wrote:However i am confused was i reading that you can get banned for Pushing ya hot-keys too fast.
That seems a bit ridiculous imho.
I saw some posts of people slowing down there play for this reason also on this note i would like to know if you did get banned how could you prove that you wasn't using software to get that apology ?
I dont mean to go off in Tangent but on another note i see some guys streaming and some gamers that are exceptionally fast at multitasking and they could get punished for playing too fast.
Just seems a bit Naff to me.
Maybe its due to the fact that there is no Fine line at the moment, and all theese areas should be Elaborated in a Pinned DEV answers questions post. That is in essence what is being reported right now. People who have optimised setups (good window layouts, multiple monitors, etc) have reportedly been banned without using any third party software. I'm not sure how CCP's detection works, but it's feasible it looks at commands occuring in the same tick, which is 1 second in EVE. 1 second is quite a long time for a seasoned gamer to hammer inputs.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Flash Startraveler
Startravelers
5
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:13:26 -
[3675] - Quote
I have never used ISBoxer and probably never will. My Problem is that the only thing some people have to say is "don't use a program" when the matter isn't bans because of using a program but a ban without using one.
Marsha Mallow wrote:I agree. The title should have been: Update regarding botting. There's no difference between at keyboard and AFK botting except to those trying to justify being a grubby little farmer.
There is a difference but some are just don't care about the differences between the things they don't like.
Marsha Mallow wrote:If you keep screeching in outrage it's not unreasonable for the rest of us to comment that you're a bunch of lunatics who deserve to be banned just for being annoying.
Please comment that we are a bunch of lunatics somewhere else, we are trying to get some information here. And as i said, i don't use ISBoxer or any other similar program.
Marsha Mallow wrote:This victim mentality you all have seems a bit odd. I got the impression CCP were monitoring client behaviour then issuing bans based upon that. I've not seen anyone announcing a crusade to report multiboxers. If individual players did file excessive reports out of malice, I doubt the GMs would take kindly to it.
Oh there was an ingame mail, but i'm not sure if i'm allowed to show it here.
Marsha Mallow wrote:Perhaps you should read the OP and apply some common sense. There's no outright ban on multiboxing software, but if you use it then continue to control excessive numbers of clients seamlessly giving the appearance of botting behaviour, you might get banned. And it's entirely your own fault, because you chose to do it. No one forced you. Rather than howling about how unfair it is.... maybe you should just stop doing it?
See, the thing is we are not primarly talking about the use of some kind of software until someone like you posts some rage about us "raging" without really reading anything but the last few posts. And again multiboxing Gëá botting, if you like it or not. |
super hornet
Marwolaeth Hyfryd
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:24:43 -
[3676] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:super hornet wrote:However i am confused was i reading that you can get banned for Pushing ya hot-keys too fast.
That seems a bit ridiculous imho.
I saw some posts of people slowing down there play for this reason also on this note i would like to know if you did get banned how could you prove that you wasn't using software to get that apology ?
I dont mean to go off in Tangent but on another note i see some guys streaming and some gamers that are exceptionally fast at multitasking and they could get punished for playing too fast.
Just seems a bit Naff to me.
Maybe its due to the fact that there is no Fine line at the moment, and all theese areas should be Elaborated in a Pinned DEV answers questions post. That is in essence what is being reported right now. People who have optimised setups (good window layouts, multiple monitors, etc) have reportedly been banned without using any third party software. I'm not sure how CCP's detection works, but it's feasible it looks at commands occuring in the same tick, which is 1 second in EVE. 1 second is quite a long time for a seasoned gamer to hammer inputs.
I was thinking the same.
Might want to put a disclaimer when account creation process.
" Multiboxing is allowed but playing them to fast may result in a Ban " |
Gregor Parud
Ordo Ardish
981
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:07:00 -
[3677] - Quote
I'm looking for some clarification (not going to find that in this long mess of a thread), so I made a petition on it and the answer I got back was "read this thread"
Does making use of a G15 keyboard for basic stuff like binding function keys to control+space, alt+d, F1-F4 and that sort of stuff now cause me to get in trouble? |
Flash Startraveler
Startravelers
5
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:18:46 -
[3678] - Quote
If you issue more than one cammand with one click, then yes, this is macro using and forbidden. |
Gregor Parud
Ordo Ardish
981
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:21:47 -
[3679] - Quote
Flash Startraveler wrote:If you issue more than one cammand with one click, then yes, this is macro using and forbidden.
It is not. Here's how I described the situation:
- I have a Logitech keyboard which allows me to program certain keys
- all I use those keys for are direct input>direct output. So one key is control+space (stop ship), another opens my Dscanner, yet another activates keys F1-F4. Stuff like that
- there is no automation or advanced programming going on
- there are no delayed actions happening, as said simple in>out.
I realise I'm kinda discussing petitions but if the GM doesn't answer in any way other than "go here and read" then I don't really have any other options.
|
Flash Startraveler
Startravelers
5
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 20:14:33 -
[3680] - Quote
so you are performing one action with one klick, but as soon as one click for example opens your hangar and you d-scan its not allowed. (rages about example incoming) |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
627
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 20:35:45 -
[3681] - Quote
Flash Startraveler wrote:so you are performing one action with one klick, but as soon as one click for example opens your hangar and you d-scan its not allowed. (rages about example incoming)
One way CCP could get rid of this grey area is to allow the EVE client to detect Logitech G Keys and bind those. I'd be very much in favor of that. |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
31
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 20:39:48 -
[3682] - Quote
I doubt very much people are getting banned for fast actions. It sucks that ccp are not communicating about this I do feel they should put an end to the rumors maybe not by sharing their detection methods but by explaining why people were banned. If someone really wasn't using isboxer or equivalent and got banned thats pretty sketchy. By that logic though I'd probably already be banned too. I spam buttons ... jump .. warp .. approach ... target .. if they couldn't differentiate rapid button presses on one client to button presses on many I'd have been banned with the rest of them.
Lets for once try not to overreact but maybe as a group voice our concern that CCP needs to give us some visibility to what is happening with people getting banned and squash the rumors... and CSM's should be at the front of the line communicating this message. |
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 20:42:11 -
[3683] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:This victim mentality you all have seems a bit odd. I got the impression CCP were monitoring client behaviour then issuing bans based upon that. I've not seen anyone announcing a crusade to report multiboxers. If individual players did file excessive reports out of malice, I doubt the GMs would take kindly to it.
From what I have personally seen I think CCP is just responding to petitions. I know about every time I am noticed running my VG fleet that I get comments about me being a cheater a botter and how they are going to report me. I've also had this happen in random in game chat channels when my multiboxing would come up. It's quite obvious there's a lot of people in game with serious "hateboners" (sorry had to steal that) against multiboxers and especially anyone using innerspace oh excuse me "isboxer"..
I run three monitors with multiple machines so I'm more then a bit worried that I might perform some actions too quickly and get caught up when someone reports me. I also am quite concerned about what happens when a node lags resulting in my commands suddenly all arriving at the server at the same time. |
Orchid Fury
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:26:38 -
[3684] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:As for the "3rd party programs giving unfair advantage" claims, again, uninstall PYFA and EVEMon, never touch Siggy and Fuzzworks or EVE-Central or any of the manufacturing websites again, and then you can
how do these tools directly interact with the game world, like at all? nothing about them is even remotely related to the client controlling stuff isboxer does. which unfair advantage do tools like pyfa give? please elaborate on your bullshit statement.
you need to seriously open your eyes. |
ashley Eoner
398
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:29:10 -
[3685] - Quote
Orchid Fury wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:As for the "3rd party programs giving unfair advantage" claims, again, uninstall PYFA and EVEMon, never touch Siggy and Fuzzworks or EVE-Central or any of the manufacturing websites again, and then you can how do these tools directly interact with the game world, like at all? nothing about them is even remotely related to the client controlling stuff isboxer does. which unfair advantage do tools like pyfa give? please elaborate on your bullshit statement. you need to seriously open your eyes.
Being able to fit a ship without spending the isk to buy the parts would be an unfair advantage when compared to those that don't use them.
My computer has an SSD and serious hardware so I can swing through clients in the middle of a battle much quicker then you can. That's an unfair advantage to some.
My internet is up 99.9% of the time and never lags that would be considered an unfair advantage over those that play eve on a laggy connection.
My reflexes are faster then the average person so I can processing input faster and engage in output quicker which some would consider an unfair advantage.
I make good money in real life so I can buy plexes to buy better ships then you without any real effort. That would be considered an unfair advantage to some.
I have an alliance that hot drops all day long whenever I want. Most anyone would consider that an unfair advantage.
I could seriously spend all evening listing things that people consider to be unfair advantages.
ISboxer doesn't interact with the game any more then your operating system does (aero even). The person playing the game is the one doing the interacting. |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
32
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:38:33 -
[3686] - Quote
Orchid Fury wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:As for the "3rd party programs giving unfair advantage" claims, again, uninstall PYFA and EVEMon, never touch Siggy and Fuzzworks or EVE-Central or any of the manufacturing websites again, and then you can how do these tools directly interact with the game world, like at all? nothing about them is even remotely related to the client controlling stuff isboxer does. which unfair advantage do tools like pyfa give? please elaborate on your bullshit statement. you need to seriously open your eyes.
Do you even know what siggy is?
Siggy doesn't interact with the game client?
That right there is enough of a statement to make me stop reading your posts.
At any rate the argument about other tools is a moot point. I'd be more interested in what's going on with the ccp banhammer at the moment and why.
|
Orchid Fury
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:44:58 -
[3687] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:Orchid Fury wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:As for the "3rd party programs giving unfair advantage" claims, again, uninstall PYFA and EVEMon, never touch Siggy and Fuzzworks or EVE-Central or any of the manufacturing websites again, and then you can how do these tools directly interact with the game world, like at all? nothing about them is even remotely related to the client controlling stuff isboxer does. which unfair advantage do tools like pyfa give? please elaborate on your bullshit statement. you need to seriously open your eyes. Do you even know what siggy is? Siggy doesn't interact with the game client? That right there is enough of a statement to make me stop reading your posts. At any rate the argument about other tools is a moot point. I'd be more interested in what's going on with the ccp banhammer at the moment and why.
ofc i know siggy, pyfa, eft, eve-central. read again what i wrote. seriously. |
ashley Eoner
399
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 22:06:14 -
[3688] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:You've clearly trained Autism V and I applaud you for actually showing it off. So you can understand I'll make it simple. How does siggy interact with the client (multiple clients really): 1. Shows you where your corp members are in your chain 2. allows you to set desitnation to systems you have in your map and count jumps with exit finder 3. track signatures and edit them How do you do this stuff with siggy: click **** in the browser window how does isboxer interact without broadcasting: i have to click **** in videofx windows Are you still sure nothing about siggy interacts with the game client?
VideoFX only works because of aero. Turn that off and you can't even use videofx.. |
Marsha Mallow
1887
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 22:12:26 -
[3689] - Quote
Siggy, Pyfa, Evemon, EveHQ etc are free. Botting software is not, which is why it falls into the P2W category. I'm not sure paying to farm is winning anything other than a Darwin award, but it's still paying a 3rd party for an ingame advantage. So yup, you're scum.
ashley Eoner wrote:I could seriously spend all evening listing things that people consider to be unfair advantages.
Perhaps the real problem is people being able to log in unlimited clients at once.
No-one really has an issue with the types who multibox a few miners manually, but 90 man fleets run by one person is taking the ****. I'd have no issue with CCP instituting a hard cap on the number of clients a single player can log in and integrating multiboxing tools into the client. But I suspect the types who are sneering at the rest of us as 'EvE Vanilla' players would burst into flames at the idea of rebalances that keep P2W mechanics in check for the good of the wider playerbase at their expense.
Ah well, let's see how many 'innocent' nimble fingered farmers have to be sacrificed for the greater good until the message gets through.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
ashley Eoner
399
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 22:22:31 -
[3690] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Siggy, Pyfa, Evemon, EveHQ etc are free. Botting software is not, which is why it falls into the P2W category. I'm not sure paying to farm is winning anything other than a Darwin award, but it's still paying a 3rd party for an ingame advantage. So yup, you're scum. ashley Eoner wrote:I could seriously spend all evening listing things that people consider to be unfair advantages. Perhaps the real problem is people being able to log in unlimited clients at once. No-one really has an issue with the types who multibox a few miners manually, but 90 man fleets run by one person is taking the ****. I'd have no issue with CCP instituting a hard cap on the number of clients a single player can log in and integrating multiboxing tools into the client. But I suspect the types who are sneering at the rest of us as 'EvE Vanilla' players would burst into flames at the idea of rebalances that keep P2W mechanics in check for the good of the wider playerbase at their expense. Ah well, let's see how many 'innocent' nimble fingered farmers have to be sacrificed for the greater good until the message gets through. I know I really shouldn't respond to this troll but I don't want people who on the fence to be getting bad information.
Eve takes up about 600-800mb of ram when sitting. It'll peak at 1 GB something when undocking or warping into a battle. So there's a definite hard limit to the number of clients you can run. While innerspace does allow for better resource management it doesn't allow you to squeeze more then a couple extra clients out.
Your hard cap would be impossible to impose.
According to your definition then almost every single game in existence (if not every game) is P2W and EVE itself has always been P2W.
I played in beta and the early days. People multiboxed then too.
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
628
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 22:28:24 -
[3691] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Siggy, Pyfa, Evemon, EveHQ etc are free. Botting software is not, which is why it falls into the P2W category.
You're absolutely correct that botting software is a paid product (not counting stuff you code yourself). Good thing ISBoxer isn't a botting program!
ISBoxer is a subscription-based service, true, however there are free alternatives out there, and there are ways to never pay for ISBoxer again, not counting cracks. |
Orchid Fury
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 22:59:38 -
[3692] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:You've clearly trained Autism V and I applaud you for actually showing it off. So you can understand I'll make it simple. How does siggy interact with the client (multiple clients really): 1. Shows you where your corp members are in your chain 2. allows you to set desitnation to systems you have in your map and count jumps with exit finder 3. track signatures and edit them How do you do this stuff with siggy: click **** in the browser window how does isboxer interact without broadcasting: i have to click **** in videofx windows Are you still sure nothing about siggy interacts with the game client?
then you grandiose ****** should read again what i wrote. not a single one of the tools mentioned interact with the client in a way that has an unfair advantage to the game world. siggy does not provide you with intel tools which are unvailable thru other means, eft does not allow you to fit modules which are otherwise unfittable, eve-central does not show you orders unavailable to others. yet isboxer allows you to controll more clients at once than would be humanly possible without it. see where we are going dude? |
Marsha Mallow
1887
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 23:40:46 -
[3693] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:According to your definition then almost every single game in existence (if not every game) is P2W and EVE itself has always been P2W.
I played in beta and the early days. People multiboxed then too.
P2W is an element of many games, and an appropriate topic for ongoing discussion. Whether it's actually possible to pay-to-win is debatable, but if botting software provides no ingame advantage, why are people handing over cash for it? There have been arguments over unfair advantage all the time I've been playing too, yup. I think it's a good thing tbh, and it helps (efforts) to maintain a balance between 'emergent gameplay' and monstrously overpowered mechanics. But the debates over these massive multiboxing fleets have only kicked off in the last couple of years, and it seems to tie into the emergence of ISBoxer in particular as an acceptable tool.
ashley Eoner wrote:I know I really shouldn't respond to this troll but I don't want people who on the fence to be getting bad information.
You and a few others have been screaming in here for weeks about how unfair this ruling is. One of the top posters was banned from reddit for posting a workaround to this ruling. In the last couple of weeks we've been subjected to dozens of threads in GD from people claiming to be championing (on throwaway NPC alts) the 'innocent multiboxers' who have been banned. It's almost like some of you are trying to cause panic within the wider halfwit multiboxing community.
The two top posters in this thread have commented over 500 times, but for some reason KC feels compelled to refer to someone who raises a valid point as having trained Autism V. Protesting a mechanic change is one thing, but state your case and then move on. Right now you botters are verbally abusing my Devs, my CSM and my fellow players, so I think it's fair to raise a few counter points. Maybe utter a few insults along the way. For balance. I occasionally squawk at them too, but there are reasonable limits. I think this thread is being kept up and unmoderated, and GMS are directing players to it for clarification partly to demonstrate just how repugnant the protesters actually are. It's possible they are just being a bit incompetent as usual, but w/e, I'd prefer to think it's deliberate. I know it's shocking, but the 'Vanilla' players (ie, those who don't bot) are more than entitled to waggle our rusty pitchforks and chant hysterically back when you try to demand special treatment from CCP. So that you can continue botting.
Nolak Ataru wrote:You're absolutely correct that botting software is a paid product (not counting stuff you code yourself). Good thing ISBoxer isn't a botting program!
ISBoxer is a subscription-based service, true, however there are free alternatives out there, and there are ways to never pay for ISBoxer again, not counting cracks.
Is the free version of ISBoxer based on referrals by any chance?
Please list the 3rd party EvE related programs which CCP endorse and are real-life money subscrition based. I'd exclude things like teamspeak, forum software and server hosting, because there are free versions - although it's not unfair to say they can be used to create ingame advantages. But I'd be interested to see what is currently available beyond those. Tia, cupcake.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
629
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 01:55:33 -
[3694] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:You're absolutely correct that botting software is a paid product (not counting stuff you code yourself). Good thing ISBoxer isn't a botting program!
ISBoxer is a subscription-based service, true, however there are free alternatives out there, and there are ways to never pay for ISBoxer again, not counting cracks. Is the free version of ISBoxer based on referrals by any chance? Please list the 3rd party EvE related programs which CCP endorse and are real-life money subscription based. I'd exclude things like teamspeak, forum software and server hosting, because there are free versions - although it's not unfair to say they can be used to create ingame advantages. But I'd be interested to see what is currently available beyond those. Tia, cupcake.
To my knowledge, CCP does not outright endorse any 3rd party programs anymore as their endorsements have brought them nothing but trouble (BLINK). ISBoxer can be "earned" by referrals, or you can obtain a crack for it. I know there are free alternatives to ISBoxer that don't charge anything unless donations count, however for the sake of word count, I'll not list them.
Marsha Mallow wrote:You and a few others have been screaming in here for weeks about how unfair this ruling is. One of the top posters was banned from reddit for posting a workaround to this ruling. In the last couple of weeks we've been subjected to dozens of threads in GD from people claiming to be championing (on throwaway NPC alts) the 'innocent multiboxers' who have been banned. It's almost like some of you are trying to cause panic within the wider halfwit multiboxing community.
It's almost like you're new to EVE Online or the forums, because if you weren't you would have noticed the daily posts of "wah this guy's ISBoxing in muh system stealin' muh minerals!". Posts, I might add, that were made because someone had a serious case of carebear and didn't wanna make any effort in changing the game around them, namely, by hopping in a Talos and chasing the boxer out of the system. The poster on reddit was banned from reddit after Gorski took it upon himself to not read the change regarding ISBoxer (namely that it was still legal, just removed broadcasting) and banned him for breaking the EULA when he was doing a PSA at the very most.
Marsha Mallow wrote:Whether it's actually possible to pay-to-win is debatable, but if botting software provides no ingame advantage, why are people handing over cash for it?
Why do people use Siggy, EFT, PYFA, EVEMon, or Fuzzworks? Surely there's no reason to if they don't provide an advantage over those who won't! Every argument about an unfair advantage being earned by ISBoxer is ignoring a few simple facts of life:
- ISBoxer severely limits a fleet's composition. Complexity is directly correlated with size and number of roles you're attempting to do.
- It is very easy to create a counter fleet to an ISBoxer fleet, as it's much faster to swap out a regular fleet's ship than an ISBoxer.
- Catalysts and Talos are actual ships in this game, and do catastrophic damage to an ISBoxed mining fleet. Nobody's stopping you from picking one up and going to town.
- Bubbles are the #1 defensive tool one can use against bombers of any sort, ISBoxed or not. Whining because your fleet was bombed by an ISBoxer is fine, but don't expect sympathy when it turns out your fleet was AFK at planet 2 in space with zero velocity. One of the bomber boxers even admitted that bubbles are a serious deterrent to bombing runs in a thread regarding ISBoxed bombers.
If your problem is with us paying for a program, we'll swap to one of the free alternatives to make you happy.
e: I paid for Neocom on my iTouch because I wanted to support the developer. Am I going to be banned because of that? |
ashley Eoner
399
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 03:11:52 -
[3695] - Quote
Orchid Fury wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:You've clearly trained Autism V and I applaud you for actually showing it off. So you can understand I'll make it simple. How does siggy interact with the client (multiple clients really): 1. Shows you where your corp members are in your chain 2. allows you to set desitnation to systems you have in your map and count jumps with exit finder 3. track signatures and edit them How do you do this stuff with siggy: click **** in the browser window how does isboxer interact without broadcasting: i have to click **** in videofx windows Are you still sure nothing about siggy interacts with the game client? then you grandiose ****** should read again what i wrote. not a single one of the tools mentioned interact with the client in a way that has an unfair advantage to the game world. siggy does not provide you with intel tools which are unvailable thru other means, eft does not allow you to fit modules which are otherwise unfittable, eve-central does not show you orders unavailable to others. yet isboxer allows you to controll more clients at once than would be humanly possible without it. see where we are going dude? I can control all my clients fine without isboxer. I use isboxer mostly for the convenience of logging in, the ability to limit FPS of nonfocused clients and the ability to assign clients to specific cores. Otherwise my 8 core CPU isn't utilized properly by Eve...
All I have to do is resize the windows and position the clients in windowed mode across my monitors and isboxer is no longer relevant outside of the performance improvements it brings. Using windowed mode I can easily control +20 clients without isboxer. Since the repeater function is banned your talking point isn't even relevant anymore.
Marsha Mallow wrote:*GARBAGEPOST*
ISboxer isn't a bot get over it and move on as you said should be done. Otherwise you're just trolling with complete nonsense. I mean seriously complaining that people are posting too much in this thread and calling a window management tool a bot is just trolling. |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
321
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 07:35:03 -
[3696] - Quote
An Incursion multi-boxer apparently was banned.
http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/51980-Banned-FUNNY-STORY?p=396264#post396264
GG CCP, minus 10? accounts for someone who (per his statements) wasnt using input duplication at all.
I really hope all this is worth it for a company who's had enough subscription problems as it is.
EVE Online and Multiboxing
http://www.legacyofacapsuleer.com/
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
Cosmic Consortium
5724
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 09:51:22 -
[3697] - Quote
Cheater's gonna cheat. "Never used macros."
Nothing in that thread says he wasn't using input duplication. Also note that CCP will ban all your accounts for a EULA violation involving any of your accounts. This is known, and has been the case since around the time of Unholy Rage.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
308
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 13:02:52 -
[3698] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Cheater's gonna cheat. "Never used macros." Nothing in that thread says he wasn't using input duplication. Also note that CCP will ban all your accounts for a EULA violation involving any of your accounts. This is known, and has been the case since around the time of Unholy Rage.
I think you might want to read his thread again. Guilty until proven innocent, what a wonderful world we live in.
He states he was banned for macro use, then goes on to say he never used macros, although does have a text block macro setup for another game. (having played the game he refers to, a text block macro would be a must)
Interesting, If the author of the linked thread is being honest, it would seem CCP's spy software is able to detect macro capable hardware attached to a players machine. If you have macros in place for any use, Eve related or not, you now run the risk of being banned at CCP's discretion and good luck proving you are innocent of any wrong doing.
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
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
263
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 13:15:38 -
[3699] - Quote
Have to admit this is having a chilling effect on me expanding my account base. I have 2 main accounts and i recently started a new one. I was looking at getting few more as life in a WH you really need to have a few things available to you at any one time to do much, and well we just are not a popular TZ. So i need to be about to field a few things myself (HICs, BS, Recons etc).
Currently i use multiple monitors and multiple computers (synergy to use them as one). But i can and do move between them quickly. I can easily activate guns in the same server tick across 3 accounts for example.
I love this game. I love the sheer brutality of it. The HTFU nature of balls deep PVP with just about every isk you have sometimes. Losing is really losing. Winning is AWESOMENESS.
But this stinks more and more of a the of attitude and lack of communication habits CCP had before the original burn jita. Lets face it, a lot of that rage was just too little communication, too many unkowns. While they can reply to threads about space ship interiors this issue is just left to rot.
Getting pretty worried of how this could shake out.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
34
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 14:56:15 -
[3700] - Quote
Orchid Fury wrote:
then you grandiose ****** should read again what i wrote. not a single one of the tools mentioned interact with the client in a way that has an unfair advantage to the game world. siggy does not provide you with intel tools which are unvailable thru other means, eft does not allow you to fit modules which are otherwise unfittable, eve-central does not show you orders unavailable to others. yet isboxer allows you to controll more clients at once than would be humanly possible without it. see where we are going dude?
isboxer doesn't allow you to control more clients at once then humanly possible since the broadcasting ban which makes your argument invalid so keep up your blind ******** ranting. I can't fix stupid.
So i tend to believe that in general people lie. Chances are the bans involved people continuing to use the broadcast feature to manage their fleet. I would really like to see some kind of response from ccp ... all we hear is the story from the side of the people who get banned and of course all of them are innocent.
Also ... what happened to the warning ban before the permanent ban? Noone seems to be mentioning that. Does that mean the people getting banned are just getting slapped with the temp ban or are they perma banned?
|
|
|
corebloodbrothers
Volition Cult
The Volition Cult
997
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 14:57:12 -
[3701] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Have to admit this is having a chilling effect on me expanding my account base. I have 2 main accounts and i recently started a new one. I was looking at getting few more as life in a WH you really need to have a few things available to you at any one time to do much, and well we just are not a popular TZ. So i need to be about to field a few things myself (HICs, BS, Recons etc).
Currently i use multiple monitors and multiple computers (synergy to use them as one). But i can and do move between them quickly. I can easily activate guns in the same server tick across 3 accounts for example.
I love this game. I love the sheer brutality of it. The HTFU nature of balls deep PVP with just about every isk you have sometimes. Losing is really losing. Winning is AWESOMENESS.
But this stinks more and more of a the of attitude and lack of communication habits CCP had before the original burn jita. Lets face it, a lot of that rage was just too little communication, too many unkowns. While they can reply to threads about space ship interiors this issue is just left to rot.
Getting pretty worried of how this could shake out.
Comming back from ccp visit in iceland ee have seen how they handle the detection and follow up on boxer use. I can asure hou its very carefull and i was amazed at the detials and insight. I cant tell what and so ofc, to breach my non dosclosure.
I run 3 accounts on eve as its my passion, the g+ñme atracts me, the blocking of this hardly compairs too the jita riots and moncole gate, where a underlying mentality in ccp was the cause, taking cate of multiboxing as unfair advantage is somthing which the 99 procent of gamers agree with and which keeps them playing eve.
Each time changes come poeple will whine and *****, which doesnt make it w bad thing for the long term heatlh of eve online |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
34
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 15:05:05 -
[3702] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:
Comming back from ccp visit in iceland ee have seen how they handle the detection and follow up on boxer use. I can asure hou its very carefull and i was amazed at the detials and insight. I cant tell what and so ofc, to breach my non dosclosure.
I run 3 accounts on eve as its my passion, the g+ñme atracts me, the blocking of this hardly compairs too the jita riots and moncole gate, where a underlying mentality in ccp was the cause, taking cate of multiboxing as unfair advantage is somthing which the 99 procent of gamers agree with and which keeps them playing eve.
Each time changes come poeple will whine and *****, which doesnt make it w bad thing for the long term heatlh of eve online
So basically you are saying you have seen their detection methods and tools and they are comprehensive? False positives are not possible and those of us using isboxer completely within compliance of the eula have nothing to worry about regardless of how many people might petition against us because the software can distinguish the difference between multiple fast keypresses and broadcasting/input multiplication? |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
629
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 15:54:56 -
[3703] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Comming back from ccp visit in iceland ee have seen how they handle the detection and follow up on boxer use. I can asure hou its very carefull and i was amazed at the detials and insight. I cant tell what and so ofc, to breach my non dosclosure.
I run 3 accounts on eve as its my passion, the g+ñme atracts me, the blocking of this hardly compairs too the jita riots and moncole gate, where a underlying mentality in ccp was the cause, taking cate of multiboxing as unfair advantage is somthing which the 99 procent of gamers agree with and which keeps them playing eve.
Each time changes come poeple will whine and *****, which doesnt make it w bad thing for the long term heatlh of eve online
Your contradictions aside, please show me this survey where 99% of people agree multiple accounts are cheating?
Can you honestly say these people were educated on the limitations of ISBoxer and given both sides of the story?
Can you tell us why, exactly, you chose to ignore the ISBoxers when we 1) told you that a simple broadcast ban wouldn't have much effect, and 2) when we attempted to open a dialogue with you and CCP in order to fix the proposal?
Can you tell us, in your own words, your personal grievances with ISBoxer? I would love to have an actual discussion so we can clear up any misconceptions you have with the program. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
266
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 16:16:33 -
[3704] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:
Comming back from ccp visit in iceland ee have seen how they handle the detection and follow up on boxer use. I can asure hou its very carefull and i was amazed at the detials and insight. I cant tell what and so ofc, to breach my non dosclosure.
I run 3 accounts on eve as its my passion, the g+ñme atracts me, the blocking of this hardly compairs too the jita riots and moncole gate, where a underlying mentality in ccp was the cause, taking cate of multiboxing as unfair advantage is somthing which the 99 procent of gamers agree with and which keeps them playing eve.
Each time changes come poeple will whine and *****, which doesnt make it w bad thing for the long term heatlh of eve online
Some official response is not an unreasonable request.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Komisarzzawada
The Senate and People of Rome
Northern Associates.
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 16:22:03 -
[3705] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:
Comming back from ccp visit in iceland ee have seen how they handle the detection and follow up on boxer use. I can asure hou its very carefull and i was amazed at the detials and insight. I cant tell what and so ofc, to breach my non dosclosure.
I run 3 accounts on eve as its my passion, the g+ñme atracts me, the blocking of this hardly compairs too the jita riots and moncole gate, where a underlying mentality in ccp was the cause, taking cate of multiboxing as unfair advantage is somthing which the 99 procent of gamers agree with and which keeps them playing eve.
Each time changes come poeple will whine and *****, which doesnt make it w bad thing for the long term heatlh of eve online
Wow, this is incredible, so basicly all gamers agree that its using more then one account is bad? Wouldnt say that figure is right, there more then one percent of playes that multibox. Also, the Power of Two program was a bad idea then right? Cause i thought that ccp wants Us to use more accounts, to pay them more money. |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
321
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 16:37:22 -
[3706] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:
Comming back from ccp visit in iceland ee have seen how they handle the detection and follow up on boxer use. I can asure hou its very carefull and i was amazed at the detials and insight. I cant tell what and so ofc, to breach my non dosclosure.
I run 3 accounts on eve as its my passion, the g+ñme atracts me, the blocking of this hardly compairs too the jita riots and moncole gate, where a underlying mentality in ccp was the cause, taking cate of multiboxing as unfair advantage is somthing which the 99 procent of gamers agree with and which keeps them playing eve.
Each time changes come poeple will whine and *****, which doesnt make it w bad thing for the long term heatlh of eve online
Pretty disappointed in you Core, your otherwise a good player and CSM member but your stance on multiboxing and ISBoxer is almost unforgivable. Especially when your not at least pushing CCP sit down and talk with the community about our concerns.
EVE Online and Multiboxing
http://www.legacyofacapsuleer.com/
|
ashley Eoner
400
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 19:28:39 -
[3707] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Comming back from ccp visit in iceland ee have seen how they handle the detection and follow up on boxer use. I can asure hou its very carefull and i was amazed at the detials and insight. I cant tell what and so ofc, to breach my non dosclosure.
I run 3 accounts on eve as its my passion, the g+ñme atracts me, the blocking of this hardly compairs too the jita riots and moncole gate, where a underlying mentality in ccp was the cause, taking cate of multiboxing as unfair advantage is somthing which the 99 procent of gamers agree with and which keeps them playing eve.
Each time changes come poeple will whine and *****, which doesnt make it w bad thing for the long term heatlh of eve online
This blows my mind. Eve the game that has been legendary for multiboxing since basically day one. Eve the game that has developers who pimp the Power of two and other promotions to get you to run more then one account. In that game it's now considered an unfair advantage to have more then one account...
What's next? It's an unfair advantage that my ISP never crashes, my computer is better then yours and my character has mor SP? Is it an unfair advantage that I have many MANY more years of gameplay experience then you?
My god man we're slowly marching towards CoD in space... |
Verisimilidude 001
Everlasting Vendetta.
This Is How We Roll
13
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 19:49:19 -
[3708] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:...taking cate of multiboxing as unfair advantage is somthing which the 99 procent of gamers agree with and which keeps them playing eve.
Each time changes come poeple will whine and *****, which doesnt make it w bad thing for the long term heatlh of eve online
Citation required.
Based off the CSM minutes and the devblog, it seems like you guys had to work pretty hard to convince CCP to change their stance on multiplexing. Is that the case?
Furthermore, I want to see a breakdown of which CSM members were for/against the issue. We as voters deserve the right to know your position on multiplexing/multiboxing.
corebloodbrothers wrote:Comming back from ccp visit in iceland ee have seen how they handle the detection and follow up on boxer use. I can asure hou its very carefull and i was amazed at the detials and insight. I cant tell what and so ofc, to breach my non dosclosure.
So, you're *assuring me* that CCP can differentiate between someone sending keyclicks to different clients very quickly (a la https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhAk7EMDjvE&feature=youtu.be) and multiplexing to multiple accounts? You can promise me that?
|
ashley Eoner
401
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 20:43:39 -
[3709] - Quote
Verisimilidude 001 wrote:corebloodbrothers wrote:...taking cate of multiboxing as unfair advantage is somthing which the 99 procent of gamers agree with and which keeps them playing eve.
Each time changes come poeple will whine and *****, which doesnt make it w bad thing for the long term heatlh of eve online Citation required. Based off the CSM minutes and the devblog, it seems like you guys had to work pretty hard to convince CCP to change their stance on multiplexing. Is that the case? Furthermore, I want to see a breakdown of which CSM members were for/against the issue. We as voters deserve the right to know your position on multiplexing/multiboxing. corebloodbrothers wrote:Comming back from ccp visit in iceland ee have seen how they handle the detection and follow up on boxer use. I can asure hou its very carefull and i was amazed at the detials and insight. I cant tell what and so ofc, to breach my non dosclosure. So, you're *assuring me* that CCP can differentiate between someone sending keyclicks to different clients very quickly (a la https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhAk7EMDjvE&feature=youtu.be) and multiplexing to multiple accounts? You can promise me that?
I don't even care about the video stuff. I could understand not wanting that.
What I care about is not getting banned because I hit F1 too quickly on different machines/screens. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
Cosmic Consortium
5727
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 21:23:39 -
[3710] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Cheater's gonna cheat. "Never used macros." Nothing in that thread says he wasn't using input duplication. Also note that CCP will ban all your accounts for a EULA violation involving any of your accounts. This is known, and has been the case since around the time of Unholy Rage. I think you might want to read his thread again. Guilty until proven innocent, what a wonderful world we live in. He states he was banned for macro use, then goes on to say he never used macros, although does have a text block macro setup for another game. (having played the game he refers to, a text block macro would be a must) Interesting, If the author of the linked thread is being honest, it would seem CCP's spy software is able to detect macro capable hardware attached to a players machine. If you have macros in place for any use, Eve related or not, you now run the risk of being banned at CCP's discretion and good luck proving you are innocent of any wrong doing.
Oh, I believe him when he says he doesn't use macros in EVE.
I don't believe that he was banned for "macro use".
I believe he was banned for input broadcasting, and is purposefully avoiding telling us that he was doing that to convince people that CCP are bad, horrible people who arbitrarily ban people for no good reason.
Solo incursion fleet runner gets banned by CCP for breach of EULA regarding automation of game play. Which story do you believe: "CCP made a mistake, this guy was legitimately playing using Alt+Tab and directing individual commands to individual windows" or "CCP didn't make a mistake, this guy was using input broadcasting or keystroke multiplication of some kind."
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
|
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
270
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 21:32:21 -
[3711] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:
Oh, I believe him when he says he doesn't use macros in EVE.
I don't believe that he was banned for "macro use".
I believe he was banned for input broadcasting, and is purposefully avoiding telling us that he was doing that to convince people that CCP are bad, horrible people who arbitrarily ban people for no good reason.
Solo incursion fleet runner gets banned by CCP for breach of EULA regarding automation of game play. Which story do you believe: "CCP made a mistake, this guy was legitimately playing using Alt+Tab and directing individual commands to individual windows" or "CCP didn't make a mistake, this guy was using input broadcasting or keystroke multiplication of some kind."
you know what would help rather than a bunch of stonewalling on CCP part. An official response rather than this BS about saying exactly nothing about nothing!
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
631
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 21:35:46 -
[3712] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Oh, I believe him when he says he doesn't use macros in EVE.
I don't believe that he was banned for "macro use".
I believe he was banned for input broadcasting, and is purposefully avoiding telling us that he was doing that to convince people that CCP are bad, horrible people who arbitrarily ban people for no good reason.
Solo incursion fleet runner gets banned by CCP for breach of EULA regarding automation of game play. Which story do you believe: "CCP made a mistake, this guy was legitimately playing using Alt+Tab and directing individual commands to individual windows" or "CCP didn't make a mistake, this guy was using input broadcasting or keystroke multiplication of some kind."
After the Atlanta office stuff and the bonus room BS (let's ban people who were just lurking in a chat channel or for stuff that happened on teamspeak!), I think I'm going to stick with the player on this one. One of the people who was banned was instrumental on creating the theories and the new setup for non-broadcasting incursion boxers. I highly doubt he'd "fall back to" broadcasting when he was one of the ones who created the setups for non-broadcasting incursion fleets. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
239
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 21:50:55 -
[3713] - Quote
Verisimilidude 001 wrote:corebloodbrothers wrote:...taking cate of multiboxing as unfair advantage is somthing which the 99 procent of gamers agree with and which keeps them playing eve.
Each time changes come poeple will whine and *****, which doesnt make it w bad thing for the long term heatlh of eve online Citation required. Based off the CSM minutes and the devblog, it seems like you guys had to work pretty hard to convince CCP to change their stance on multiplexing. Is that the case? Furthermore, I want to see a breakdown of which CSM members were for/against the issue. We as voters deserve the right to know your position on multiplexing/multiboxing. corebloodbrothers wrote:Comming back from ccp visit in iceland ee have seen how they handle the detection and follow up on boxer use. I can asure hou its very carefull and i was amazed at the detials and insight. I cant tell what and so ofc, to breach my non dosclosure. So, you're *assuring me* that CCP can differentiate between someone sending keyclicks to different clients very quickly (a la https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhAk7EMDjvE&feature=youtu.be) and multiplexing to multiple accounts? You can promise me that?
You deserve a ban...you are sending one click to multiple clients...without even clicking!!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
631
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 21:54:12 -
[3714] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:You deserve a ban...you are sending one click to multiple clients...without even clicking!!
Except he isn't. He's sending multiple commands by using a mouse xy action, much the same way one would bind "Fire" as wheel down in a FPS to turn semi-auto rifles into automatics. Multiple inputs for multiple actions. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
239
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 22:01:06 -
[3715] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:You deserve a ban...you are sending one click to multiple clients...without even clicking!!
Except he isn't. He's sending multiple commands by using a mouse xy action, much the same way one would bind "Fire" as wheel down in a FPS to turn semi-auto rifles into automatics. Multiple inputs for multiple actions.
Yes he is..How is he targetting?
If, as he says, the afterburners were bombs, and the cloaks..well cloaks.
Btw, I don't play fps...ever.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
633
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 22:13:55 -
[3716] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:You deserve a ban...you are sending one click to multiple clients...without even clicking!!
Except he isn't. He's sending multiple commands by using a mouse xy action, much the same way one would bind "Fire" as wheel down in a FPS to turn semi-auto rifles into automatics. Multiple inputs for multiple actions. Yes he is..How is he targetting? If, as he says, the afterburners were bombs, and the cloaks..well cloaks. Btw, I don't play fps...ever.
OK, to explain the FPS thing for those who are unaware: In (for example) COD4, there are guns that do a lot of damage (M14, M21, G3, pistols, etc), but are semi-automatic. They fired as fast as you could click the mouse button, however, unlike the Battlefield series, they didn't have a "minimum cool down" time after they fired to prevent abuse. People would bind "Fire" as "Scroll Wheel Down" and the gun would fire as fast as they could scroll the wheel with the only downside being high recoil. The Battlefield fixed this by implementing a minimum "cool down" time where another fire command would not fire the gun.
Back to EVE: He broadcasts a target.
One set of "rollover bars" sends a "CTRL+Click" command to the Fleet Window on the bottom where broadcasted targets appear.
Then the rest do their thing. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
309
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 00:34:45 -
[3717] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Cheater's gonna cheat. "Never used macros." Nothing in that thread says he wasn't using input duplication. Also note that CCP will ban all your accounts for a EULA violation involving any of your accounts. This is known, and has been the case since around the time of Unholy Rage. I think you might want to read his thread again. Guilty until proven innocent, what a wonderful world we live in. He states he was banned for macro use, then goes on to say he never used macros, although does have a text block macro setup for another game. (having played the game he refers to, a text block macro would be a must) Interesting, If the author of the linked thread is being honest, it would seem CCP's spy software is able to detect macro capable hardware attached to a players machine. If you have macros in place for any use, Eve related or not, you now run the risk of being banned at CCP's discretion and good luck proving you are innocent of any wrong doing. Oh, I believe him when he says he doesn't use macros in EVE. I don't believe that he was banned for "macro use". I believe he was banned for input broadcasting, and is purposefully avoiding telling us that he was doing that to convince people that CCP are bad, horrible people who arbitrarily ban people for no good reason. Solo incursion fleet runner gets banned by CCP for breach of EULA regarding automation of game play. Which story do you believe: "CCP made a mistake, this guy was legitimately playing using Alt+Tab and directing individual commands to individual windows" or "CCP didn't make a mistake, this guy was using input broadcasting or keystroke multiplication of some kind."
And there is the million dollar question.
Was he banned for macro use?
Did CCP make a mistake?
Was he simply using ALT+TAB very efficiently which provided CCP with a false positive?
Both stories dispute he did anything wrong. I think that in itself would be enough to cast doubt as to his guilt?
We will never know..
I have a friend runs an incursion fleet, he uses ISBoxer but not the broadcasting feature. I have often done logi for his fleet and watching it is a sight to see. I multibox but could never hope to control a small fleet as well as he does.
A computer and the software on it are only as smart as the person operating it. Once software has done its job (in this case detected a problem) the interpretation of what it found and subsequent action taken, is down to a human. A human then makes a decision on what to do next. Humans make mistakes (that is why we use computers).
I got a letter from a Doctor about 12 months ago confirming I was pregnant (joy of joys).
Information on a computer, interpreted by a human who trusted what the computer told them, had me making history (I am a 55 year old man)
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
|
kraken11 jensen
Californian CottonPickers
Requiem Eternal
77
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 14:49:20 -
[3718] - Quote
btw, just to add something. i watched someone bomb us by alt tabbing today (at least he said) seems fully viable, and i believe him. nicely done. impressive. I'm glad he managed it as good as he did :D it was fun seeing :) (as i said) impressive :) |
Marsha Mallow
1889
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 18:40:57 -
[3719] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:I dont rage
That's an appalling attitude and possibly a bannable offense. Reported.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6526
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 22:17:53 -
[3720] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:btw, just to add something. i watched someone bomb us by alt tabbing today (at least he said) seems fully viable, and i believe him. nicely done. impressive. I'm glad he managed it as good as he did :D it was fun seeing :) (as i said) impressive :) Edit: Its impressive whatever, Isb or not. or some other window setup program'etc, who knows. it was Nice done.
Did you or anyone in the group referenced by "us" make sure to petition him anyway, to be sure? You didn't just blindly trust their word for it, right?
I think one of our multiboxers was petitioned before despite not actually bombing on a particular op. He showed up in local and apparently that + bombs flying was enough...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
311
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 23:00:42 -
[3721] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Did you or anyone in the group referenced by "us" make sure to petition him anyway, to be sure? You didn't just blindly trust their word for it, right?
I think one of our multiboxers was petitioned before despite not actually bombing on a particular op. He showed up in local and apparently that + bombs flying was enough...
Ouch - The Eve Sandbox just got a little bit smaller and less desirable.
I wonder if CCP intentionally went this direction, or was it just another ill thought out plan.
Create mistrust - introduce basically ineffective change.
Encourage player policing - creates more mistrust
Mistrust creates ill will and loss of more players. How much longer can Eve continue by alienating its player base with nerfs, secrecy and lies?
Alvaria Fera - You might want to step back and ask yourself why you play Eve.
Is it to do CCP's job and report players because they were using a certain ship type?
Reporting someone just because they are good with bombs is not reason enough. Playing a game with the belief everyone around you is cheating is not playing a game. You might want to consider chess.
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
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6526
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 04:41:34 -
[3722] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:
Did you or anyone in the group referenced by "us" make sure to petition him anyway, to be sure? You didn't just blindly trust their word for it, right?
I think one of our multiboxers was petitioned before despite not actually bombing on a particular op. He showed up in local and apparently that + bombs flying was enough...
Ouch - The Eve Sandbox just got a little bit smaller and less desirable. I wonder if CCP intentionally went this direction, or was it just another ill thought out plan. Create mistrust - introduce basically ineffective change. Encourage player policing - creates more mistrust Mistrust creates ill will and loss of more players. How much longer can Eve continue by alienating its player base with nerfs, secrecy and lies? Alvaria Fera - You might want to step back and ask yourself why you play Eve. Is it to do CCP's job and report players because they were using a certain ship type? Reporting someone just because they are good with bombs is not reason enough. Playing a game with the belief everyone around you is cheating is not playing a game. You might want to consider chess.
I don't know. Ask uh, I think it was n3 guys that reported our bomber guy.
So ask them.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
ashley Eoner
406
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 05:24:32 -
[3723] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:
Did you or anyone in the group referenced by "us" make sure to petition him anyway, to be sure? You didn't just blindly trust their word for it, right?
I think one of our multiboxers was petitioned before despite not actually bombing on a particular op. He showed up in local and apparently that + bombs flying was enough...
Ouch - The Eve Sandbox just got a little bit smaller and less desirable. I wonder if CCP intentionally went this direction, or was it just another ill thought out plan. Create mistrust - introduce basically ineffective change. Encourage player policing - creates more mistrust Mistrust creates ill will and loss of more players. How much longer can Eve continue by alienating its player base with nerfs, secrecy and lies? Alvaria Fera - You might want to step back and ask yourself why you play Eve. Is it to do CCP's job and report players because they were using a certain ship type? Reporting someone just because they are good with bombs is not reason enough. Playing a game with the belief everyone around you is cheating is not playing a game. You might want to consider chess. I don't know. Ask uh, I think it was n3 guys that reported our bomber guy. So ask them. How did you even find out?
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
311
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 08:20:38 -
[3724] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:
Did you or anyone in the group referenced by "us" make sure to petition him anyway, to be sure? You didn't just blindly trust their word for it, right?
I think one of our multiboxers was petitioned before despite not actually bombing on a particular op. He showed up in local and apparently that + bombs flying was enough...
Ouch - The Eve Sandbox just got a little bit smaller and less desirable. I wonder if CCP intentionally went this direction, or was it just another ill thought out plan. Create mistrust - introduce basically ineffective change. Encourage player policing - creates more mistrust Mistrust creates ill will and loss of more players. How much longer can Eve continue by alienating its player base with nerfs, secrecy and lies? Alvaria Fera - You might want to step back and ask yourself why you play Eve. Is it to do CCP's job and report players because they were using a certain ship type? Reporting someone just because they are good with bombs is not reason enough. Playing a game with the belief everyone around you is cheating is not playing a game. You might want to consider chess. I don't know. Ask uh, I think it was n3 guys that reported our bomber guy. So ask them. How did you even find out?
ashley - Good Question +1
Alvaria - the conspiracy ever widens
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
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
640
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 14:19:23 -
[3725] - Quote
Kinda obvious when they're in local screaming their heads off about a botter.... |
ashley Eoner
406
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 20:27:40 -
[3726] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Kinda obvious when they're in local screaming their heads off about a botter....
Ah the same way I knew I was being reported :P |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
642
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 20:57:39 -
[3727] - Quote
Kinda like that scene from Jurassic Park 2, where they're trying to find the T-Rex. Jeff Goldblum's character said "Follow the screams".
Same concept. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
312
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 22:40:30 -
[3728] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Kinda like that scene from Jurassic Park 2, where they're trying to find the T-Rex. Jeff Goldblum's character said "Follow the screams".
Same concept.
But does any of this justify reporting everyone you see with more than 1 bomber?
Pretty soon the only thing left in Eve resembling a sandbox will be the current attitudes of many of its players - Kids (players) running to Mom (CCP) because the big kid kicked over their castle.
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
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
642
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 23:05:21 -
[3729] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:But does any of this justify reporting everyone you see with more than 1 bomber?
No. And it never justified the idiots whining and comparing an ISBoxed, focused, max skilled, max equipment fleet to a kitchen sink fleet and crying "unfair advantage!
Sgt Ocker wrote:Pretty soon the only thing left in Eve resembling a sandbox will be the current attitudes of many of its players - Kids (players) running to Mom (CCP) because the big kid kicked over their castle.
Like I said, I never thought the EVE Onion blog would ring true, but it did. |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
324
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 23:06:10 -
[3730] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Kinda like that scene from Jurassic Park 2, where they're trying to find the T-Rex. Jeff Goldblum's character said "Follow the screams".
Same concept. But does any of this justify reporting everyone you see with more than 1 bomber? Pretty soon the only thing left in Eve resembling a sandbox will be the current attitudes of many of its players - Kids (players) running to Mom (CCP) because the big kid kicked over their castle.
Wonder if we can report the reporters? Harassment is also against the EULA!
EVE Online and Multiboxing
http://www.legacyofacapsuleer.com/
|
|
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
143
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 00:08:56 -
[3731] - Quote
as Long as we dont know the names...ccp is protecting those thugs. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
312
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 00:49:34 -
[3732] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:But does any of this justify reporting everyone you see with more than 1 bomber? No. And it never justified the idiots whining and comparing an ISBoxed, focused, max skilled, max equipment fleet to a kitchen sink fleet and crying "unfair advantage! Sgt Ocker wrote:Pretty soon the only thing left in Eve resembling a sandbox will be the current attitudes of many of its players - Kids (players) running to Mom (CCP) because the big kid kicked over their castle. Like I said, I never thought the EVE Onion blog would ring true, but it did.
Welcome to the NewEveOnline
The mighty GSF at work
Quote: I must've sent in something like 50 petitions during the course of the battle and CCP nerfed everything I complained about! It was awesome!"
We can't beat'em so lets use CCP to do it for us.
The end is nigh.,.
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
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
642
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 01:21:25 -
[3733] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:We can't beat'em so lets use CCP to do it for us.
The end is nigh.,.
The funny thing is, there's no ISBoxed fleet (short of 500 titans boxed concurrently) that is not susceptible to player intervention in one way or another, and CCP knows this. If CCP believes that players cannot fight an ISBoxed fleet, then they might as well removes fleets in general because every fleet has it's weakness, even if you can't see it at first. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
313
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 09:45:53 -
[3734] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:We can't beat'em so lets use CCP to do it for us.
The end is nigh.,. The funny thing is, there's no ISBoxed fleet (short of 500 titans boxed concurrently) that is not susceptible to player intervention in one way or another, and CCP knows this. If CCP believes that players cannot fight an ISBoxed fleet, then they might as well removes fleets in general because every fleet has it's weakness, even if you can't see it at first.
I agree with you but just to be clear, "We can't beat'em so lets use CCP to do it for us" . Was meant as a snide comment regarding the GSF members obvious elation over his 50 petitions sent during a fleet battle..
The fact players are using CCP to their own advantage in this way is something those in charge need to address (maybe the new boss has a big enough pair).
The sooner Devs stop balancing the game to suit their "friends", the sooner Eve can become a game for everyone again.
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
|
Balon Mythos Adoudel
BMA Mining Corp
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:48:47 -
[3735] - Quote
Everyone says let CCP beat them for us...I play Eve - you do not when you multibox. You come in with a 30-40 character fleet and take all the ice in a belt "stealing" it from legit players. You could not do that if you ran these independently. You are cheating plain and simple. I am glad CCP is doing this - but they need to limit one instance of .exe per machine as well Your supposed to play the game - not your group of characters.
You are stealing from me when you mine out a belt or gank me with 4 ships or do anything with a group that you could not do by manually entering the commands. Face the truth - anything else is just smoke and mirrors you throw up defending a cheating method...... |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
646
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 01:29:24 -
[3736] - Quote
Balon Mythos Adoudel wrote:Everyone says let CCP beat them for us...I play Eve - you do not when you multibox. You come in with a 30-40 character fleet and take all the ice in a belt "stealing" it from legit players. You could not do that if you ran these independently. You are cheating plain and simple. I am glad CCP is doing this - but they need to limit one instance of .exe per machine as well Your supposed to play the game - not your group of characters.
You are stealing from me when you mine out a belt or gank me with 4 ships or do anything with a group that you could not do by manually entering the commands. Face the truth - anything else is just smoke and mirrors you throw up defending a cheating method......
Except that if a player used straight broadcast while mining, he'd mine out a single asteroid and end up with incomplete cycles.
Players constantly mine with multiple accounts, even those who don't use ISBoxer; just check your local belts. There is no "wrong" way to play EVE. I'm not a miner myself, and you may not be a capital pilot yourself (no I'm not either). EVE was not built for a single type of player. To believe and attempt to state as fact otherwise is disingenuous.
If you have a serious problem with an ISBoxxed mining fleet, pick up a Catalyst or Talos, and pop a few of his boats. Or hire some mercenaries to wreck havoc with him. Heck, a 100mn stabber against his Orca will cause some issues and will make him move systems. This is EVE, home of player options. One of those options is to move systems yourself.
Also, regarding the whole "stealing minerals", you weren't there when Hulks and whatnot were first introduced to EVE. Prior to those, people used battleships to mine belts, and that took time. When the Hulks and Procs came out, belts in highsec were stripmined in a matter of hours. The only minerals a player "owns" are the ones sitting in his station hangar. You aren't owed any minerals in the belt. |
Komisarzzawada
The Senate and People of Rome
Northern Associates.
4
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 09:56:08 -
[3737] - Quote
Balon Mythos Adoudel wrote:Everyone says let CCP beat them for us...I play Eve - you do not when you multibox. You come in with a 30-40 character fleet and take all the ice in a belt "stealing" it from legit players. You could not do that if you ran these independently. You are cheating plain and simple. I am glad CCP is doing this - but they need to limit one instance of .exe per machine as well Your supposed to play the game - not your group of characters.
You are stealing from me when you mine out a belt or gank me with 4 ships or do anything with a group that you could not do by manually entering the commands. Face the truth - anything else is just smoke and mirrors you throw up defending a cheating method......
Sorry but who exactly is a legit player in eve?
This is eve, land of the almost free, and definately home of the brave, and here, no way of playing is wrong. If someone is "stealing" your mins, maybe you can try do something about it ;)
How can you tell of what someone is able to do, do you measure it by what you and your machine can do ? Cause clearly there are some amazing people out there capable of doing many things that other are not.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
316
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 11:14:11 -
[3738] - Quote
Balon Mythos Adoudel wrote: - but they need to limit one instance of .exe per machine as well Your supposed to play the game - not your group of characters.
Eve is not and never has been a game where you are limited to having only one character active at a time (one instance of .exe).
Eve was built and grew to what it is today on the concept of, if you can do it, do it (that is changing, as the sandbox element of Eve becomes smaller), the ability to run as many or few characters as you choose is part of the game.
It is not "cheating" or "stealing" when you multibox, as long as you do it without use of a Bot or Input Broadcasting.
One person controlling 10 or even 40 characters is no different to you controlling one. They still have to push the same amount of keys as you and make exactly the same amount of mouse clicks, for EVERY character as you do with one.
If you don't like multibox miners, go blow them up or pay someone else to do it for you, that is what eve is all about. If you don't like someone you can just BLOW them up.
Or
If you genuinely think someone is gaining an unfair advantage, via assisted multi boxing, you can report them to CCP and they will look into whether or not they are using anything to help them "cheat".
** Don't just report them for multiboxing - That is actually part of the game.
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
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
143
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 20:32:47 -
[3739] - Quote
i'd like to see the cyno characters who become main characters and take abnormal high fees to let fleets jump through. |
Kaphrah
Kaphrah Corporation4
34
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 20:42:57 -
[3740] - Quote
Balon Mythos Adoudel wrote:Everyone says let CCP beat them for us...I play Eve - you do not when you multibox. You come in with a 30-40 character fleet and take all the ice in a belt "stealing" it from legit players. You could not do that if you ran these independently. You are cheating plain and simple. I am glad CCP is doing this - but they need to limit one instance of .exe per machine as well Your supposed to play the game - not your group of characters.
You are stealing from me when you mine out a belt or gank me with 4 ships or do anything with a group that you could not do by manually entering the commands. Face the truth - anything else is just smoke and mirrors you throw up defending a cheating method......
omg... either the worst troll I've ever seen in here or... well, don't wanna see the *zip* thingy from an ISD here so I cut that part out
Option 2: You're actually serious.
Quote:You are stealing from me when you mine out a belt or gank me with 4 ships
-
do anything with a group that you could not do by manually entering the commands
4 Ships from me, all commands manually entered, no software or anything. Just because YOU are too SLOW doesn't mean nobody can. 4 Ships is pretty easy for some people.
http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150127/fzwp3qty.png
I am stealing from you if I use a ship more? So if there is a sale in a supermarket, a guy who walks in with 2 bags instead of 1 like you is STEALING from you?
Sorry but this is the most ridiculous thing I've heard today. You can argue about software-use, but limit to 1 client per user? You saw CCP promoting multiple accounts? Many things in eve are impossible without multiple characters, so wait and trust someone else for every little thing?
I wanna see you playing in 2 years, maybe do pvp/Incursion/wh whatever and saying: "I am absolutely fine with 1 character and never needed a 2nd one."
|
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6526
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 05:44:39 -
[3741] - Quote
Kaphrah wrote:Balon Mythos Adoudel wrote:Everyone says let CCP beat them for us...I play Eve - you do not when you multibox. You come in with a 30-40 character fleet and take all the ice in a belt "stealing" it from legit players. You could not do that if you ran these independently. You are cheating plain and simple. I am glad CCP is doing this - but they need to limit one instance of .exe per machine as well omg... either the worst troll I've ever seen in here or... well, don't wanna see the *zip* thingy from an ISD here so I cut that part out Option 2: You're actually serious.
I think option 2.
They want ccp to beat the multiboxers for them
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
36
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 20:50:35 -
[3742] - Quote
"petitionfleet" doctrine ... lmao I love it! |
Killy Zane
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 21:16:19 -
[3743] - Quote
To the crowd of people claiming unfair advantage.
Elevate your game.
Eve is about finding and gaining advantage. Outplaying other players.
CCP Seagull has said this is the direction she is taking the game.
You say: I dont want to multibox and I'm not going to pay up for
extra accounts.
Here is what that is like: a player mining belts in their venture
yelling at people in mining barges for having an unfair advantage
while being unwilling to use a mining barge because they dont want
to and it costs too much.
Elevate your game.
-
Which of the following scenarios seem more unfair to you?
a.) I can pay real money right now and i'll have ~800,000,000 more isk than you
b.) I can pay real money right now and get isboxer and alt accounts
and in about a month from now i will have ~800,000,000 more isk than you
One of these things you don't bat an eyelid at, and it is clearly the more unfair of the two.
-
Multiboxing can be done with one moniter, for free. The fact that isboxer
is a paid service is irrelevant. You need to decide if you are against
multiboxing or isboxer. If you use the terms interchangeably, your
arguments are invalid.
In closing, get some sense you ignorant hypocrites and elevate your game. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
5
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 22:36:49 -
[3744] - Quote
Well, I finally got a response from CCP regarding their true stance on things and how THEY interpret their EULA, which in the end, is all that matters.
CCP Peligro wrote:
Hello,
My apologies for the extremely delayed reply.
With regards to "round robin" or other features of specific third party programs; We will not authorize or otherwise sanction the use of any third party software. The End User License Agreement and Terms of Service are clear on this subject:
6. CONDUCT
A. Specifically Restricted Conduct
2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
3. You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.
We do not endorse or condone the use of player-made software or any other third party applications or software that confers an unfair benefit to players. We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay. However, if any third party application or other software is used to gain any unfair advantage, or is used 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 player-made or other third party software at your own risk.
The key part is really this one: "2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played."
Whether input broadcasting is used, video "overlays" or other features are used does not really matter. These are third party programs which change the way the game is played. This also includes round robin.
Best regards,
CCP Peligro
Team Security
So basically, get caught, get banned, end of story. Little workarounds like videofx overlays and round-robin are included in bannable "features"/software.
My discussion with them continues. And I'm also learning about their little spy method and how it works. Quite simple and effective, to the point where if you get caught using the software, you can't deny using it after they even tell you what version of the software you're using. LOL
And yes, the banning has commenced. And thanks to that, I now have my wormhole all to myself since the other resident who lived in it got banned for round-robin use. He was flying his 8 BC's back and forth through the wormholes to force them closed and try to block me from getting back in. It was quite annoying. But now I've had all the time in the world to destroy his POS and everything in it. Quite the loot too. He's gonna be pissed when he logs back in LMAO
See you all in space! |
ashley Eoner
417
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 23:27:44 -
[3745] - Quote
So I'm supposed to believe a character that has 5 posts all of which are attempts to troll or claim "tears" from isboxers....
|
Marsha Mallow
1898
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 00:15:26 -
[3746] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:So I'm supposed to believe a character that has 5 posts all of which are attempts to troll or claim "tears" from isboxers....
That response contradicts what boxers have been told prior. Round robin was always iffy and I'm pretty convinced it's the source of some of the bans we've seen.
I mean seriously your response would ban windowed mode as that changes the way the game is displayed and played. All technical of course.
You forgot to capitalise your first name. And then decided to be 'ashley'. You're not exactly 'reliable' in various contexts for these crimes. Never mind the botting, squawking, poisonous attitude, badposting etc.
@ Trakow - that's really good to see actually. If it's a genuine mail you are probably about to get your bum smacked for reposting it. Having said that, maybe Devs and GMs who make clear statements could add a footnote to certain mails so that they can be reposted by players without them being punished. There's no specific incident referenced there, so let's hope they exercise that discretion appropriately.
I do like the language in the mail tho, especially given the drivel just before your comment.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
651
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 00:27:34 -
[3747] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:So I'm supposed to believe a character that has 5 posts all of which are attempts to troll or claim "tears" from isboxers....
That response contradicts what boxers have been told prior. Round robin was always iffy and I'm pretty convinced it's the source of some of the bans we've seen.
I mean seriously your response would ban windowed mode as that changes the way the game is displayed and played. All technical of course. You forgot to capitalise your first name. And then decided to be 'ashley'. You're not exactly 'reliable' in various contexts for these crimes. Never mind the botting, squawking, poisonous attitude, badposting etc.
The irony of you attacking him for capitalization when you can't even spell Marshmellow yourself combined with your complete disregard for previous statements by CCP and your utter refusal to acknowledge the difference between ISBoxer and a bot (a difference that CCP THEMSELVES HAVE REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT) leads me to conclude you're either a troll and should have your posting privileges revoked, or a person attempting to imitate an ostrich with their head in the sand, ignoring the world around them, in which case you should go back to Tumblr. Either way, please leave and let the big boys try to get some stuff done here. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
6
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 00:57:54 -
[3748] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:So I'm supposed to believe a character that has 5 posts all of which are attempts to troll or claim "tears" from isboxers....
That response contradicts what boxers have been told prior. Round robin was always iffy and I'm pretty convinced it's the source of some of the bans we've seen.
I mean seriously your response would ban windowed mode as that changes the way the game is displayed and played. All technical of course.
Believe what you want. You seriously think I use my main character to post comments? LOL Being a cloaky pilot 99% of the time, that wouldn't be very stealthy of me now would it? |
Marsha Mallow
1898
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 01:32:47 -
[3749] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Attacking him for capitalization when you can't even spell Marshmellow yourself
I bought Marsha in 2008, mainly because the name amused me. I've announced this fairly loudly and frequently. You can petition to have lowercase names reset AFAIK, there is no reason to continue playing with an obvious spelling error. Unless you are being a lowercase rebel, or are proud to be forever known as 'that thick as pigshit lowercase scrub'.
Nolak Ataru wrote:combined with your complete disregard for previous statements by CCP
Quite Possibly CCP since the comments paraphrase the EULA & TOS wrote:We will not authorize or otherwise sanction the use of any third party software.
You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play.
You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.
We do not endorse or condone the use of player-made software or any other third party applications or software that confers an unfair benefit to players.
Nolak Ataru wrote:your utter refusal to acknowledge the difference between ISBoxer and a bot (a difference that CCP THEMSELVES HAVE REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT)
LOOKS LIKE THEY CHANGED THEIR MINDS, EH.
I'm not seeing signs of the botting apocalypse yet. Although your multiboxing forums are deranged enough to make me consider creating an account just to tease them. It's a bit tricky working out who to violate first with so many targets. Looks like a lot of effort when I can just call you a filthy botting peasant here and watch you flail about impotently.
Nolak Ataru wrote:leads me to conclude you're either a troll and should have your posting privileges revoked, or a person attempting to imitate an ostrich with their head in the sand, ignoring the world around them, in which case you should go back to Tumblr. Either way, please leave and let the big boys try to get some stuff done here.
It's only trolling if you get annoyed in response to these remarks. I find it ironic given you and your crowd are whinging about whinging and now resort to calling critics trolls who deserve to have their posting privileges revoked. If you feel violated, abused, harassed, griefed - report me to Detective Teg. Ezwal can scrub me anytime. Maybe Barstool too.
The 'big boys' crumble really quick when you dropkick their weak spot (which is usually very close to their enormous ego, so it's hard to miss). It's not even like we need to bother attacking you given that CCP ~finally~ appear to have reclassified you as the botting scrubs you always were. I'm making a hand gesture at you right now. Report me.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
651
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 01:41:52 -
[3750] - Quote
You can petition to fix lower-case names within 30 days or so from creation. Anything afterwards is up in the air.
If you were an actual critic, you'd (try to) bring up reasons why ISBoxer is bad, or how it's cheating, or pay2win. Since you're not, you're a troll. And I'll continue to call you a troll until you try to bring up an argument against ISBoxer that cannot be used against having two accounts online at once, or programs and websites such as Fuzzworks, Pyfa, or EVEMon.
By the way, they still haven't classified us as bots. Re-read the blog. Bots are automated programs that don't need a person behind the keyboard to operate.
Quote:... software ... confers an unfair benefit to players...
[Citation Needed] |
|
|
Marsha Mallow
1899
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 01:47:59 -
[3751] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:You can petition to fix lower-case names within 30 days or so from creation. Anything afterwards is up in the air. If you were an actual critic, you'd (try to) bring up reasons why ISBoxer is bad, or how it's cheating, or pay2win. Since you're not, you're a troll. And I'll continue to call you a troll until you try to bring up an argument against ISBoxer that cannot be used against having two accounts online at once, or programs and websites such as Fuzzworks, Pyfa, or EVEMon. By the way, they still haven't classified us as bots. Re-read the blog. Bots are automated programs that don't need a person behind the keyboard to operate. Quote:... software ... confers an unfair benefit to players... [Citation Needed]
That's fine. I'll continue to call you a botter, a cheater, a farmer and a peasant. Don't take it personally (and don't make it personal). All in good fun.
I always thought ISBoxer looked like ISKBotter anyway
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
ashley Eoner
418
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 01:49:43 -
[3752] - Quote
I had no idea people cared so much about a lowercase character. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
652
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 01:57:09 -
[3753] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:[That's fine. I'll continue to call you a botter, a cheater, a farmer and a peasant. Don't take it personally (and don't make it personal). All in good fun. I always thought ISBoxer looked like ISKBotter anyway
And this is why nobody takes you seriously. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11654
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 02:05:45 -
[3754] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Marsha Mallow wrote:[That's fine. I'll continue to call you a botter, a cheater, a farmer and a peasant. Don't take it personally (and don't make it personal). All in good fun. I always thought ISBoxer looked like ISKBotter anyway And this is why nobody takes you seriously.
Except for CCP, since they banned ISBotter.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaphrah
Kaphrah Corporation4
35
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 02:06:24 -
[3755] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:You can petition to fix lower-case names within 30 days or so from creation. Anything afterwards is up in the air. If you were an actual critic, you'd (try to) bring up reasons why ISBoxer is bad, or how it's cheating, or pay2win. Since you're not, you're a troll. And I'll continue to call you a troll until you try to bring up an argument against ISBoxer that cannot be used against having two accounts online at once, or programs and websites such as Fuzzworks, Pyfa, or EVEMon. By the way, they still haven't classified us as bots. Re-read the blog. Bots are automated programs that don't need a person behind the keyboard to operate. Quote:... software ... confers an unfair benefit to players... [Citation Needed] That's fine. I'll continue to call you a botter, a cheater, a farmer and a peasant. Don't take it personally (and don't make it personal). All in good fun. I always thought ISBoxer looked like ISKBotter anyway
thx for telling us the reason of your hating here without any useful arguments.
"He has more ISK than me. He uses ISBoxer, I don't. That must be the reason."
jealous people everywhere. Am I also a botter if I use something different like eve overview which is promoted here in the forums for multiboxing? Am I a botter if I'm freaking good and fast with my keyboard and just have really amazing skills, even without any software? Is it unfair if I had the money for 4 GPUs and 10 monitors?
tl;dr all you said: You have something I don't have, CCP pls fix it for me.
Ban people. My brain can manage to send information to the keyboard very fast, this is an advantage over people like you. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
652
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 02:16:12 -
[3756] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Marsha Mallow wrote:[That's fine. I'll continue to call you a botter, a cheater, a farmer and a peasant. Don't take it personally (and don't make it personal). All in good fun. I always thought ISBoxer looked like ISKBotter anyway And this is why nobody takes you seriously. Except for CCP, since they banned ISBotter.
I doubt very much they take Marsha seriously, ban or no ban. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
318
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 03:34:49 -
[3757] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Well, I finally got a response from CCP regarding their true stance on things and how THEY interpret their EULA, which in the end, is all that matters. CCP Peligro wrote:
Whether input broadcasting is used, video "overlays" or other features are used does not really matter. These are third party programs which change the way the game is played. This also includes round robin.
Best regards,
CCP Peligro
Team Security
So basically, get caught, get banned, end of story. Little workarounds like videofx overlays and round-robin are included in bannable "features"/software. My discussion with them continues. And I'm also learning about their little spy method and how it works. Quite simple and effective, to the point where if you get caught using the software, you can't deny using it after they even tell you what version of the software you're using. LOL And yes, the banning has commenced. And thanks to that, I now have my wormhole all to myself since the other resident who lived in it got banned for round-robin use. He was flying his 8 BC's back and forth through the wormholes to force them closed and try to block me from getting back in. It was quite annoying. But now I've had all the time in the world to destroy his POS and everything in it. Quite the loot too. He's gonna be pissed when he logs back in LMAO See you all in space!
OK seems what is being said is - A player can be banned for using IsBoxer's videoFX function, because it changes the way the game is played.
How exactly does it change the way the game is played? Is it any different to having 5 monitors with 10 characters side by side, or is that also likely to get someone banned? Or as in my case 4 monitors with between 7 and 9 characters.
How does Round Robin in any way change the way the game is played - 1 keypress = 1 action on 1 character.
I use only Eve Shortcuts, with key presses setup to suit my needs. Being a lefty the most commonly used shortcuts are assigned to my numpad and without boasting, I am pretty quick at getting done what I need to in a given situation.
Setting up round robin key presses is fully supported via Eve Shortcuts - Yet it seems you can be banned for using them.
(I think CCP Peligro needs to clarify what is and isn't illegal - If using the Eve Shortcuts feature is likely to get players banned, it should be removed)
CCP Advertising;
Never fly alone again, start a buddy account with 60 days included training
and the warning that now needs to be attached to it;
Just don't get good at using both characters together or you risk being banned.
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
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
Tactical Narcotics Team
117
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 04:39:22 -
[3758] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
OK seems what is being said is - A player can be banned for using IsBoxer's videoFX function, because it changes the way the game is played.
How exactly does it change the way the game is played? Is it any different to having 5 monitors with 10 characters side by side, or is that also likely to get someone banned? Or as in my case 4 monitors with between 7 and 9 characters.
Yes, it is different from using multiple monitors. That can go from a little bit different to vastly different, but either way its different. Just to answer the "is it any different" question. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
652
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 04:42:43 -
[3759] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
OK seems what is being said is - A player can be banned for using IsBoxer's videoFX function, because it changes the way the game is played.
How exactly does it change the way the game is played? Is it any different to having 5 monitors with 10 characters side by side, or is that also likely to get someone banned? Or as in my case 4 monitors with between 7 and 9 characters.
Yes, it is different from using multiple monitors. That can go from a little bit different to vastly different, but either way its different. Just to answer the "is it any different" question.
Right.
Multiple monitors gives a player more space to place chat boxes, cargo space, and d-scans, while VideoFX takes away from a player's free space. Totally the same thing. |
Killy Zane
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 04:55:56 -
[3760] - Quote
This:
Marsha Mallow wrote:
You forgot to capitalise your first name. And then decided to be 'ashley'. You're not exactly 'reliable' in various contexts for these crimes. Never mind the botting, squawking, poisonous attitude, badposting etc.
does not address this:
ashley Eoner wrote:
I mean seriously your response would ban windowed mode as that changes the way the game is displayed and played. All technical of course.
and this:
Marsha Mallow wrote:I do like the language in the mail tho, especially given the drivel just before your comment.
does not address my arguments.
Its just name-calling. Speaking of calling. I'm calling you out Marsha Mallow. Address these arguments in your next post.
You can't because your positions are indefensible and you debate like a child.
You wont because you're not here to argue, you're here to fan the flames |
|
|
Killy Zane
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 05:02:18 -
[3761] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Yes, it is different from using multiple monitors. That can go from a little bit different to vastly different, but either way its different. Just to answer the "is it any different" question.
You are using third party software (Windows) to affect the game environment by using multiple windows of various sizes.
Will there be bans handed out for using Microsoft Windows?
Does everyone see how slippery this slope is? |
ChYph3r
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
154
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 05:12:43 -
[3762] - Quote
Killy Zane wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Yes, it is different from using multiple monitors. That can go from a little bit different to vastly different, but either way its different. Just to answer the "is it any different" question.
You are using third party software (Windows) to affect the game environment by using multiple windows of various sizes. Will there be bans handed out for using Microsoft Windows? Does everyone see how slippery this slope is?
This is the dumbest response I have ever F***ng seen. Dude really?!?!?!?!?!
Want to find all the podcasts around EVE Online visit
http://evepodcasts.com
@chyph3r on Twitter
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
Tactical Narcotics Team
117
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 05:17:18 -
[3763] - Quote
Killy Zane wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Yes, it is different from using multiple monitors. That can go from a little bit different to vastly different, but either way its different. Just to answer the "is it any different" question.
You are using third party software (Windows) to affect the game environment by using multiple windows of various sizes. Will there be bans handed out for using Microsoft Windows? Does everyone see how slippery this slope is?
lol and that's the same failed straw man argument that keeps being made by the Boxer crowd.
No, its not the same, EVEmon is not the same. TeamSpeak is not the same. EFT, Dotlan, you name it, its not the same and doesn't need to be used to try and justify why ISB should be allowed. But if it makes you feel better, no, MS Windows and multiple monitors are not the same as VFx |
ChYph3r
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
154
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 05:22:41 -
[3764] - Quote
I think ISD and CCP just need to close this thread. Because ultimately the stupidity here, is at an epic level.
IBL
Want to find all the podcasts around EVE Online visit
http://evepodcasts.com
@chyph3r on Twitter
|
Killy Zane
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 05:28:36 -
[3765] - Quote
Yeah I'm serious. Look, If people are going to sit here and dig in their heels and zoom in on the exact sentence:
"You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played."
to go after VFX, well then lets do it. Let's take it to its logical conclusion. Windows is third party software that can effect how the game is played.
VFX is changing game windows. Windows is changing game windows.
Call it a straw man argument, call it the dumbest thing you ever heard, and when you are done mudslinging maybe try an actual rebuttal.
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
325
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 08:23:27 -
[3766] - Quote
ChYph3r wrote:I think ISD and CCP just need to close this thread. Because ultimately the stupidity here, is at an epic level.
IBL
You forget to call people names for having a different opinion then you, are you feeling ok? Oh wait, yes you called them stupid... My fault
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
326
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 08:36:37 -
[3767] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Killy Zane wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Yes, it is different from using multiple monitors. That can go from a little bit different to vastly different, but either way its different. Just to answer the "is it any different" question.
You are using third party software (Windows) to affect the game environment by using multiple windows of various sizes. Will there be bans handed out for using Microsoft Windows? Does everyone see how slippery this slope is? lol and that's the same failed straw man argument that keeps being made by the Boxer crowd. No, its not the same, EVEmon is not the same. TeamSpeak is not the same. EFT, Dotlan, you name it, its not the same and doesn't need to be used to try and justify why ISB should be allowed. But if it makes you feel better, no, MS Windows and multiple monitors are not the same as VFx
EveHQ, Dedafs Spreadsheet and a half dozen other programs give me a definite advantage in how I make market trades or do production. It's an absolute fact that without them I'd be much less able to compete in the market. Anyone using these tools are breaking the EULA.
EFT allows me to create fits without buying or training up the required skills, since this isn't built into the game client I am certainly using a 3rd party program to gain an unintended advantage over other players.
My 55" 4k screen, dual 780ti GPUs, 32gb of ram and dual Xeons allow me to run way more clients then other people's computers allow them to, not to mention my single client performance blows them out of the water. I am well above the minimal specs so I am certainly at an unfair advantage vs the person who can't afford better equipment then me.
When people buy plexs and are able to fit better performing ships, using 3rd party tools to design the best fit 1st, they are instantly at an unfair advantage from me since I don't fly officer setups. I would like those people banned for being better ratters then I am please.
Whilewe are at it, shall we discuss people getting paid either real money or in game currency for running news websites or generating social media using EVE as the vector? Cause I'm pretty sure that's not allowed either, but CCP turns a blind eye to it until someone spins up a firestorm long enough to ban one person for it while pretending it's not happening else where.
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
|
Komisarzzawada
The Senate and People of Rome
Northern Associates.
5
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 08:55:02 -
[3768] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Well, I finally got a response from CCP regarding their true stance on things and how THEY interpret their EULA, which in the end, is all that matters. CCP Peligro wrote:
Hello,
My apologies for the extremely delayed reply.
With regards to "round robin" or other features of specific third party programs; We will not authorize or otherwise sanction the use of any third party software. The End User License Agreement and Terms of Service are clear on this subject:
6. CONDUCT
A. Specifically Restricted Conduct
2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
3. You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.
We do not endorse or condone the use of player-made software or any other third party applications or software that confers an unfair benefit to players. We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay. However, if any third party application or other software is used to gain any unfair advantage, or is used 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 player-made or other third party software at your own risk.
The key part is really this one: "2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played."
Whether input broadcasting is used, video "overlays" or other features are used does not really matter. These are third party programs which change the way the game is played. This also includes round robin.
Best regards,
CCP Peligro
Team Security
Not sure I believe this post until its get clipped by GM/DEV/ISD ;) if its clipped its true, and at least we got some response
and the line(of what is acceptable) is somewhat drawn. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
275
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 10:28:57 -
[3769] - Quote
Holy smokes. That is a long winded way of saying "we band whoever the **** we want".
I run linix. My OS lets me do round robin! And change the look? change how the game looks? Seriously?
So really what they are saying is "you can pay for multiboxing accounts" But by god you work out how to use them we can ban you.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
327
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 10:43:32 -
[3770] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Holy smokes. That is a long winded way of saying "we band whoever the **** we want".
I run linix. My OS lets me do round robin! And change the look? change how the game looks? Seriously?
So really what they are saying is "you can pay for multiboxing accounts" But by god you work out how to use them we can ban you.
understand they are being extremely vague on purpose in order to not get boxed into a corner if there is a policy change higher up in CCP or 3rd party software starts to cross a line they have drawn in their mind.
CCP Peligro during the CSM 9 Summer Summit was actually one of our strongest defenders. He personally seems to think that multiboxing, isboxer etc are all great for EVE and the community, but when it comes down to brass tacks he has a job to do based on what his supervisors deem is the current EULA interpretation.
Notice they never changed the EULA though, which i find extremely interesting.
However his job at CCP requires him to ride the fence on these issues. He's not in charge of policy at CCP, just enforcement.
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
|
|
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
318
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 12:37:03 -
[3771] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Killy Zane wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Yes, it is different from using multiple monitors. That can go from a little bit different to vastly different, but either way its different. Just to answer the "is it any different" question.
You are using third party software (Windows) to affect the game environment by using multiple windows of various sizes. Will there be bans handed out for using Microsoft Windows? Does everyone see how slippery this slope is? lol and that's the same failed straw man argument that keeps being made by the Boxer crowd. No, its not the same, EVEmon is not the same. TeamSpeak is not the same. EFT, Dotlan, you name it, its not the same and doesn't need to be used to try and justify why ISB should be allowed. But if it makes you feel better, no, MS Windows and multiple monitors are not the same as VFx
Are you sure? Round Robin is not the same as multicasting but judging by a mail sent to a player from CCP peligro - You can be banned for using multiple single action keystrokes quickly, "round robin".
Using CCP Pelligro's response as the example - You can in fact get banned for using Evemon, Dotlan and any number of other 3rd party apps.
EG; It could be said information you gather from Dotlan changes the way you interact with Eve, the fact Dotlan is a 3rd party app and not supported by CCP - you could technically get banned for using it.
EG; Evemon directly has an affect on how many play the game and there fore it is illegal to use under CCP Pelligro's explanation of what is and is not allowed.
EG; TeamSpeak directly has an impact on how players interact within the game.
I see the slippery slope very clearly (through all the haze surrounding CCP "official" policy on this)
Quote: CCP Peligro wrote: you may not use stored rapid keystrokes
CCP Peligro has already made it clear you can be banned for using the shortcuts provided by CCP in interface management . Set those shortcuts up to suit your needs and operate them too quickly (not sure what constitutes too quickly), you can be banned because "round robin" is simply using a set of keystrokes to carry out 1 command at a time on one interface at a time and the use of round robin keystrokes will get you banned.
NB; I would not expect CCP to actually stick strictly to their EULA as that would pretty much bankrupt them. But there is nothing to say they can't. They haven't drawn a clear line as to what is and isn't acceptable - Reminds me a little of election time, politicians are renowned for telling you one thing then doing another.
And to those who want to argue it all over the place.. Read the post which includes the quote from CCP Peligro. You can interpret it any way you like but what he said is - You can get banned for using "ANY" 3rd party app that changes the way the game is played..
All 3rd party apps change the way we play the game, otherwise, who would bother using them if there was no advantage to them.
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
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
903
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 13:29:27 -
[3772] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
CCP Peligro has already made it clear you can be banned for using the shortcuts provided by CCP in interface management . Set those shortcuts up to suit your needs and operate them too quickly (not sure what constitutes too quickly), you can be banned because "round robin" is simply using a set of keystrokes to carry out 1 command at a time on one interface at a time and the use of round robin keystrokes will get you banned.
Worst part is that Eve client has built-in round-robin macro in the keybinds itself, I'm fairly sure people are avoiding that feature at this moment in time even though it's a 1st party piece of coding because giving a clear answer is really hard for CCP.
The long quote just pointed out that any and all 3rd party software can or will lead to one getting their account suspended depending on the quality of the coffee someone made earlier that morning. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6527
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 14:10:37 -
[3773] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
CCP Peligro has already made it clear you can be banned for using the shortcuts provided by CCP in interface management . Set those shortcuts up to suit your needs and operate them too quickly (not sure what constitutes too quickly), you can be banned because "round robin" is simply using a set of keystrokes to carry out 1 command at a time on one interface at a time and the use of round robin keystrokes will get you banned.
Worst part is that Eve client has built-in round-robin macro in the keybinds itself, I'm fairly sure people are avoiding that feature at this moment in time even though it's a 1st party piece of coding because giving a clear answer is really hard for CCP. The long quote just pointed out that any and all 3rd party software can or will lead to one getting their account suspended depending on the quality of the coffee someone made earlier that morning.
Wait what, what is this keybind listed at?
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Marc Callan
Thrall Nation
Brave Collective
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 14:43:37 -
[3774] - Quote
I know I'm late to the party, but isn't the rule basically that multiple ships effectively slaved to one set of controls, by whatever method, so that they all operate in parallel, is against the rules?
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."
- Kurt Vonnegurt
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
653
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 14:54:11 -
[3775] - Quote
Marc Callan wrote:I know I'm late to the party, but isn't the rule basically that multiple ships effectively slaved to one set of controls, by whatever method, so that they all operate in parallel, is against the rules?
In parallel, yes. However, people found a way to do it in series (one after another) and they too are getting punished. Chances are, the local miner in your belt is using round robin broadcasting, or is just fleet warping + alt-tabbing. Be warned that repeated false reports will get your account punished as well. |
ChYph3r
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
159
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 15:25:58 -
[3776] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:ChYph3r wrote:I think ISD and CCP just need to close this thread. Because ultimately the stupidity here, is at an epic level.
IBL You forget to call people names for having a different opinion then you, are you feeling ok? Oh wait, yes you called them stupid... My fault
Still stuck on that huh? get over it sir.
Want to find all the podcasts around EVE Online visit
http://evepodcasts.com
@chyph3r on Twitter
|
Marc Callan
Thrall Nation
Brave Collective
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 15:38:20 -
[3777] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Marc Callan wrote:I know I'm late to the party, but isn't the rule basically that multiple ships effectively slaved to one set of controls, by whatever method, so that they all operate in parallel, is against the rules? In parallel, yes. However, people found a way to do it in series (one after another) and they too are getting punished. Chances are, the local miner in your belt is using round robin broadcasting, or is just fleet warping + alt-tabbing. Be warned that repeated false reports will get your account punished as well.
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "parallel"; would "acting in concert" be better? Because whether the command entry is parallel or serial, the effect seems to be the same: one person controlling several ships as though they were all locked to a single set of controls. And as far as I can tell, the end result - multiple ships moving in lockstep - is what CCP is trying to smack down.
And ... "repeated false reports?" Where'd that come from?
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."
- Kurt Vonnegurt
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
653
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 15:46:50 -
[3778] - Quote
Marc Callan wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Marc Callan wrote:I know I'm late to the party, but isn't the rule basically that multiple ships effectively slaved to one set of controls, by whatever method, so that they all operate in parallel, is against the rules? In parallel, yes. However, people found a way to do it in series (one after another) and they too are getting punished. Chances are, the local miner in your belt is using round robin broadcasting, or is just fleet warping + alt-tabbing. Be warned that repeated false reports will get your account punished as well. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "parallel"; would "acting in concert" be better? Because whether the command entry is parallel or serial, the effect seems to be the same: one person controlling several ships as though they were all locked to a single set of controls. And as far as I can tell, the end result - multiple ships moving in lockstep - is what CCP is trying to smack down. And ... "repeated false reports?" Where'd that come from?
Well, CCP banned straight broadcasting, i.e. "parallel". Round Robin Broadcasting, "series", is/was allowed by their new interpretation under the "multiple actions for multiple clients". So using RRB, the ships aren't in "lock step" and should fall on the legal side of the EULA.
I apologize for any misinterpretation of "repeated false reports" and targeting you specifically. I was just attempting to warn the general population that repeatedly reporting a person / group for an action that is perceived to be against the EULA, and a GM or CCP tells you that it's allowed, if you continue to file reports against that person, you (the general "you") may be punished for abuse of the report system. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29669
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 15:55:38 -
[3779] - Quote
I'm wondering if Sisi will react to Logitech G-keys like TQ in detection and potential bans? I spent some time testing G-key binds last night, and my characters aren't banned, which is almost good news. I'm not sure if Sisi testing is the same thing.
I discovered the Ctrl+F1-F8 of activating the bottom rack of modules runs into issues of locking selected overview items instead of activating modules. The result is erroneous locks and the normal top rack of F1-F8 being activated. This is particularly consequential for modules like triage and siege.
What I had to do was move my bottom rack of modules into the middle rack, and use Alt+F1-F8. The Logitech bind itself is F1-F8, and to use it I had to hold down Alt. So: Alt+G-key. I used this for activating my tank. Particularly handy for travel and breaking cloak after gate jumps.
Thankfully, the Alt key press is valid through client changes: Alt, click client, G-key, click client, G-key, etc.
The other simple bind was F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F7 for my six-link warfare booster (impractical Sisi fit).
Still not feeling gutsy enough to try this on TQ.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
906
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 16:11:23 -
[3780] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
CCP Peligro has already made it clear you can be banned for using the shortcuts provided by CCP in interface management . Set those shortcuts up to suit your needs and operate them too quickly (not sure what constitutes too quickly), you can be banned because "round robin" is simply using a set of keystrokes to carry out 1 command at a time on one interface at a time and the use of round robin keystrokes will get you banned.
Worst part is that Eve client has built-in round-robin macro in the keybinds itself, I'm fairly sure people are avoiding that feature at this moment in time even though it's a 1st party piece of coding because giving a clear answer is really hard for CCP. The long quote just pointed out that any and all 3rd party software can or will lead to one getting their account suspended depending on the quality of the coffee someone made earlier that morning. Wait what, what is this keybind listed at?
Combat -> "Tag item from sequence:.."
It's a round robin macro which affects parts of gameplay and as such does up to 9 actions from a single key.
|
|
|
Lunadria
RK Industries
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 17:57:29 -
[3781] - Quote
Trakow wrote: And thanks to that, I now have my wormhole all to myself since the other resident who lived in it got banned for round-robin use. He was flying his 8 BC's back and forth through the wormholes to force them closed and try to block me from getting back in. It was quite annoying. But now I've had all the time in the world to destroy his POS and everything in it. Quite the loot too. He's gonna be pissed when he logs back in LMAO See you all in space!
1. Trakow you are a liar !!!
2. I live in the WH since Jan 06, 2014 look in the killboard i saw you first in Dec, 2014 in it !
https://zkillboard.com/system/31000247/
3. if you want i can post the ingame mails you send to me from your main and alt char to prove that you are a liar !!! |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
328
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 18:23:11 -
[3782] - Quote
Lunadria wrote:Trakow wrote: And thanks to that, I now have my wormhole all to myself since the other resident who lived in it got banned for round-robin use. He was flying his 8 BC's back and forth through the wormholes to force them closed and try to block me from getting back in. It was quite annoying. But now I've had all the time in the world to destroy his POS and everything in it. Quite the loot too. He's gonna be pissed when he logs back in LMAO See you all in space! 1. Trakow you are a liar !!! 2. I live in the WH since Jan 06, 2014 look in the killboard i saw you first in Dec, 2014 in it ! https://zkillboard.com/system/31000247/
3. if you want i can post the ingame mails you send to me from your main and alt char to prove that you are a liar !!!
Hey you two get off my lawn!
Crime and punishment is down to the hall and Wormhole dirty blobbers are right next door!
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
6
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 18:24:39 -
[3783] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
OK seems what is being said is - A player can be banned for using IsBoxer's videoFX function, because it changes the way the game is played.
How exactly does it change the way the game is played? Is it any different to having 5 monitors with 10 characters side by side, or is that also likely to get someone banned? Or as in my case 4 monitors with between 7 and 9 characters.
Completely different because of the space in between windows. VideoFX can place everything you need all next to each other in a small space which makes it much easier to click on everything within seconds. If you have 5 monitors you need to move your mouse from screen to screen and isn't as easy. So, VideoFX is changing the way the game is displayed and how you play it.
Lunadria wrote:Trakow wrote: And thanks to that, I now have my wormhole all to myself since the other resident who lived in it got banned for round-robin use. He was flying his 8 BC's back and forth through the wormholes to force them closed and try to block me from getting back in. It was quite annoying. But now I've had all the time in the world to destroy his POS and everything in it. Quite the loot too. He's gonna be pissed when he logs back in LMAO See you all in space! 1. Trakow you are a liar !!! 2. I live in the WH since Jan 06, 2014 look in the killboard i saw you first in Dec, 2014 in it ! https://zkillboard.com/system/31000247/
3. if you want i can post the ingame mails you send to me from your main and alt char to prove that you are a liar !!!
Negative. I've been out of there for a long long time, and I'm not talking about this character(Trakow) either. ALL my characters live in wormholes.... However, I did also report you. I never bothered to try staying in your WH because there were 3 POSes already. I did find a WH system through yours though that had one POS in it. So my alt set up in there and he was doing the same crap you did. I only use Trakow to scout and talk on this forum :P |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
655
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 18:26:20 -
[3784] - Quote
With 4 monitors in a square, you can activate modules on each of them fairly fast if you simply stick to the corners in the center of the setup. So, banhammer. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
6
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 18:44:39 -
[3785] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:With 4 monitors in a square, you can activate modules on each of them fairly fast if you simply stick to the corners in the center of the setup. So, banhammer.
Well there you go, so just do that. You just proved that you can play just as easily without using VideoFX, so why use it? |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
656
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 18:56:00 -
[3786] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:With 4 monitors in a square, you can activate modules on each of them fairly fast if you simply stick to the corners in the center of the setup. So, banhammer. Well there you go, so just do that. You just proved that you can play just as easily without using VideoFX, so why use it?
No, I just proved that player solutions can get you banned for playing EVE without the use of ISBoxer. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
6
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 19:10:54 -
[3787] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Trakow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:With 4 monitors in a square, you can activate modules on each of them fairly fast if you simply stick to the corners in the center of the setup. So, banhammer. Well there you go, so just do that. You just proved that you can play just as easily without using VideoFX, so why use it? No, I just proved that player solutions can get you banned for playing EVE without the use of ISBoxer.
No, because CCP can see if you're running ISBoxer or not. I am a programmer and it's really easy to include a bit of code that sees what other processes are running, which can then be checked against a list of known software that is banned. It's also easy to find out which windows have focus, and if the focus changes without an ALT-TAB key combination or a mouse-click, that's also an easy way to find round-robin users. Or, alternatively, if the key press action is sent directly to another window, without the focus changing, which is also possible, then that's another red flag that round-robin is being used. It's too easy.
One example of being caught red-handed is the link someone posted a while back about an incursion player who got banned. He denied using ISBoxer/input broadcasting at first when he complained on the forum, but then later admitted that he was using VideoFX and round-robin. So it wasn't the input-broadcasting that got him caught, because he wasn't doing that. They obviously knew that he was using the software. I have yet to hear about someone getting banned for using ISBoxer when they actually weren't. And those that have been banned will of course deny using it even if they are, but I have yet to hear about someone getting their account unbanned after finding it was a false accusation. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
277
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 19:26:15 -
[3788] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Trakow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:With 4 monitors in a square, you can activate modules on each of them fairly fast if you simply stick to the corners in the center of the setup. So, banhammer. Well there you go, so just do that. You just proved that you can play just as easily without using VideoFX, so why use it? No, I just proved that player solutions can get you banned for playing EVE without the use of ISBoxer. No, because CCP can see if you're running ISBoxer or not. I am a programmer and it's really easy to include a bit of code that sees what other processes are running, which can then be checked against a list of known software that is banned. It's also easy to find out which windows have focus, and if the focus changes without an ALT-TAB key combination or a mouse-click, that's also an easy way to find round-robin users. Or, alternatively, if the key press action is sent directly to another window, without the focus changing, which is also possible, then that's another red flag that round-robin is being used. It's too easy. One example of being caught red-handed is the link someone posted a while back about an incursion player who got banned. He denied using ISBoxer/input broadcasting at first when he complained on the forum, but then later admitted that he was using VideoFX and round-robin. So it wasn't the input-broadcasting that got him caught, because he wasn't doing that. They obviously knew that he was using the software. I have yet to hear about someone getting banned for using ISBoxer when they actually weren't. And those that have been banned will of course deny using it even if they are, but I have yet to hear about someone getting their account unbanned after finding it was a false accusation.
You are wrong. It is easy to hide these things. For example i am on linux. To eve it looks like it is the only thing running on windows, even when i multibox. Even worse, is the privacy implications in the EU that no EULA can overrule.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
659
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 19:42:59 -
[3789] - Quote
You forget one major thing about the guy who got banned.
He was following CCP's new interpretation of the EULA and got banned. He never denied he was using broadcasting, he denied he was using straight broadcasting. If CCP is going to ignore their own EULA regarding that, after promising us they can detect the difference between the two.... |
ashley Eoner
419
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 19:44:21 -
[3790] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Completely different because of the space in between windows. VideoFX can place everything you need all next to each other in a small space which makes it much easier to click on everything within seconds. If you have 5 monitors you need to move your mouse from screen to screen and isn't as easy. So, VideoFX is changing the way the game is displayed and how you play it. Except it isn't as you can easily stack eve in window mode so all your overviews and such are right next to each other. I can run VGs about the same without isboxer as I can with isboxer's videofx. The only difference is someone with a smaller monitor at a lower resolution can only keep up with me if they are using videofx.
If anything videofx levels the field by allowing those without the financial resources to buy a 55 inch 4k monitor to do something similar with a smaller display.
Trakow wrote:One example of being caught red-handed is the link someone posted a while back about an incursion player who got banned. He denied using ISBoxer/input broadcasting at first when he complained on the forum, but then later admitted that he was using VideoFX and round-robin. So it wasn't the input-broadcasting that got him caught, because he wasn't doing that. They obviously knew that he was using the software. I have yet to hear about someone getting banned for using ISBoxer when they actually weren't. And those that have been banned will of course deny using it even if they are, but I have yet to hear about someone getting their account unbanned after finding it was a false accusation.
I like your imagination and shamelessness. You have no issue with making up whole stories in an attempt to support your statements.
Think about this for a moment. If CCP can tell what you're running then how do they fail so massively at stopping bots? I mean they ban some and I applaud them for that but any trip to certain areas will result in you seeing a lot of obvious bots running. |
|
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
6
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 20:01:56 -
[3791] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Blahblah...
Learn how capitalization of proper nouns works, then talk. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
6
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 20:13:11 -
[3792] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:You are wrong. It is easy to hide these things. For example i am on linux. To eve it looks like it is the only thing running on windows, even when i multibox. Even worse, is the privacy implications in the EU that no EULA can overrule.
There are plenty of tools to see that, lsof, netstat, nc, and while they don't show all processes from all users, they can show processes from the current user that executed the program. Works for me in Ubuntu... |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
277
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 20:22:58 -
[3793] - Quote
Not from within wine it doesn't. Then there are instances, and injection and well clearly your not as much of a programmer as you think you are.
Oh and using isboxer is *not* cheating.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
144
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 20:42:30 -
[3794] - Quote
god damn, offline for two days and new wall of text in the Forums.
to the Video FX haters.
i can just Position 10 Webcams to the Monitors i have and accumulate the recorded Videos on one Screen. not third Party Software used. but same effect.
so why not using the power of the graphicscard to do the same? out of eve btw cause videofx is NOT changing eve. ist just recording eve and displaying it on another Position.
you dont want to ban fraps for recording eve. why do you want to ban Video fx for that?
ccp falcon stated that in the lates Podcast that videofx is NOT taken as a bannable offense. and since no other Statement is beeing put here readable for ALL OF THE COMMUNITY we dont have reason to believe otherwise.
and to the guys who are not getting tired to post again that evemon, teamspeak etc is not causing an unfair Advantage over Players not using those.
THEY ARE. teamspeak is giving you a huge Advantage over another fleet not using teamspeak during fight.
evemon is giving you a huge Advantage in planning skills etc. compared to a guy who is not using it.
I am issueing ten commands to ten different boxes using ten different keys.
so no difference to a normal Player cause i dont use multiplex or broadcasting.
if you want to get me banned cause i use my ten fingers then go on.
since eve is not getting into the News anymore with good things it might has to be the first MMORPG banning Players for using all fingers a normal grown human has.
i'm looking forward to that.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
175
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 20:46:29 -
[3795] - Quote
Lol at evemon being an advantage. Should also have included spreadsheets and websites(as these hold forums) |
ashley Eoner
419
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 20:51:01 -
[3796] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Not from within wine it doesn't. Then there are instances, and injection and well clearly your not as much of a programmer as you think you are.
Oh and using isboxer is *not* cheating.
Be careful as under the rules being discussed using wine would be a bannable offense.
As noted above Falcon already made the argument against banning videofx in a podcast not that long ago. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
144
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 20:55:51 -
[3797] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Lol at evemon being an advantage. Should also have included spreadsheets and websites(as these hold forums)
you are using evemon dont you?
so it is not bothering you.
People who dont use evemon do have a clear disadvantage cause they cant plan and remap properly.
so why the **** is that allowed? |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
319
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:58:17 -
[3798] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
CCP Peligro has already made it clear you can be banned for using the shortcuts provided by CCP in interface management . Set those shortcuts up to suit your needs and operate them too quickly (not sure what constitutes too quickly), you can be banned because "round robin" is simply using a set of keystrokes to carry out 1 command at a time on one interface at a time and the use of round robin keystrokes will get you banned.
Worst part is that Eve client has built-in round-robin macro in the keybinds itself, I'm fairly sure people are avoiding that feature at this moment in time even though it's a 1st party piece of coding because giving a clear answer is really hard for CCP. The long quote just pointed out that any and all 3rd party software can or will lead to one getting their account suspended depending on the quality of the coffee someone made earlier that morning. Wait what, what is this keybind listed at? Combat -> "Tag item from sequence:.." It's a round robin macro which affects parts of gameplay and as such does up to 9 actions from a single key.
Huh. I have used that so often I forgot about it. I wonder though if round robin style keystrokes (provided by CCP) that perform multiple actions on 1 instance of TQ will be exempt.
The difference I see that needs clarification; A macro is something stored on your computer to partially automate an action (it replaces multiple keystrokes with one) - Round robin can be setup using nothing but tools provided by CCP and without use of stored macros.
The eve interface stores all the keybinds (no need for macros) and can be freely modified by players to suit their needs (eg; left handed players).
Are CCP really going to start banning players for using the tools, they provide them with to play the game?
More and more it seems CCP need to clarify their position and "clearly" tell players what is and is not allowed.
This won't and can't happen because CCP don't know what their position is (yet) and the longer they allow this situation to continue the harder it is going to get to draw that line.
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
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
Tactical Narcotics Team
117
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 23:02:14 -
[3799] - Quote
The reason why using examples like Teamspeak, Evemon, Dotlan, EFT, Excel, Windows Calculator or any other third or fourth-party program you can think of is so fail is because CCP does not consider these part of in-game play. They may indeed create an advantage, but these apps do not interact with the client on the input side of the equation. Using VFX for streaming reasons doesn't either. But if you are using VFX to create inputs into the game, then that is an entirely different story. You are ostensibly creating an alternate user interface. These other programs that are continuously referenced don't change anything but the decision-making process in the mind of the player sitting at the keyboard. How is this not clear to you?
All third-party apps are not created equal. Even if you could legitimately make a non-laughable case that any of these apps, up to and including Windows itself, somehow bestows an advantage, it doesn't even matter. CCP has the right to rule in favor of one or more at the expense of any of the others. Why not just focus your efforts on defending ISBoxer based on its own merits? It's just a smarter argument than trying to create some equivalency between all third-party apps. CCP could decide Dotlan or EFT create the most lopsided advantage in the history of gaming and still choose to allow them. It has absolutely nothing to do with their decision related to ISboxer.
At this point, the arguments in favor of ISBoxer and the examples of various workarounds have probably hurt the pro-ISBoxer case more than helped it. Your best case, and one that I have been trying to hammer on for months, is in trying to pressure CCP to say more publicly so that the rules are as understandable as possible. However, I think this is just going to come down to all sides hearing what they want to hear by twisting the words to fit a desired outcome. Sadly, that isn't going to save anyone when/if the bans come. "I thought what Falcon said meant this..." isn't going to be a defense. If Falcon said anything it is: petition CCP for an answer. You may want to try that.
In the end, I'm really starting to wonder if some of you are just dead-enders. That if it really does go the way it seems like it is going that you'll just quit anyway, so why not go down fighting until you get banned. Fair enough. We've all got to go out some way. Good Luck. I hope they bring more clarity and perhaps they will at FanFest. I'm sure some of you will be there and will be able to meet face to face with Falcon and Peligro and others. I look forward to what may come of some face to face sidebars or even their presentation from Team Security. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
319
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 23:04:46 -
[3800] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:god damn, offline for two days and new wall of text in the Forums.
ccp falcon stated that in the lates Podcast that videofx is NOT taken as a bannable offense. and since no other Statement is beeing put here readable for ALL OF THE COMMUNITY we dont have reason to believe otherwise.
Go back a few pages, the is a quoted message from CCP Peligro stating you "will" be banned for using any 3rd party program, this includes, VideoFX and Round Robin keystrokes.
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
|
|
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
278
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 23:55:16 -
[3801] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Charadrass wrote:god damn, offline for two days and new wall of text in the Forums.
ccp falcon stated that in the lates Podcast that videofx is NOT taken as a bannable offense. and since no other Statement is beeing put here readable for ALL OF THE COMMUNITY we dont have reason to believe otherwise.
Go back a few pages, the is a quoted message from CCP Peligro stating you "will" be banned for using any 3rd party program, this includes, VideoFX . Seems the original post has been edited by ISD. Important part is quoted here.Dirk - CCP keep banning people without clarifying where and what the line is - There won't be enough players left to attend fanfest. How many subscribers can CCP afford to throw away and still make money?
It most certainly is not all multiboxers. Yet i can't see how this is going anywhere else. Why should i spend the next 2 years limping along afraid that i can get banned anytime some WoW in space guy is going to petition with zero recourse?
Seriously starting to reconsider my long term plans here. And just 3 weeks ago i was planing to buying 3 characters and setting up accounts to go with them
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
6
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 23:58:22 -
[3802] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Not from within wine it doesn't. Then there are instances, and injection and well clearly your not as much of a programmer as you think you are.
Oh and using isboxer is *not* cheating.
An instance is just an executable running, and by running multiple copies of the executable, you're creating multiple instances. And injection has nothing to do with anything because DLL injection and SQL injection has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about, and nothing to do with wine or eve... So don't talk about random things that you googled and know nothing about. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
Tactical Narcotics Team
119
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 01:16:10 -
[3803] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Dirk - CCP keep banning people without clarifying where and what the line is - There won't be enough players left to attend fanfest.
How many subscribers can CCP afford to throw away and still make money?
I hear ya and if there is any one thing I've been trying to argue for it is simple language in the form of an FAQ or something similar. It's actually a common ground between the pro- and anti-boxer sides. Both should want to know without all the speculation and .
That being said, it may just be that CCP wants players to steer so far clear of the line that they don't even come close. There is a sure-fire method for achieving that - don't use third-party programs that allow you to generate an input of any kind. It may not be the answer users of these apps want to here, but it will guarantee staying out of trouble. Anyway, I'm pretty much done with the whole issue. I'll wait for FanFest, watch the presentations and see what happens. In the meantime, some users will be trying to sidestep a minefield in the dark and while sad on various levels, not all that unexpected. Some people gotta push it til it breaks |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
146
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 12:01:36 -
[3804] - Quote
Every Third Party Program is creating an In Game Advantage.
EvEMon - reducing significantly your needed time for long term skill plannings. thereforce it might reduces your Ingame or Realworld Money costs.
Teamspeak - creating a significant better Fleetmovement and allows faster control and reaction in certain circumstances.
EveCentral - allows daytraders and "marketbots"! to react quicker to the market than normal pilots. that is a huge advantage over normal players.
Siggy - Wormhole overviews. without that a normal pilot has to do a lot more to spread his scanned information.
isboxer with broadcasting - allowing one player to fly with multiple accounts and do the same actions to ALL accounts at the same time. hence. you misclick and warp into a trap. you die. with all your boxes. there is no difference between 10 players flying and 1 player flying with 10 boxes. except the pure envy the 1 player gets. for what? i dont know. he has multiple costs in ships, ammo, plex / realmoney. and multiple chances to lose all ships at once.
isboxer without broadcasting - still allowing one player to fly with multiple accounts, but this time the player has to interact with each box. this can be achieved via keybuttons linked to a specific box. so every command send out needs to be pressed seperatly.
yes. you have an advantage with third party software.
yes teamspeak and evemon are falling under this description as well as isboxer.
and no. your freighter got not ganked from an isboxer because he could. your freighter got ganked cause it was worth it.
if youre getting ganked by a regular pirate crew or an isboxer doesnt matter in the end, does it? |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
279
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 12:28:36 -
[3805] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Not from within wine it doesn't. Then there are instances, and injection and well clearly your not as much of a programmer as you think you are.
Oh and using isboxer is *not* cheating. An instance is just an executable running, and by running multiple copies of the executable, you're creating multiple instances. And injection has nothing to do with anything because DLL injection and SQL injection has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about, and nothing to do with wine or eve... So don't talk about random things that you googled and know nothing about.
Your funny. Injection, as in replace OS libs so that all os call are intercepted by your own code is not hard to do. All root kits do it. They exist for just about every OS out there.
MS, sony , Disney and other massive players in this game learn this lesson every single time they try and own others hardware in a bid to curb copyright stuff. You can't make other peoples computers do what you want them to do. What makes you think that CCP can do better.
Oh computer security was my day job in a previous life. It is not hard to hide running programs. Especially when eve does not run with elevated permissions.
And by instance i mean Xen and other virtualization stuff.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
175
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 13:47:32 -
[3806] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:Lady Rift wrote:Lol at evemon being an advantage. Should also have included spreadsheets and websites(as these hold forums) you are using evemon dont you? so it is not bothering you. People who dont use evemon do have a clear disadvantage cause they cant plan and remap properly. in fact, they are losing time over those players who are using evemon. Players with evemon have to pay less to reach their skillgoals. so evemon is pay to win? so why the **** is that allowed?
don't bother with the new skill queue evemon just waste time. I know from in game what skills are what attributes and once I make a year ish queue I remap to those attributes. I can do this quickly as its not hard at all. Evemon doesn't do anything that you can't figure out ingame.
Evemon doesn't do anything for speed, proof set up a plan and see how fast it trains oh that's right it doesn't you need to go into eve and queue the skill and you train at the same speed with evemon installed or not.
EFT fitting tools I don't bother with. If someone wants me to pvp they either give me a ship(doesn't happen much anymore :( ) or they just post a fitting for me.
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
147
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 14:31:37 -
[3807] - Quote
sorry. forgot EFT.
evemon is calculating the best remap.
i dont see you filling the skill queue for a year and calculating manually what should be the best remap. really i dont see it.
and even though.
evemon is violating the new eula directly.
ccps statement that this violation is ok ....erm... will not be a bannable offense is rendering the whole eula useless and greyzoned.
cause ccp can flip their statements each and every second. plus youre getting different statements based on the ccp employee you are asking.
and the best thing is.
one gm is accusing another for lying.
i am not kidding.
so ccp, balls to the walls. state clearly what is allowed and what is not.
regarding to the forums and eula statements: videofx + manuall multiboxing one key per box per command is allowed.
so stick to that and stop banning players for beeing fast.
or post here in the forums. from a dev, a gm, or from hilmar himself. that isboxer + videofx + manual multiboxing is forbidden.
easy for everyone. the whole problematique is there because ccp dont get it done to publish a clear statement.
we were happy as ccp stated: broadcasting and multiplexing is forbidden. we adapted and still got banned a few.
we want to stay in eve as customers. so if you want us to stay. erase the grey areas. its not that hard. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
662
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 14:36:53 -
[3808] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:don't bother with the new skill queue evemon just waste time. I know from in game what skills are what attributes and once I make a year ish queue I remap to those attributes. I can do this quickly as its not hard at all. Evemon doesn't do anything that you can't figure out ingame.
Evemon doesn't do anything for speed, proof set up a plan and see how fast it trains oh that's right it doesn't you need to go into eve and queue the skill and you train at the same speed with evemon installed or not.
EFT fitting tools I don't bother with. If someone wants me to pvp they either give me a ship(doesn't happen much anymore :( ) or they just post a fitting for me.
It's not that it makes it faster. It's that it can be argued that it grants an advantage over someone who DOESN'T use EVEMon, or EFT. With EVEMon, you can optimize your queue for a year or more and optimize your attribute remap timing and train faster than someone who hasn't mapped it out and perfectly remaps every year.
For EFT, just because you don't use it doesn't mean it can't provide an advantage. My current PVP toy came about because of EFT/PYFA, as I have to use a meta module in order to cram everything on without implants. I challenge you to find me someone who has memorized each and every module in EVE and their CPU/PG attributes. I'd be very surprised if someone has. Some of the meta modules (damage controls, for example) are kinda expensive, and new players without much ISK or market skills would buy the meta 4 one (currently 8m or so Jita) and find out it didn't fit, or that he could fit the T2 version, and now he's wasted ISK. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
175
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 16:53:04 -
[3809] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Lady Rift wrote:don't bother with the new skill queue evemon just waste time. I know from in game what skills are what attributes and once I make a year ish queue I remap to those attributes. I can do this quickly as its not hard at all. Evemon doesn't do anything that you can't figure out ingame.
Evemon doesn't do anything for speed, proof set up a plan and see how fast it trains oh that's right it doesn't you need to go into eve and queue the skill and you train at the same speed with evemon installed or not.
EFT fitting tools I don't bother with. If someone wants me to pvp they either give me a ship(doesn't happen much anymore :( ) or they just post a fitting for me. It's not that it makes it faster. It's that it can be argued that it grants an advantage over someone who DOESN'T use EVEMon, or EFT. With EVEMon, you can optimize your queue for a year or more and optimize your attribute remap timing and train faster than someone who hasn't mapped it out and perfectly remaps every year. For EFT, just because you don't use it doesn't mean it can't provide an advantage. My current PVP toy came about because of EFT/PYFA, as I have to use a meta module in order to cram everything on without implants. I challenge you to find me someone who has memorized each and every module in EVE and their CPU/PG attributes. I'd be very surprised if someone has. Some of the meta modules (damage controls, for example) are kinda expensive, and new players without much ISK or market skills would buy the meta 4 one (currently 8m or so Jita) and find out it didn't fit, or that he could fit the T2 version, and now he's wasted ISK.
And i didn't say anything on eft in that last post cause I have friends who will do that thing for me.
evemon for training queue can be done in game now that you aren't limited to a 24 hour queue. It really is only useful for a faster way to see what skill a mod requires to use and then compare it against of mods of that type. You can queue up to 10 years in the skill queue if I remember CCP right.
So trying to say that evemon is a distinct and definite advantage to acquiring things in game faster is a lie. I get my 2610sp/hr all the time without it and evemon wouldn't let me train faster than that. (I use +4's)
Evemon might be more convenient but doesn't accelerate acquiring things |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
175
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 17:06:31 -
[3810] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:sorry. forgot EFT.
evemon is calculating the best remap.
i dont see you filling the skill queue for a year and calculating manually what should be the best remap. really i dont see it.
and even though.
evemon is violating the new eula directly.
ccps statement that this violation is ok ....erm... will not be a bannable offense is rendering the whole eula useless and greyzoned.
cause ccp can flip their statements each and every second. plus youre getting different statements based on the ccp employee you are asking.
and the best thing is.
one gm is accusing another for lying.
i am not kidding.
so ccp, balls to the walls. state clearly what is allowed and what is not.
regarding to the forums and eula statements: videofx + manuall multiboxing one key per box per command is allowed.
so stick to that and stop banning players for beeing fast.
or post here in the forums. from a dev, a gm, or from hilmar himself. that isboxer + videofx + manual multiboxing is forbidden.
easy for everyone. the whole problematique is there because ccp dont get it done to publish a clear statement.
we were happy as ccp stated: broadcasting and multiplexing is forbidden. we adapted and still got banned a few.
we want to stay in eve as customers. so if you want us to stay. erase the grey areas. its not that hard.
Its really not hard to pick int+mem skills for a year, then pick per+will for a year and so on. When you could only have a 24 hour queue it was a pain to remember what skills you wanted to train next sometimes but with over a year long queue now it really isnt hard. |
|
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
147
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 17:14:46 -
[3811] - Quote
well. at least i dont pick my skills after what stats they use to skill.
i pick my skills what i wanna fly. and if thats a big ship with guns and shields and armor which takes more than a year i let evemon calculate the fastest way for that.
if you show me ingame how i can do that i would appreciate that. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
279
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 17:15:08 -
[3812] - Quote
Thread derailing...
Who cares about evemon. I don't.
What i care about is that something that was fine for 10 years no longer is. A CSM person posted to claim that 99% think mulitboxing is cheating, finally we are having people band with no explanations other "anything that is not eve shall invoke a banhammer if we feel like it".
What is going to be changed next, because of a vocal minority that want everything to be perfectly "fair". Fixed screen resolution? no multiboxing at all?
In the mean time the power of two advertising continues.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
147
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 17:27:39 -
[3813] - Quote
we already had those voices here, claiming only one active client at a time per player.
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
6
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 17:53:00 -
[3814] - Quote
Komisarzzawada wrote:Trakow wrote:Well, I finally got a response from CCP regarding their true stance on things and how THEY interpret their EULA, which in the end, is all that matters. CCP Peligro wrote:
Hello,
My apologies for the extremely delayed reply.
With regards to "round robin" or other features of specific third party programs; We will not authorize or otherwise sanction the use of any third party software. The End User License Agreement and Terms of Service are clear on this subject:
6. CONDUCT
A. Specifically Restricted Conduct
2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
3. You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.
We do not endorse or condone the use of player-made software or any other third party applications or software that confers an unfair benefit to players. We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay. However, if any third party application or other software is used to gain any unfair advantage, or is used 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 player-made or other third party software at your own risk.
The key part is really this one: "2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played."
Whether input broadcasting is used, video "overlays" or other features are used does not really matter. These are third party programs which change the way the game is played. This also includes round robin.
Best regards,
CCP Peligro
Team Security
Not sure I believe this post until its get clipped by GM/DEV/ISD ;) if its clipped its true, and at least we got some response and the line(of what is acceptable) is somewhat drawn.
Do you believe it now? My post was indeed clipped... |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
175
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 18:31:44 -
[3815] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:well. at least i dont pick my skills after what stats they use to skill.
i pick my skills what i wanna fly. and if thats a big ship with guns and shields and armor which takes more than a year i let evemon calculate the fastest way for that.
if you show me ingame how i can do that i would appreciate that.
you know there are only a couple of combinations to train skills in right?
int/mem=armor,rigging,astrometics,shields, target management, electronics, engineering(expect WU&AWU), neural enhancement.
per/will= t1 spaceships, gunnery (WU&AWU )
will/per= t2 ship types
mem/per=drones
Things that normally don't require a full remap for are navigation( int/per) social (char/int) navigation can be done at the same time when int is your primary to get the most benefit .
Are the basic ones for pvp and shooting red crosses.
the profile can only be changed once a year unless there are bonus remaps available. And the greatest training time will always be when you have maxed a primary and secondary vs spreading them around. As if you spread them around you gain in the short term to hurt yourself in the long term. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
175
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 18:32:55 -
[3816] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Komisarzzawada wrote:Trakow wrote:Well, I finally got a response from CCP regarding their true stance on things and how THEY interpret their EULA, which in the end, is all that matters. CCP Peligro wrote:
Hello,
My apologies for the extremely delayed reply.
With regards to "round robin" or other features of specific third party programs; We will not authorize or otherwise sanction the use of any third party software. The End User License Agreement and Terms of Service are clear on this subject:
6. CONDUCT
A. Specifically Restricted Conduct
2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
3. You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.
We do not endorse or condone the use of player-made software or any other third party applications or software that confers an unfair benefit to players. We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay. However, if any third party application or other software is used to gain any unfair advantage, or is used 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 player-made or other third party software at your own risk.
The key part is really this one: "2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played."
Whether input broadcasting is used, video "overlays" or other features are used does not really matter. These are third party programs which change the way the game is played. This also includes round robin.
Best regards,
CCP Peligro
Team Security
Not sure I believe this post until its get clipped by GM/DEV/ISD ;) if its clipped its true, and at least we got some response and the line(of what is acceptable) is somewhat drawn. Do you believe it now? My post was indeed clipped...
All correspondences are clipped whether they are real or not. It getting clipped either proves nor disproves your point.
|
Marsha Mallow
1904
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 18:40:43 -
[3817] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Do you believe it now? My post was indeed clipped...
I believe you!
Lady Rift wrote:All correspondences are clipped whether they are real or not. It getting clipped either proves nor disproves your point.
It'd be slightly daft to fabricate a mail from a dev then post it on the EvE forums in the first place. Stranger things have happened though I suppose.
The last few pages are epic, especially this:
Charadrass wrote:People who dont use evemon do have a clear disadvantage cause they cant plan and remap properly.
in fact, they are losing time over those players who are using evemon.
Players with evemon have to pay less to reach their skillgoals.
so evemon is pay to win?
so why the **** is that allowed?
I'm starting to wonder if using ISaBotter should be allowed for those who are mentally challenged. Maybe they indeed need some special tools so they can compete with the rest of us. We should be a bit more sympathetic.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
330
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 18:41:43 -
[3818] - Quote
Are you making fun of my blue helmet
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
|
Marsha Mallow
1904
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 19:16:38 -
[3819] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Are you making fun of my blue helmet
It's envy. I'm not playing space barbie until I get a proper hat.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
322
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 20:35:52 -
[3820] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Trakow wrote:Komisarzzawada wrote:Trakow wrote:Well, I finally got a response from CCP regarding their true stance on things and how THEY interpret their EULA, which in the end, is all that matters. CCP Peligro wrote:
clipped by lady rift cause she knows the rules
Not sure I believe this post until its get clipped by GM/DEV/ISD ;) if its clipped its true, and at least we got some response and the line(of what is acceptable) is somewhat drawn. Do you believe it now? My post was indeed clipped... All correspondences are clipped whether they are real or not. It getting clipped either proves nor disproves your point.
If this mail was indeed genuine (leaving IsBoxer and other 3rd party apps out of it) and a player will be banned for using Round Robin keystrokes - CCP need to start rewriting interface configuration as the "Shortcuts" section is in direct violation of the EULA (it facilitates round robin keystrokes).
At a guess, I'd say the reason no-one from CCP has "officially" responded here is simply because they don't know how to respond.
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
|
|
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
147
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 21:49:53 -
[3821] - Quote
first.
posting a gm petition answer is violating the eula.
secondary.
why dont this gm show up here and clarifies this for all and good to read? |
Marsha Mallow
1904
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 22:15:17 -
[3822] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:posting a gm petition answer is violating the eula.
That looked like a Dev response rather than a GM. Reposting it might be naughty and they might tell him off, but it's upto them how they enforce the EULA. Strictly speaking, if they were going to enforce the EULA literally we'd all be ballgagged for obscenity. They'd also have to ballgag half of the staff.
Charadrass wrote:why dont this gm show up here and clarifies this for all and good to read?
Maybe they are scared of engaging in a public debate with angry multiboxers where they might accidentally slip up and show their true feelings by referring to you as those-peasants-everyone-hates-but-we-need-to-keep-the-lights-on.
Maybe they really love you and would prefer to keep it a dirty secret.
Maybe they just find this thread hilarious, and keep doing the face.
Maybe they are in the pub.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy
Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 22:15:32 -
[3823] - Quote
Quote:Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA.
So after reading this threadnaught im still unclear on what is allowed and what is not when it comes to controlling multiple clients at once? |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
663
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 22:16:53 -
[3824] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:And i didn't say anything on eft in that last post cause I have friends who will do that thing for me.
evemon for training queue can be done in game now that you aren't limited to a 24 hour queue. It really is only useful for a faster way to see what skill a mod requires to use and then compare it against of mods of that type. You can queue up to 10 years in the skill queue if I remember CCP right.
So trying to say that evemon is a distinct and definite advantage to acquiring things in game faster is a lie. I get my 2610sp/hr all the time without it and evemon wouldn't let me train faster than that. (I use +4's)
Evemon might be more convenient but doesn't accelerate acquiring things
You might not use EFT, but your friends might. And others sure as heck do use it, so stop trying to dismiss it outright.
EVEMon allows a player who hasn't memorized what each skill's attributes are, plug in a ship or a fit that he wants to fly, hit "optimize remap", and it'll tell him how to get the most SP / hour possible, giving him a distinct advantage over someone who does not use such a program and just "eyeballs" it.
Quote:Evemon might be more convenient but doesn't accelerate acquiring things
Neither did ISBoxer, according to CCP's interpretation of 6A3 being on a per-character basis, and not a per-human being basis. No doubt whichever CCP or CSM that wanted "one account online per person" will re-interpret that to ban multiple EVE instances per IP/MAC address or per computer, and when that day happens, I will be sitting front row center with a bucket of popcorn and a cellphone, calling up everyone who ever said "hurrdurr it's not a slippery slope" and saying "I told you so". AFAICT, they haven't changed their interpretation of 6A3, but I may be wrong. In which case, "I told you so." |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
147
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 22:32:54 -
[3825] - Quote
all that we want is a clear statement what is allowed and what not. they KNOW by now what isboxer can do and how the functions are called.
it is NOT a problem to tell your customers what is ok and what not.
any other company ignoring customers this way is losing customers. so is ccp.
dont know if Hilmar is aware of the situation. |
Marsha Mallow
1904
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 22:38:22 -
[3826] - Quote
Hilti Enaka wrote:So after reading this threadnaught im still unclear on what is allowed and what is not when it comes to controlling multiple clients at once?
You could just refer to the OP. This threadnaught is people attempting to contradict it and find workarounds, then having hysterics when random botters get banned. The muttering on their internal botscrub forums (which anyone can view) is even more amusing.
There is a free player made app here which can be used to support multiple clients. Apparently FoxFour is a perverted multiboxer too. You should all harangue this person at SausageFest.
Charadrass wrote:all that we want is a clear statement what is allowed and what not. they KNOW by now what isboxer can do and how the functions are called.
it is NOT a problem to tell your customers what is ok and what not.
any other company ignoring customers this way is losing customers. so is ccp.
dont know if Hilmar is aware of the situation.
Shouldn't you be taking that up with the ISaBotter owners? You're paying them for the product, after all.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
147
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 22:46:00 -
[3827] - Quote
who iam paying for what ever is not your concern.
actually i am paying 19 accounts with real money to ccp. and therefore ccp has the ******* obligation to set things clear. |
Marsha Mallow
1904
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 23:11:42 -
[3828] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:who iam paying for what ever is not your concern.
actually i am paying 19 accounts with real money to ccp. and therefore ccp has the ******* obligation to set things clear.
I'm currently paying for 32 via plex, which actually earns CCP more money. Normally I average 40-60. Guess I just 'elevated' myself above you by wiggling my digits, no addons required.
Can I ask a genuine question though?
My gameplay has been nerfed repeatedly over the time I've played, and with regard to farming it is a concern because I'd rather earn it than pay to play (scruffy student). With as little effort as possible, because PVE is disgusting. My chosen farming method is about to get hit - probably nuked, if I'm honest. The rationale looks solid to me, I really can't protest it from such an obviously selfish position when the wider benefits are blatantly obvious. The change will benefit more players than me (I tend to see this fairly simplistically). So.. I look at it for a while, mutter, grumble, whine (mainly at myself for not ditching the project sooner).... then start considering new options. Simple as that. It's done, it was good for a while, I abused it while I could - but there are plenty of other avenues to grub about in.
What are your new options?
What you guys in here have been saying for a lot of this thread is that you utterly refuse to give up automated farming. You could take the easy route, and go to another game. You could take the harder route and adjust your gameplay to stay in 'The Game' as Peligro put it. Bless, I really liked that film. Or you could whinge bitterly about how you were treated, campaign badly and make yourselves look like a group of complete imbeciles who should be banned for humanitarian reasons. All you've done here is ensure that multiboxers who feel entitled to special treatment should be backhanded, everywhere.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
147
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 23:24:42 -
[3829] - Quote
i adjusted my gameplay according to the broadcasting and Multiplexing bans.
i dont have any other method beeing banable seen in the Forums yet.
so to what should i adjust? some guy posted so called gm answer? really? |
Marsha Mallow
1904
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 23:39:41 -
[3830] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:i adjusted my gameplay according to the broadcasting and Multiplexing bans.
i dont have any other method beeing banable seen in the Forums yet.
so to what should i adjust? some guy posted so called gm answer? really?
You raise a good point that the nuances may be missed by non-English speakers in all fairness. But if you are German that's an established community with a lot of people who can translate. The native English speakers here are playing with semantics, pretty badly.
If you haven't been banned and you are following the new rules, don't worry about it. IF you get hit with a ban, then squawk.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
|
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
147
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 23:47:52 -
[3831] - Quote
in the past the german gms posted their opinions instead of the correct meaning of an english posted decision.
for example. in the german Forums there are multiple postings by gms stating that isboxer is forbidden years ago.
contrary to the english part of the Forums.
you might see now why i am asking for an official answer in english speaking part of the Forums. |
Marsha Mallow
1904
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 00:01:27 -
[3832] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:in the past the german gms posted their opinions instead of the correct meaning of an english posted decision.
for example. in the german Forums there are multiple postings by gms stating that isboxer is forbidden years ago.
contrary to the english part of the Forums.
you might see now why i am asking for an official answer in english speaking part of the Forums.
Again, a good point. But you need to cite these claims (even if they are in German).
The language barrier doesn't mean you are stupid, if anything, the opposite.
In which case you should be able the judge the spirit of rulings - and they shouldn't utterly destroy your game. Unless it hinges upon a specific mechanic or tool you cannot play without.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
147
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 00:04:59 -
[3833] - Quote
i dont Need a reason for asking for a Statement in the english part of the Forums do i?
|
Marsha Mallow
1904
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 00:18:15 -
[3834] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:i dont Need a reason for asking for a Statement in the english part of the Forums do i?
Well no, ofc, but it's still amusing
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
663
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 00:27:11 -
[3835] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Charadrass wrote:i dont Need a reason for asking for a Statement in the english part of the Forums do i? Well no, ofc, but it's still amusing
Just like it's amusing to us that everyone and their mother wants CCP to do their dirty work. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
7
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 00:43:42 -
[3836] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:first.
posting a gm petition answer is violating the eula.
First, it wasn't from a GM. And second, how does it violate the EULA? |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
663
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 01:07:26 -
[3837] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Charadrass wrote:first.
posting a gm petition answer is violating the eula.
First, it wasn't from a GM. And second, how does it violate the EULA?
Can't post private correspondences between players and GMs / CCPs from petitions.
e: I'd quote you the exact section, paragraph, and subsection, but CCP has no doubt changed that. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6527
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 01:46:47 -
[3838] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:If you haven't been banned and you are following the new rules, don't worry about it. IF you get hit with a ban, then squawk.
no, if you get hit with a ban you disappear...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
322
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 02:40:00 -
[3839] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Trakow wrote:Charadrass wrote:first.
posting a gm petition answer is violating the eula.
First, it wasn't from a GM. And second, how does it violate the EULA? Can't post private correspondences between players and GMs / CCPs from petitions. e: I'd quote you the exact section, paragraph, and subsection, but CCP has no doubt changed that.
And a huge problem with that part of the EULA is - The person asking the right question gets a "private" answer which the rest of the playing community may or may not get, depending on who gives the answer and or if it suits them to keep everyone on the same page as far as rules and changes go.
Prior to the message from CCP Peligro being posted, there was no ruling stating you would be banned for using round robin keystrokes. Now it "seems" you can be banned for using them but no-one from CCP has officially made this information known to their paying customers. Some of whom are at risk of being banned for using tools provided by CCP.
Keeping secrets about upcoming changes to SOV is one thing, keeping secrets about rule changes is entirely different.
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
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6527
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 04:27:18 -
[3840] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Trakow wrote:Charadrass wrote:first.
posting a gm petition answer is violating the eula.
First, it wasn't from a GM. And second, how does it violate the EULA? Can't post private correspondences between players and GMs / CCPs from petitions. e: I'd quote you the exact section, paragraph, and subsection, but CCP has no doubt changed that. And a huge problem with that part of the EULA is - The person asking the right question gets a "private" answer which the rest of the playing community may or may not get, depending on who gives the answer and or if it suits them to keep everyone on the same page as far as rules and changes go. Prior to the message from CCP Peligro being posted, there was no ruling stating you would be banned for using round robin keystrokes. Now it "seems" you can be banned for using them but no-one from CCP has officially made this information known to their paying customers. Some of whom are at risk of being banned for using tools provided by CCP. Keeping secrets about upcoming changes to SOV is one thing, keeping secrets about rule changes is entirely different.
Yeah, Well it's also the case that you can't anyway be allowed to know what has been done (as the person telling you would get banned for letting you know about a decision).
So their intent is for everyone to petition anything involving more than one client at a time
(obviously not just cyno alts, unless you're lighting cynos really rapidly, but why would you...)
(or afk cloaking alts, unless they all cloak really rapidly, but logging in at once is ok)
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
322
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 05:39:12 -
[3841] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Trakow wrote:Charadrass wrote:first.
posting a gm petition answer is violating the eula.
First, it wasn't from a GM. And second, how does it violate the EULA? Can't post private correspondences between players and GMs / CCPs from petitions. e: I'd quote you the exact section, paragraph, and subsection, but CCP has no doubt changed that. And a huge problem with that part of the EULA is - The person asking the right question gets a "private" answer which the rest of the playing community may or may not get, depending on who gives the answer and or if it suits them to keep everyone on the same page as far as rules and changes go. Prior to the message from CCP Peligro being posted, there was no ruling stating you would be banned for using round robin keystrokes. Now it "seems" you can be banned for using them but no-one from CCP has officially made this information known to their paying customers. Some of whom are at risk of being banned for using tools provided by CCP. Keeping secrets about upcoming changes to SOV is one thing, keeping secrets about rule changes is entirely different. Yeah, Well it's also the case that you can't anyway be allowed to know what has been done (as the person telling you would get banned for letting you know about a decision). So their intent is for everyone to petition anything involving more than one client at a time (obviously not just cyno alts, unless you're lighting cynos really rapidly, but why would you...) (or afk cloaking alts, unless they all cloak really rapidly, but logging in at once is ok) With all the vague wording around, it's common sense to not assume anything is "ok" without a specific petition to a GM, which has a reply attached to it clearly saying "yeah this one thing is ok". But you can't share it, or you will be In Trouble.
The support ticket i lodged simply referred me to this forum thread "as all changes relating to my questions can be found there".
Not very supportive (or informative) support.
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
|
Komisarzzawada
The Senate and People of Rome
Northern Associates.
5
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 15:01:57 -
[3842] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Komisarzzawada wrote:Trakow wrote:Well, I finally got a response from CCP regarding their true stance on things and how THEY interpret their EULA, which in the end, is all that matters.
Clipped correspondence with CCP...
Not sure I believe this post until its get clipped by GM/DEV/ISD ;) if its clipped its true, and at least we got some response and the line(of what is acceptable) is somewhat drawn. Do you believe it now? My post was indeed clipped...
Yup, now i believe ;) Some say its nothing new being said, but from my point of view, its a little progress to players, something was said, so there is some point of reference
Not a iSBOXER myself, but i do multibox, so im interested in the topic.
Maybe in another month we'll get something official. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6529
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 15:28:03 -
[3843] - Quote
Komisarzzawada wrote:Trakow wrote:Komisarzzawada wrote:Trakow wrote:Well, I finally got a response from CCP regarding their true stance on things and how THEY interpret their EULA, which in the end, is all that matters.
Clipped correspondence with CCP... Not sure I believe this post until its get clipped by GM/DEV/ISD ;) if its clipped its true, and at least we got some response and the line(of what is acceptable) is somewhat drawn. Do you believe it now? My post was indeed clipped... Yup, now i believe ;) Some say its nothing new being said, but from my point of view, its a little progress to players, something was said, so there is some point of reference Not a iSBOXER myself, but i do multibox, so im interested in the topic. Maybe in another month we'll get something official.
Kind of surprised that anything even mentioning that has not been nuked from orbit...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
7
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 17:30:49 -
[3844] - Quote
So, I posted my answer not to stir the pot, but to help clear things up. Since nobody seemed to get any straight answers, and CCP does not clarify or seem to want to make things clear, I figured I should post the response because I DID get a clear, specific and definite answer to my questions.
In my defense for posting the correspondence:
First of all, by doing so, I DID NOT breach any of the EULA rules. I read the whole thing, including the Privacy Policy. What I did "break" was the Forum Moderation Policy which is separate from the EULA.
Second of all, I did not have to sign up for this forum, nor did I have to click on a checkbox or button saying I agreed to the Forum Moderation Policy. All I had to do was log into Eve Gate like I always do, and thanks to SSO, I was signed into the forum. Perhaps CCP should revisit the forum login method and have users have to click on "agree" on their first visit to the forum. Then the policy is right there in front of you and you have no choice but to click "agree". Putting a link somewhere on the page to the forum rules does not mean anyone will click on it, it could for all we know, be one of those spam ads, like "You have one new message, click here to read it". You know what I mean... This is for the same reasons that when you install software, you have to click the button that says you agree or accept the terms/conditions/eula otherwise it will not install. This forces you to agree/accept if you want the software installed.
Just wanted to clear those things up. |
Rosewalker
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
158
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 18:28:50 -
[3845] - Quote
Trakow wrote:First of all, by doing so, I DID NOT breach any of the EULA rules. I read the whole thing, including the Privacy Policy. What I did "break" was the Forum Moderation Policy which is separate from the EULA.
Actually, it is a violation of the EVE EULA, but you have to dig a bit...
First, Section 6C refers you to a location outside the EULA...
Section 6C of the EVE Online EULA wrote:
Paragraph 18 in the ToS is where CCP's stance on publishing communications from CCP is stated.
EVE Online Terms of Service wrote: 18, You may not publish private communications from CCP, their agents or representatives or EVE Online volunteers without authorization.
That's anything, any place. Even outside the forums. So yes, publishing that violated the EULA, through violating the Rules of Conduct (aka the ToS). Trust me, I understand your reasoning and sympathize with it. There are some things I've been sent in the past (not necessarily directly by CCP) I'd like to publish, but I like my accounts too much
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
149
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 19:03:57 -
[3846] - Quote
somer blink got banned permanently for posting gm communication btw.
but back to Topic.
we still need clarification. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6530
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 21:32:25 -
[3847] - Quote
It's good we all agree that someone can be nuked.
I'm going to try and learn to use multiple characters as well, it seems like an interesting challenge.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
7
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 22:34:07 -
[3848] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Trakow wrote:First of all, by doing so, I DID NOT breach any of the EULA rules. I read the whole thing, including the Privacy Policy. What I did "break" was the Forum Moderation Policy which is separate from the EULA. Actually, it is a violation of the EVE EULA, but you have to dig a bit... First, Section 6C refers you to a location outside the EULA... Section 6C of the EVE Online EULA wrote: Paragraph 18 in the ToS is where CCP's stance on publishing communications from CCP is stated. EVE Online Terms of Service wrote: 18, You may not publish private communications from CCP, their agents or representatives or EVE Online volunteers without authorization. That's anything, any place. Even outside the forums. So yes, publishing that violated the EULA, through violating the Rules of Conduct (aka the ToS). Trust me, I understand your reasoning and sympathize with it. There are some things I've been sent in the past (not necessarily directly by CCP) I'd like to publish, but I like my accounts too much
Ah, well, something I learned from the ISBoxers is how to interpret the EULA and rules in my favor, and nitpick details. As I see it, they say that you may not publish it. I didn't, because it's not in any newspaper, magazine or article, nor was it produced or distributed by a publisher. That's my understanding of that statement until CCP tell me directly, specifically and publicly what they mean by that para. |
Verisimilidude 001
Viziam
Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 22:35:27 -
[3849] - Quote
http://youtu.be/HFdYO9h0H3Y
Here's a video of me multiboxing two 20 man Incursions post-EULA changes. The first took 20 minutes and the second 18 and change. Max skilled, I could probably shave this down to 12-15 minutes per site.
You'll note that there is no multiplexing or macros--Just some good old video effects. Everything you see here falls completely within the guidelines that CCP has posted with respect to their ToS/EULA changes.
Ultimately, I find the changes to be an irritation more than anything else. All they do is make certain activities more inefficient and certainly don't break any of the activities CCP was trying to curtail.
The worst part about the changes is that CCP refuses to answer questions--It seems like the plan is to intimidate people more than anything. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
149
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 22:51:16 -
[3850] - Quote
wow
i was thinking a was videofxing like a pro but it seems i am only at beginner state :)
that is awesome!
i am using different keys. one key for each box and each order. in combination with videofx ofc. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
665
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 22:54:34 -
[3851] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:i was thinking a was videofxing like a pro but it seems i am only at beginner state :)
Told'ja. |
Kaphrah
Kaphrah Corporation4
35
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 00:10:27 -
[3852] - Quote
Verisimilidude 001 wrote:http://youtu.be/HFdYO9h0H3Y
Here's a video of me multiboxing two 20 man Incursions post-EULA changes. The first took 20 minutes and the second 18 and change. Max skilled, I could probably shave this down to 12-15 minutes per site.
You'll note that there is no multiplexing or macros--Just some good old video effects. Everything you see here falls completely within the guidelines that CCP has posted with respect to their ToS/EULA changes.
Ultimately, I find the changes to be an irritation more than anything else. All they do is make certain activities more inefficient and certainly don't break any of the activities CCP was trying to curtail.
The worst part about the changes is that CCP refuses to answer questions--It seems like the plan is to intimidate people more than anything.
nicely done, so could maybe some ccp official state if stuff like this is fine if done very fast? |
Rosewalker
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
158
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 01:58:08 -
[3853] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Rosewalker wrote:Trakow wrote:First of all, by doing so, I DID NOT breach any of the EULA rules. I read the whole thing, including the Privacy Policy. What I did "break" was the Forum Moderation Policy which is separate from the EULA. Actually, it is a violation of the EVE EULA, but you have to dig a bit... First, Section 6C refers you to a location outside the EULA... Section 6C of the EVE Online EULA wrote: Paragraph 18 in the ToS is where CCP's stance on publishing communications from CCP is stated. EVE Online Terms of Service wrote: 18, You may not publish private communications from CCP, their agents or representatives or EVE Online volunteers without authorization. That's anything, any place. Even outside the forums. So yes, publishing that violated the EULA, through violating the Rules of Conduct (aka the ToS). Trust me, I understand your reasoning and sympathize with it. There are some things I've been sent in the past (not necessarily directly by CCP) I'd like to publish, but I like my accounts too much Ah, well, something I learned from the ISBoxers is how to interpret the EULA and rules in my favor, and nitpick details. As I see it, they say that you may not publish it. I didn't, because it's not in any newspaper, magazine or article, nor was it produced or distributed by a publisher. That's my understanding of that statement until CCP tell me directly, specifically and publicly what they mean by that para.
I bow to the master
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
ashley Eoner
421
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 03:29:34 -
[3854] - Quote
That's really close to how I'm doing it currently. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6530
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 05:47:02 -
[3855] - Quote
Kaphrah wrote:Verisimilidude 001 wrote:http://youtu.be/HFdYO9h0H3Y
Here's a video of me multiboxing two 20 man Incursions post-EULA changes. The first took 20 minutes and the second 18 and change. Max skilled, I could probably shave this down to 12-15 minutes per site.
You'll note that there is no multiplexing or macros--Just some good old video effects. Everything you see here falls completely within the guidelines that CCP has posted with respect to their ToS/EULA changes.
Ultimately, I find the changes to be an irritation more than anything else. All they do is make certain activities more inefficient and certainly don't break any of the activities CCP was trying to curtail.
The worst part about the changes is that CCP refuses to answer questions--It seems like the plan is to intimidate people more than anything. nicely done, so could maybe some ccp official state if stuff like this is fine if done very fast?
That is very amazing. Verisimilidude, really well thought out stuff you have there.
If you want to know if it is fine then I guess you'll have to petition and ask. But don't share the response (whatever it is) because you might suddenly get nuked!
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Kaphrah
Kaphrah Corporation4
35
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 22:22:08 -
[3856] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Kaphrah wrote:Verisimilidude 001 wrote:http://youtu.be/HFdYO9h0H3Y
Here's a video of me multiboxing two 20 man Incursions post-EULA changes. The first took 20 minutes and the second 18 and change. Max skilled, I could probably shave this down to 12-15 minutes per site.
You'll note that there is no multiplexing or macros--Just some good old video effects. Everything you see here falls completely within the guidelines that CCP has posted with respect to their ToS/EULA changes.
Ultimately, I find the changes to be an irritation more than anything else. All they do is make certain activities more inefficient and certainly don't break any of the activities CCP was trying to curtail.
The worst part about the changes is that CCP refuses to answer questions--It seems like the plan is to intimidate people more than anything. nicely done, so could maybe some ccp official state if stuff like this is fine if done very fast? That is very amazing. Verisimilidude, really well thought out stuff you have there. If you want to know if it is fine then I guess you'll have to petition and ask. But don't share the response (whatever it is) because you might suddenly get nuked!
Make a guess where I was told to ask.
it couldn't be this thread here, could it? Oh wait, they really told me to ask in this thread... |
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Alternate Allegiance
5
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 22:26:37 -
[3857] - Quote
Its almost how im set up.
When the change came I was pissed and upset as i broadcasted my inputs. Now realized its not as bad as people make out. Yes its a bit of extra work and i have to pay attention now. Just happy they allow input broadcast while logging in and setting up windows. Also allowing us to still use the dxnothing fx setups.
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6531
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 05:30:14 -
[3858] - Quote
Kaphrah wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Kaphrah wrote:
nicely done, so could maybe some ccp official state if stuff like this is fine if done very fast?
That is very amazing. Verisimilidude, really well thought out stuff you have there. If you want to know if it is fine then I guess you'll have to petition and ask. But don't share the response (whatever it is) because you might suddenly get nuked! Make a guess where I was told to ask. it couldn't be this thread here, could it? Oh wait, they really told me to ask in this thread...
Oh yeah. If that happens you should link them to the post here that says to make a petition.
For the people that decide if we get nuked or not, they don't seem aware of their responsibility, or rather they just want to push you off elsewhere. Or it's part of the whole vagueness/ambiguity thing where you are bounced around and never get an answer either way until you're suddenly nuked from orbit?
I believe this post is the one?
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Verisimilidude 001
Viziam
Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 14:34:25 -
[3859] - Quote
Well, I've done maybe 9 or 10 more Assault-level Incursion sites and I haven't been banned.
I've got another video I'm gonna' put together for the boxing community; I'll cross-post it here. |
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 01:28:06 -
[3860] - Quote
Verisimilidude 001 wrote:Well, I've done maybe 9 or 10 more Assault-level Incursion sites and I haven't been banned.
I've got another video I'm gonna' put together for the boxing community; I'll cross-post it here.
I have been running quite a lot the last few days.
While I was at work today I started thinking about this thread. So I decided I was going to run some VGs when I got home with nothing more than eve in window mode. Unfortunately I came home to a NCO wall which made me sad because I wanted to run an OTA. OTAs are MUCH faster for me time wise with my current setup so they look much more impressive.
Regardless I ran about the same time with this setup as I do when I use isboxer. Which isn't terribly surprising as I don't use round robin or any of that stuff.
Actually having done this I'm pretty sure I could make turret ships work this way. Might dust off my NMs and take them for a spin again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B40tc3dr8s |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
666
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 06:34:28 -
[3861] - Quote
http://crossingzebras.com/the-limiting-factor/
Oy CCP. You could learn a lot from this. Stop punishing us because people don't wanna use a falcon or a catalyst. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6532
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 06:58:22 -
[3862] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:Verisimilidude 001 wrote:Well, I've done maybe 9 or 10 more Assault-level Incursion sites and I haven't been banned.
I've got another video I'm gonna' put together for the boxing community; I'll cross-post it here. I have been running quite a lot the last few days. While I was at work today I started thinking about this thread. So I decided I was going to run some VGs when I got home with nothing more than eve in window mode. Unfortunately I came home to a NCO wall which made me sad because I wanted to run an OTA. OTAs are MUCH faster for me time wise with my current setup so they look much more impressive. Regardless I ran about the same time with this setup as I do when I use isboxer. Which isn't terribly surprising as I don't use round robin or any of that stuff. Actually having done this I'm pretty sure I could make turret ships work this way. Might dust off my NMs and take them for a spin again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B40tc3dr8s
Yeah, I used to just manually do it that way for miners, but eventually I didn't really care enough as I had all the isk I really was willing to mine for. Some things just don't die.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Intar Medris
Viziam
Amarr Empire
222
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 15:30:18 -
[3863] - Quote
Thank God! Finally no more one man personal fleets be controlled with a single click. I knew CCP would finally come to their senses on this. Adios ISboxer
I try to be nice and mind my business just shooting lasers at rocks. There is just way too many asshats in New Eden for that to happen.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
666
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 15:41:46 -
[3864] - Quote
Intar Medris wrote:Thank God! Finally no more one man personal fleets be controlled with a single click. I knew CCP would finally come to their senses on this. Adios ISboxer
I guess you missed the previous videos where people are still ISBoxing....
e: And if you'd be so kind, what are your specific objections to ISBoxer? |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
150
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 20:04:39 -
[3865] - Quote
Intar Medris wrote:Thank God! Finally no more one man personal fleets be controlled with a single click. I knew CCP would finally come to their senses on this. Adios ISboxer
Earth 2012 in USA: -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQIMGV5vtd4&feature=player_detailpage#t=39
multiple clients controlled by one person.
New Eden 21,000 years in the future:
we suddenly lost the ability to control multiple clients by one person.
Sad universe. evolution backwards. |
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 21:05:15 -
[3866] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:Verisimilidude 001 wrote:Well, I've done maybe 9 or 10 more Assault-level Incursion sites and I haven't been banned.
I've got another video I'm gonna' put together for the boxing community; I'll cross-post it here. I have been running quite a lot the last few days. While I was at work today I started thinking about this thread. So I decided I was going to run some VGs when I got home with nothing more than eve in window mode. Unfortunately I came home to a NCO wall which made me sad because I wanted to run an OTA. OTAs are MUCH faster for me time wise with my current setup so they look much more impressive. Regardless I ran about the same time with this setup as I do when I use isboxer. Which isn't terribly surprising as I don't use round robin or any of that stuff. Actually having done this I'm pretty sure I could make turret ships work this way. Might dust off my NMs and take them for a spin again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B40tc3dr8s Yeah, I used to just manually do it that way for miners, but eventually I didn't really care enough as I had all the isk I really was willing to mine for. Some things just don't die.
Yeah really basic stuff. For some reason though some people in this thread consider it cheating if I use isboxer to clean up the aesthetics some.
What you can't see is my nestor on the right screen and the nestor/venture on the second computer to the left. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
668
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 16:50:53 -
[3867] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:Yeah really basic stuff. For some reason though some people in this thread consider it cheating if I use isboxer to clean up the aesthetics some.
To be fair, some people think of Falcons as cheating. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6541
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 04:22:33 -
[3868] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:Yeah really basic stuff. For some reason though some people in this thread consider it cheating if I use isboxer to clean up the aesthetics some. To be fair, some people think of Falcons as cheating.
Well, I'm sure no one get ccp reimbursed when they died "because of falcon"
It's quite well known that solo pvping with boosts and a falcon alt and scouts is perfectly fine...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
151
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 11:52:36 -
[3869] - Quote
back to topic: we still need information about eula conform use of isboxer. |
ashley Eoner
440
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 21:32:04 -
[3870] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:back to topic: we still need information about eula conform use of isboxer.
Well it seems if you don't use round robin or the rollover stuff you're fine.
It seems the problem begins when you start using hotkeys and stuff too quickly across multiple clients. |
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6541
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 06:38:14 -
[3871] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Charadrass wrote:back to topic: we still need information about eula conform use of isboxer. Well it seems if you don't use round robin or the rollover stuff you're fine. It seems the problem begins when you start using hotkeys and stuff too quickly across multiple clients.
I recommend being safe and putting in a petition as these endless trolling here is enough enough to be sure you are in the clear.
Also, make sure to link this post in the petition: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5242611#post5242611
Otherwise apparently they will direct you to the thread, which as noted isn't going to give you the clear yes or no needed to avoid being nuked from orbit.
Don't share anything a GM sends you in order to avoid being nuked from orbit.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nolak Ataru
Boob Heads
Black Legion.
668
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 12:45:34 -
[3872] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Charadrass wrote:back to topic: we still need information about eula conform use of isboxer. Well it seems if you don't use round robin or the rollover stuff you're fine. It seems the problem begins when you start using hotkeys and stuff too quickly across multiple clients. I recommend being safe and putting in a petition as these endless trolling here is enough enough to be sure you are in the clear. Also, make sure to link this post in the petition: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5242611#post5242611
Otherwise apparently they will direct you to the thread, which as noted isn't going to give you the clear yes or no needed to avoid being nuked from orbit. Don't share anything a GM sends you in order to avoid being nuked from orbit.
You must've missed the last dozen or so posts where people petitioned these questions, referenced the post, and were still told to ask here.... |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6541
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 14:48:40 -
[3873] - Quote
Just gotta keep at it. Or just play it dangerous and maybe get owned from orbit.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nolak Ataru
Boob Heads
Black Legion.
668
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 14:55:48 -
[3874] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Just gotta keep at it. Or just play it dangerous and maybe get owned from orbit.
Why do I get the feeling that if I had said the same thing to the people POS-bowling or cynoing titans next to a POS to bump other titans out, I would have gotten shouted down and ridiculed?
All we're asking is for CCP to step up to the plate and answer a few questions. If that's too hard for CCP Falcon, maybe he should resign. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6541
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 15:01:28 -
[3875] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Just gotta keep at it. Or just play it dangerous and maybe get owned from orbit. Why do I get the feeling that if I had said the same thing to the people POS-bowling or cynoing titans next to a POS to bump other titans out, I would have gotten shouted down and ridiculed? All we're asking is for CCP to step up to the plate and answer a few questions. If that's too hard for CCP Falcon, maybe he should resign.
If only.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
329
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 23:17:20 -
[3876] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Just gotta keep at it. Or just play it dangerous and maybe get owned from orbit.
That isn't the "only" choice.
Letting multiple subs expire to reduce your risk of being banned until there is a clear interpretation of the EULA.
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
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11789
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 01:38:31 -
[3877] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
All we're asking is for CCP to step up to the plate and answer a few questions.
I'm curious as to what questions remain unanswered after this.
Using ISBoxer to cheat is no longer allowed. You can only control one client at a time with one click of the mouse, simple as that.
Stop using spoofing, stop using input duplication, stop using uber macros.
How could it be any more clear?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
341
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 02:46:58 -
[3878] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
All we're asking is for CCP to step up to the plate and answer a few questions.
I'm curious as to what questions remain unanswered after this. Using ISBoxer to cheat is no longer allowed. You can only control one client at a time with one click of the mouse, simple as that. Stop using spoofing, stop using input duplication, stop using uber macros. How could it be any more clear?
this shows really how little you know about the situation
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
|
Nolak Ataru
Boob Heads
Black Legion.
668
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 03:22:46 -
[3879] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
All we're asking is for CCP to step up to the plate and answer a few questions.
I'm curious as to what questions remain unanswered after this. Using ISBoxer to cheat is no longer allowed. You can only control one client at a time with one click of the mouse, simple as that. Stop using spoofing, stop using input duplication, stop using uber macros. How could it be any more clear?
1) Is the use of rollover bars and Round Robin, which send one action to one client per click or keypress or mouse action, legal? According to every "source", they should be, however we have no less than 6 people on our forums, at least one of whom was the damn-near CREATOR of the rollover method, banned from EVE Online.
2) Why has CCP Falcon lied to our community after first agreeing to a sit-down (which was confirmed through a CSM member, by the way), and then blowing it off later on?
3) How can 6A3 and the third party policy be interpreted to only include ISBoxers while simultaneously not including people who manually dualbox accounts, people who use third party tools such as EVEMon, EFT, PYFA, Siggy, Fuzzworks (no offense), and numerous others that I have no doubt missed?
4) Why is CCP taking a stand against ISBoxer when there are confirmed accounts of super account sharing? Is this the start of CCP enforcing all their policies, not just the ones that are convenient or that are specifically pushed by a hostile CSM member who insulted EVE players and acted in a manner not becoming a CSM member when he was invited to speak on a neutral forum?
No doubt I'm missing a few, but it's late where I am. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11792
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 09:34:34 -
[3880] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
1) Is the use of rollover bars and Round Robin, which send one action to one client per click or keypress or mouse action, legal? According to every "source", they should be, however we have no less than 6 people on our forums, at least one of whom was the damn-near CREATOR of the rollover method, banned from EVE Online.
I certainly wouldn't push the issue. It seems a flimsy justification at best, to me. Stick with alt tabbing or two monitors, like most people.
The rest of your bullets are just something that the various ganking and scamming community has been trying to get for a while.
Actual rules, laid out in the open.
But the answer has been "nope! figure it out for yourself!" time and again(including from more than a few ISBoxer diehards in this very thread), so I really can't imagine why you expected better for your issue.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
285
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 13:19:36 -
[3881] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
All we're asking is for CCP to step up to the plate and answer a few questions.
I'm curious as to what questions remain unanswered after this. Using ISBoxer to cheat is no longer allowed. You can only control one client at a time with one click of the mouse, simple as that. Stop using spoofing, stop using input duplication, stop using uber macros. How could it be any more clear?
In CCP falcons original post this is clearly not the case. ISBoxer is clearly allowed. So either your projecting your own wishes, or you didn't even read the OP or even the fist page of posts.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Nolak Ataru
Boob Heads
Black Legion.
671
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 13:34:21 -
[3882] - Quote
However "flimsy" you might find it, it's still allowed under CCP's new interpretation of the EULA, was confirmed to be allowed via PMs and tickets, and is being prosecuted as not being allowed. Asking CCP to say something regarding the matter is a small price to pay. If this were a criminal case, I (and no doubt he'd have a line a mile long out the door of actual lawyers) would tell the defendant to appeal the conviction as being convicted of an act that was expressly allowed, even though I'm on the other side of the law than he is.
As for the other bullets, it's something that EVERYONE has been trying to get out of CCP. You'll notice the stickied thread regarding hyperdunking where CCP says it's allowed. I don't see anyone complaining about how players should have "figured it out themselves".
And, while I may not agree with the current iteration of CODE, James 315 wrote a perfectly good article regarding CCP and their notorious murky grey lines, and all-but predicted the future with CCP and the problems with said invisible or otherwise shifting lines. CCP had plenty of time to read that article, and plenty of time to draft their response in the form of clearer lines.
And lastly (for a bit of lore), do you honestly believe, in whatever year that the EVE Universe lives in, that people haven't figured out how to slave other ships to follow the commands of a single one? Fleet warps and regroup commands are a perfect example of commands being issued to slaved ships. If we have self-driving cars in the next five years, automated patrol boats for the Navy right now, and self-flying drones for the Air Force, why is this such a backwards leap? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11801
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 20:38:19 -
[3883] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:ISBoxer is clearly allowed.
I didn't say it wasn't. Cheating with it sure isn't, though. And people have been cheating with it for a long, long time until recently.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
Boob Heads
Black Legion.
671
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 21:20:26 -
[3884] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:ISBoxer is clearly allowed. I didn't say it wasn't. Cheating with it sure isn't, though. And people have been cheating with it for a long, long time until recently.
Define "cheating". |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
151
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 21:21:03 -
[3885] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:ISBoxer is clearly allowed. I didn't say it wasn't. Cheating with it sure isn't, though. And people have been cheating with it for a long, long time until recently.
Ignore the Troll Nolak, he is wasting your time.
So ccp, clarification please. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11804
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 21:34:40 -
[3886] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:ISBoxer is clearly allowed. I didn't say it wasn't. Cheating with it sure isn't, though. And people have been cheating with it for a long, long time until recently. Ignore the Troll Nolak, he is wasting your time. So ccp, clarification please.
It's not trolling to say that using a third party program to simultaneously multibox fifty mining barges is cheating.
It fits pretty much every definition of it. And CCP finally agreed.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
Boob Heads
Black Legion.
671
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 21:53:30 -
[3887] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Charadrass wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:ISBoxer is clearly allowed. I didn't say it wasn't. Cheating with it sure isn't, though. And people have been cheating with it for a long, long time until recently. Ignore the Troll Nolak, he is wasting your time. So ccp, clarification please. It's not trolling to say that using a third party program to simultaneously multibox fifty mining barges is cheating.
[Citation Needed]
And again, define cheating? CCP is still allowing one to multibox 50 barges. Not even mentioning the hilariously inept idea that someone would multibox 50 barges to mine a single asteroid, as that would result in half-finished mining cycles, half-empty cargo holds, and a very inefficient way to conduct one's business mining altogether.
So I ask you again. What is your definition of "cheating"? |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
330
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 23:05:44 -
[3888] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Charadrass wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:ISBoxer is clearly allowed. I didn't say it wasn't. Cheating with it sure isn't, though. And people have been cheating with it for a long, long time until recently. Ignore the Troll Nolak, he is wasting your time. So ccp, clarification please. It's not trolling to say that using a third party program to simultaneously multibox fifty mining barges is cheating. It fits pretty much every definition of it. And CCP finally agreed.
True, if you are using that third party program to "simultaneously" multibox - You are now considered to be in breach of the EULA and will be banned.
The problem is players using a "3rd party program" are being banned for using it in a way that seems to fit with the new interpretation of CCP's EULA with no confirmation from CCP that what the player has done is in breach of the EULA.
(a random tweet from 1 dev states it is ok, a random quote from another dev says it isn't)
If CCP can't get on the same page with this change, how can players abide by and be judged by the new rules.
CCP policing the changes on a case by case basis is not acceptable (if you can input single commands to individual multiple clients quickly, you risk being banned). They need to make a clear decision as to what is and isn't legal and announce it to the whole community.
Too date CCP has promoted multiboxing and encouraged it via special deals to purchase multiple accounts. Now, under the new unclear interpretation of the EULA, if you use those multiple accounts too efficiently, you risk being banned.
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
|
XinPan Zeeh
The Big E
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 23:17:44 -
[3889] - Quote
That's really great news. Using multiboxing (isBoxer) to fly mulptiple ships like a single one is LAME.
It's like playing eve in the easy mode and even worse, it's cheating.
I know a guy that used to fly a 20 Tornadoes this way, and sometimes 20 smartbombing battleships. He could kill instantly almost any kind of ship and I always told him this was not fair play.
Thanks CCP !
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29926
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 23:51:02 -
[3890] - Quote
welp. I'm happy to report G-keys aren't banned. It seems you can use G-key binds for any sequence of keys within the same client.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
|
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 00:17:32 -
[3891] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Charadrass wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:ISBoxer is clearly allowed. I didn't say it wasn't. Cheating with it sure isn't, though. And people have been cheating with it for a long, long time until recently. Ignore the Troll Nolak, he is wasting your time. So ccp, clarification please. It's not trolling to say that using a third party program to simultaneously multibox fifty mining barges is cheating. It fits pretty much every definition of it. And CCP finally agreed. True, if you are using that third party program to "simultaneously" multibox - You are now considered to be in breach of the EULA and will be banned. The problem is players using a "3rd party program" are being banned for using it in a way that seems to fit with the new interpretation of CCP's EULA with no confirmation from CCP that what the player has done is in breach of the EULA. (a random tweet from 1 dev states it is ok, a random quote from another dev says it isn't) If CCP can't get on the same page with this change, how can players abide by and be judged by the new rules. CCP policing the changes on a case by case basis is not acceptable (if you can input single commands to individual multiple clients quickly, you risk being banned). They need to make a clear decision as to what is and isn't legal and announce it to the whole community. Too date CCP has promoted multiboxing and encouraged it via special deals to purchase multiple accounts. Now, under the new unclear interpretation of the EULA, if you use those multiple accounts too efficiently, you risk being banned. I'm still playing and multiboxing VGs.
I also know of at least one other fellow who uses isboxer but he only uses videoFX (like me) and he isn't banned either.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29927
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 00:19:42 -
[3892] - Quote
hyperdunking is the cool thing to do now anyway.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
151
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 22:00:45 -
[3893] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:hyperdunking is the cool thing to do now anyway.
till enough pilots are blaming it and bribe a csm to get ccp into calling it a banable offense... |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
330
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 22:47:09 -
[3894] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:I'm still playing and multiboxing VGs.
I also know of at least one other fellow who uses isboxer but he only uses videoFX (like me) and he isn't banned either.
Please be sure to give an email address to one of your ingame friends because if CCP decide you are breaking the rules (as suggested by CCP Pelligro) and ban you, your friend can come to this thread to let us know.
Do keep in mind though, the new rules rely heavily on "Player Policing" . Maybe you and the other person you know just haven't been reported yet so hadn't come to CCP's attention.
You did just remove the need for player policing though by advertising your breach of the rules (as per CCP Pelligro) on the forums.
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
|
Verisimilidude 001
Viziam
Amarr Empire
22
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 02:23:14 -
[3895] - Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tiBRu9Q40Y&feature=youtu.be
This is my finalized 20-man Incursion setup. You can see that there's zero multiplexing and a single mouse click or button click only ever generates one action to one client. If CCP adds a keybind to deploy and/or assist drones, I'll be down to 10-12 minute sites. |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
343
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 04:51:12 -
[3896] - Quote
Verisimilidude 001 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tiBRu9Q40Y&feature=youtu.be
This is my finalized 20-man Incursion setup. You can see that there's zero multiplexing and a single mouse click or button click only ever generates one action to one client. If CCP adds a keybind to deploy and/or assist drones, I'll be down to 10-12 minute sites.
EVERYONE HURRY UP, GROUND FLOOR ON THIS TRAIN!
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 07:41:30 -
[3897] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:I'm still playing and multiboxing VGs.
I also know of at least one other fellow who uses isboxer but he only uses videoFX (like me) and he isn't banned either.
Please be sure to give an email address to one of your ingame friends because if CCP decide you are breaking the rules (as suggested by CCP Pelligro) and ban you, your friend can come to this thread to let us know. Do keep in mind though, the new rules rely heavily on "Player Policing" . Maybe you and the other person you know just haven't been reported yet so hadn't come to CCP's attention. You did just remove the need for player policing though by advertising your breach of the rules (as per CCP Pelligro) on the forums.
I'm pretty sure I've been reported based on the comments in local about me cheating and using a banned program etc. Of course pretty sure isn't 100% sure and as such you have some very valid points.
I did post this video of me running a site a while back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B40tc3dr8s
I have a couple people I know out of game who can report any ban here.
I am intending to record a new video with a completely different setup either tonight or tomorrow. I'll post it here for the lulz
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6543
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 13:45:43 -
[3898] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:I'm still playing and multiboxing VGs.
I also know of at least one other fellow who uses isboxer but he only uses videoFX (like me) and he isn't banned either.
Please be sure to give an email address to one of your ingame friends because if CCP decide you are breaking the rules (as suggested by CCP Pelligro) and ban you, your friend can come to this thread to let us know. Do keep in mind though, the new rules rely heavily on "Player Policing" . Maybe you and the other person you know just haven't been reported yet so hadn't come to CCP's attention. You did just remove the need for player policing though by advertising your breach of the rules (as per CCP Pelligro) on the forums. I'm pretty sure I've been reported based on the comments in local about me cheating and using a banned program etc. Of course pretty sure isn't 100% sure and as such you have some very valid points. I did post this video of me running a site a while back https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B40tc3dr8s
I have a couple people I know out of game who can report any ban here. I am intending to record a new video with a completely different setup either tonight or tomorrow. I'll post it here for the lulz
Hmm, used to multibox my miners that way. It became too much, and they only ever empty cargo every 5 minutes (and maybe F1 for a new rock).
It was really painful on the wrist eventually.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Verisimilidude 001
Viziam
Amarr Empire
24
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 19:17:52 -
[3899] - Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi349v9d52U
There's a 45 minute long breakdown of my setup and a real-time narrated running of a 20-man Incursion solo. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
151
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 20:07:12 -
[3900] - Quote
got an answer from a Petition.
i am asking here and now ccp to post that answer here, to stop anything speculative right now and right here! |
|
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
332
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 22:41:50 -
[3901] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:I'm still playing and multiboxing VGs.
I also know of at least one other fellow who uses isboxer but he only uses videoFX (like me) and he isn't banned either.
Please be sure to give an email address to one of your ingame friends because if CCP decide you are breaking the rules (as suggested by CCP Pelligro) and ban you, your friend can come to this thread to let us know. Do keep in mind though, the new rules rely heavily on "Player Policing" . Maybe you and the other person you know just haven't been reported yet so hadn't come to CCP's attention. You did just remove the need for player policing though by advertising your breach of the rules (as per CCP Pelligro) on the forums. I'm pretty sure I've been reported based on the comments in local about me cheating and using a banned program etc. Of course pretty sure isn't 100% sure and as such you have some very valid points. I did post this video of me running a site a while back https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B40tc3dr8s
I have a couple people I know out of game who can report any ban here. I am intending to record a new video with a completely different setup either tonight or tomorrow. I'll post it here for the lulz Hmm, used to multibox my miners that way. It became too much, and they only ever empty cargo every 5 minutes (and maybe F1 for a new rock). It was really painful on the wrist eventually.
Kinete - I admire you will here. I hadn't watched your vid previously and when you mentioned videofx I (wrongly) presumed you were using it.
I've multiboxed up to 15 characters in a similar fashion using 4 monitors, for both mining and incursions with a few experiments with PVP. The problem now becomes how quickly you can manage those individual clients.
I can scroll through and activate modules etc on all my characters quite quickly using nothing but shortcuts provided by CCP and standard window manager. I have a very efficient round robin setup and the standard window manager as provided by my OS allows me to get things done extremely quickly.
When I contacted CCP about the use of my setup I was referred to this thread (even though I specifically mentioned I found this thread unclear as it contained conflicting information) so am still unclear as to whether my setup breaches the new interpretation of the EULA.
My solution so far has been to let all but 2 of my subs expire and that is the way things will stay until CCP clarifies their position.
Alavaria - more than just painful on the wrist and forearm, playing Eve became harder work than going to work.
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
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 02:11:46 -
[3902] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:I'm still playing and multiboxing VGs.
I also know of at least one other fellow who uses isboxer but he only uses videoFX (like me) and he isn't banned either.
Please be sure to give an email address to one of your ingame friends because if CCP decide you are breaking the rules (as suggested by CCP Pelligro) and ban you, your friend can come to this thread to let us know. Do keep in mind though, the new rules rely heavily on "Player Policing" . Maybe you and the other person you know just haven't been reported yet so hadn't come to CCP's attention. You did just remove the need for player policing though by advertising your breach of the rules (as per CCP Pelligro) on the forums. I'm pretty sure I've been reported based on the comments in local about me cheating and using a banned program etc. Of course pretty sure isn't 100% sure and as such you have some very valid points. I did post this video of me running a site a while back https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B40tc3dr8s
I have a couple people I know out of game who can report any ban here. I am intending to record a new video with a completely different setup either tonight or tomorrow. I'll post it here for the lulz Hmm, used to multibox my miners that way. It became too much, and they only ever empty cargo every 5 minutes (and maybe F1 for a new rock). It was really painful on the wrist eventually. Kinete - I admire you will here. I hadn't watched your vid previously and when you mentioned videofx I (wrongly) presumed you were using it. I've multiboxed up to 15 characters in a similar fashion using 4 monitors, for both mining and incursions with a few experiments with PVP. The problem now becomes how quickly you can manage those individual clients. I can scroll through and activate modules etc on all my characters quite quickly using nothing but shortcuts provided by CCP and standard window manager. I have a very efficient round robin setup and the standard window manager as provided by my OS allows me to get things done extremely quickly. When I contacted CCP about the use of my setup I was referred to this thread (even though I specifically mentioned I found this thread unclear as it contained conflicting information) so am still unclear as to whether my setup breaches the new interpretation of the EULA. My solution so far has been to let all but 2 of my subs expire and that is the way things will stay until CCP clarifies their position. Alavaria - more than just painful on the wrist and forearm, playing Eve became harder work than going to work. It isn't terribly more then what I did with my 9 nm 1 nestor fleet pre jan 1st change.
|
stewie Zanjoahir
Viziam
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 14:35:42 -
[3903] - Quote
I personally Don't see this lasting, there are Few muitly boxers like me that were paying customer. and muitly box in peace.
Now what i do in ban able. ??
Where we were once's encourage Muitly boxing.
Resulting false Advertising for muitly boxing Year half ago.
Since its a Ban able offense, so can i get a refund across my toons?
I have nice screen shot of a in game GM encouraging Muitly boxing.
If there no muitly boxing mining cost of ship in the long term will go up.
no more cheap ship's to blow up.
In short term out look mite look good. but give it 2 to 3 years time ship prices will shoot up. in fact the ccp has harm the game play for the future.
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
36
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 15:01:09 -
[3904] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:I'm still playing and multiboxing VGs.
I also know of at least one other fellow who uses isboxer but he only uses videoFX (like me) and he isn't banned either.
Please be sure to give an email address to one of your ingame friends because if CCP decide you are breaking the rules (as suggested by CCP Pelligro) and ban you, your friend can come to this thread to let us know. Do keep in mind though, the new rules rely heavily on "Player Policing" . Maybe you and the other person you know just haven't been reported yet so hadn't come to CCP's attention. You did just remove the need for player policing though by advertising your breach of the rules (as per CCP Pelligro) on the forums.
Just out of curiosity in what forum post does it say using VideoFX is now a bannable offense? Can you link it? |
ashley Eoner
441
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 20:07:51 -
[3905] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:I'm still playing and multiboxing VGs.
I also know of at least one other fellow who uses isboxer but he only uses videoFX (like me) and he isn't banned either.
Please be sure to give an email address to one of your ingame friends because if CCP decide you are breaking the rules (as suggested by CCP Pelligro) and ban you, your friend can come to this thread to let us know. Do keep in mind though, the new rules rely heavily on "Player Policing" . Maybe you and the other person you know just haven't been reported yet so hadn't come to CCP's attention. You did just remove the need for player policing though by advertising your breach of the rules (as per CCP Pelligro) on the forums. Just out of curiosity in what forum post does it say using VideoFX is now a bannable offense? Can you link it?
Probably one of the ones that also claims multiboxing in general is bannable now... |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
38
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 20:24:49 -
[3906] - Quote
In light of all the idiots making false claims I decided to finally open a ticket with ccp telling them what i do how i use it with screenshots to see if it's as I suspect: the majority of people that continue to post in this thread are full of ****. |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
343
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 20:28:09 -
[3907] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:got an answer from a Petition.
i am asking here and now ccp to post that answer here, to stop anything speculative right now and right here!
did you finally get unbanned? (were you banned or just temp. pending investigation?)
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
673
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 21:52:17 -
[3908] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Charadrass wrote:got an answer from a Petition.
i am asking here and now ccp to post that answer here, to stop anything speculative right now and right here! did you finally get unbanned? (were you banned or just temp. pending investigation?)
Sumerragy was the one who got banned. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
183
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 22:19:59 -
[3909] - Quote
So how many have been banned after all this time? |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
332
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 22:33:56 -
[3910] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:I'm still playing and multiboxing VGs.
I also know of at least one other fellow who uses isboxer but he only uses videoFX (like me) and he isn't banned either.
Please be sure to give an email address to one of your ingame friends because if CCP decide you are breaking the rules (as suggested by CCP Pelligro) and ban you, your friend can come to this thread to let us know. Do keep in mind though, the new rules rely heavily on "Player Policing" . Maybe you and the other person you know just haven't been reported yet so hadn't come to CCP's attention. You did just remove the need for player policing though by advertising your breach of the rules (as per CCP Pelligro) on the forums. Just out of curiosity in what forum post does it say using VideoFX is now a bannable offense? Can you link it?
The original post containing the full message was removed by ISD but This Post has the part about video fx and round robin.
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
|
|
|
ashley Eoner
442
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 03:58:08 -
[3911] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:I'm still playing and multiboxing VGs.
I also know of at least one other fellow who uses isboxer but he only uses videoFX (like me) and he isn't banned either.
Please be sure to give an email address to one of your ingame friends because if CCP decide you are breaking the rules (as suggested by CCP Pelligro) and ban you, your friend can come to this thread to let us know. Do keep in mind though, the new rules rely heavily on "Player Policing" . Maybe you and the other person you know just haven't been reported yet so hadn't come to CCP's attention. You did just remove the need for player policing though by advertising your breach of the rules (as per CCP Pelligro) on the forums. Just out of curiosity in what forum post does it say using VideoFX is now a bannable offense? Can you link it? The original post containing the full message was removed by ISD but This Post has the part about video fx and round robin.
The account that posted the supposed statement from a GM has no post history outside of trolling boxers in this thread. That very same account considers it cheating to multibox at all.
I would take anything said by that account with less than a grain of salt.
There has been at least two boxers who use videoFX who posted in this thread with videos and they are still playing. The assault guy is pushing the videofx farther though. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
293
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 11:35:52 -
[3912] - Quote
While true, a lot of people use a biomass alt for the forums. So i don't really see that as a reason to not trust posts.
Me however, I post with my main.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
151
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 17:35:08 -
[3913] - Quote
I am currently spending more time arguing with CCP-Support than actually playing the game.
CCP is trying to push me into a special direction of the game where they want to have me.
rendering the game as no longer interesting for me.
examples are:
- GM Peligrio who is on a sort of personal war against everyone. If he just posts his "decision" into the public, everything would be clear and no one would be able to argue again.
As he is NOT doing this, and people are getting different answers, i take his answers in the petition only as personal meanings and not as rules from ccp, sorry. Rules are meant to be public. not private for only special pilots.
- ticket answer times takes like 20+ days, till your ticket is getting closed with a standard eula slap. reopening the ticket takes you on another 20 day trip.
if ccp would be a webspace / domainprovider or something like that. they would have been into bankrupty a long time ago.
i know not one company who ignores their customers the way ccp does.
even blizzard has faster response times in tickets, lifechat and phonesupport. oh yeah ccp, these guys you wanna be in your dreams. they know how to handle their customers. you, clearly, don't.
i am not quite sure if the ccp ceo hilmar is knowing what the departments of ccp currently doing. cause if he would be aware of the catatastrophic publicity situation, he would have resigned by now.
go on ccp, destroy the game with desinformation about rules etc. leave your customers with different answers in private, cause discussing them in the public will attract the ban hammer.
thats the way to handle paying customers.
we are paying your ******* monthly contract money. DO SOMETHING FOR IT. |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
38
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 17:45:51 -
[3914] - Quote
I suspect it's bullshit. The guy said what was told to him via a support ticket. If that really happened they would have at least locked the thread and/or removed his post.
I have a ticket open. Hopefully it doesn't take forever to get answers. |
Niclas Miula
ABS Ratting
Northern Associates.
15
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 18:45:45 -
[3915] - Quote
I don't know what exactly the plan from CCP is but I am really sad. Many of my mates stopped playing EVE and I start wondering about this support.
I hope CCP can sort their stuff and become a good and customerfriendly company again. I really don't want to change my game... |
ashley Eoner
443
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 21:35:42 -
[3916] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:While true, a lot of people use a biomass alt for the forums. So i don't really see that as a reason to not trust posts.
Me however, I post with my main.
You're missing the point which is it's a character that has done NOTHING but troll boxers and proclaim them as cheaters. So excuse me for not believing his supposed GM conversation. |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
343
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 21:59:34 -
[3917] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:While true, a lot of people use a biomass alt for the forums. So i don't really see that as a reason to not trust posts.
Me however, I post with my main. You're missing the point which is it's a character that has done NOTHING but troll boxers and proclaim them as cheaters. So excuse me for not believing his supposed GM conversation.
Haha that guy with the supposed GM conversation biomassed?
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
|
Marsha Mallow
1957
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 23:21:14 -
[3918] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:So how many have been banned after all this time?
Somebody claimed 6 earlier. Apparently they are all innocent.
It's pretty funny watching the 20 or so people here cry on various forums though. Especially since I'm pretty sure I've sold some of them alts
Good job on Failheap, everyone looks really sympathetic there. I particularly like this thread title (which is a blatant lie and whoever posted it deserves a slap) on Steam. That's before you get to the reddit/dual/multi/isabotter forum topics, then the fun really starts.
But it's these glorious comments you keep making
Charadrass wrote:i am paying 19 accounts with real money to ccp. and therefore ccp has the ******* obligation to set things clear.
Charadrass wrote:dont know if Hilmar is aware of the situation.
Seriously, may I paraphrase this last one and make it into a sig.
HAS HILMAR BEEN INFORMED OF WHAT YOU ARE DOING, SILLY DEVMONKEY?
^ was my idea, feel free to critique
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
151
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 23:38:00 -
[3919] - Quote
you may excuse me, but getting different answers from the same ccp gm through different accounts where ccp dont know the second one belongs to me is a huge Problem.
and i bet my orca, that they dont post the Team security decision here in public cause that will Show everyone with a different answer how ccp is working.
THAT is why i am asking if Hilmar is Aware of the Situation.
in the real world you get fired if you tell customer A) the sky is blue and customer B) the sky is green. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
673
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 23:40:26 -
[3920] - Quote
I find it more hilarious that you (or CCP) *still* hasn't given any substantial proof, statistics, or data to back up your claim that ISBoxing is detrimental to the health of EVE Online, or that PYFA/EVEMon/Fuzzworks don't break any rules that ISBoxer does, or (and this is my favorite) that this wasn't brought about by the self-admitted temper-tantrum from corebloodbrother and that somehow CCP just happened to bring this around just after cbb admitted to pressuring CCP and the rest of the CSM into this. |
|
|
Marsha Mallow
1957
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 00:21:33 -
[3921] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:in the real world you get fired if you tell customer A) the sky is blue and customer B) the sky is green.
Actually, shouting "Yer Barred" at certain types of customer gets you a payrise, promotion and occasionally oral.
Nolak Ataru wrote:I find it more hilarious that you (or CCP) *still* hasn't given any substantial proof, statistics, or data to back up your claim that ISBoxing is detrimental to the health of EVE Online, or that PYFA/EVEMon/Fuzzworks don't break any rules that ISBoxer does, or (and this is my favorite) that this wasn't brought about by the self-admitted temper-tantrum from corebloodbrother and that somehow CCP just happened to bring this around just after cbb admitted to pressuring CCP and the rest of the CSM into this.
They don't need to prove anything. You're a widely despised subset of players nobody gives a toss about.
If CCP back down on this topic, or any CSM start pandering to you and your incoherent gibbering, it's very possible the wider playerbase will crucify them.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Alternate Allegiance
5
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 00:46:35 -
[3922] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:I'm still playing and multiboxing VGs.
I also know of at least one other fellow who uses isboxer but he only uses videoFX (like me) and he isn't banned either.
Please be sure to give an email address to one of your ingame friends because if CCP decide you are breaking the rules (as suggested by CCP Pelligro) and ban you, your friend can come to this thread to let us know. Do keep in mind though, the new rules rely heavily on "Player Policing" . Maybe you and the other person you know just haven't been reported yet so hadn't come to CCP's attention. You did just remove the need for player policing though by advertising your breach of the rules (as per CCP Pelligro) on the forums. Just out of curiosity in what forum post does it say using VideoFX is now a bannable offense? Can you link it? The original post containing the full message was removed by ISD but This Post has the part about video fx and round robin. The account that posted the supposed statement from a GM has no post history outside of trolling boxers in this thread. That very same account considers it cheating to multibox at all. I would take anything said by that account with less than a grain of salt. There has been at least two boxers who use videoFX who posted in this thread with videos and they are still playing. The assault guy is pushing the videofx farther though.
His post is true all i think i can say about it. I put in a ticket and go the same message. Not sure if im allowed to post a SS of the ticket. Replied to asking if im allowed to post what he said in the forums. If you still have doubts put in a ticket and I'm sure you will see the exact same message.
I wish that CCP would just make a thread already to clear this massive argument up. I use videofx so i can see all my miners. Since the ticket i have stopped using its repeater option (now i just tab over to the character and do what needs to be done). All video fx does is save me from having to have 10 monitors. IF they still dont want me to use then ill just put them in windowed mode and line them up all nice and pretty.
3rd party software goes i assume that means that people who play with VMs are screwed..
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
183
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 02:02:28 -
[3923] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:you may excuse me, but getting different answers from the same ccp gm through different accounts where ccp dont know the second one belongs to me is a huge Problem.
and i bet my orca, that they dont post the Team security decision here in public cause that will Show everyone with a different answer how ccp is working.
THAT is why i am asking if Hilmar is Aware of the Situation.
in the real world you get fired if you tell customer A) the sky is blue and customer B) the sky is green.
Nothing new there, ccp have always answered things differently in tickets. It has been this way for years upon years. (i first encountered it when then introduced epic arcs)
so grow up its not a new problem and it hasn't killed eve yet |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
674
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 02:16:08 -
[3924] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:I find it more hilarious that you (or CCP) *still* hasn't given any substantial proof, statistics, or data to back up your claim that ISBoxing is detrimental to the health of EVE Online, or that PYFA/EVEMon/Fuzzworks don't break any rules that ISBoxer does, or (and this is my favorite) that this wasn't brought about by the self-admitted temper-tantrum from corebloodbrother and that somehow CCP just happened to bring this around just after cbb admitted to pressuring CCP and the rest of the CSM into this. They don't need to prove anything. You're a widely despised subset of players nobody gives a toss about. If CCP back down on this topic, or any CSM start pandering to you and your incoherent gibbering, it's very possible the wider playerbase will crucify them.
You mean like how they backed down on the stealth bomber thing, and how the EVE playerbase *didn't* crucify them?
Probably a bad example, but if CCP indeed gives zero fucks, then they wouldn't care what players do if they reverse their decision. Especially after the CCP Leeloo / Funkybacon incident where Leeloo was caught lying with her panties down.... |
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Alternate Allegiance
5
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 03:59:55 -
[3925] - Quote
I think reason why CCP isn't giving us a clear statement is probably due to all the petitions they are getting. Multiboxers send in there support ticket about what they use and is allowed. Then maybe that flags CCP and they begin watching them (just a thought probably not true at all).
Bottom line is we probably will never see anything official about this issue. Players will keep doing what they do till CCP drops the hammer on them.
CCP probably sees 1 person using input broadcasting and is doing nothing harmful and may let them slide till either reports come in or they see that they are abusing it a lot. Kinda like buying ISK with IRL money. CCP can't really target everyone. If you are quiet about it CCP will probably never see it.
Honestly I say keep doing what you are doing until CCP officially tells you personally to stop (whether a ban or warning). If you are scared you are going to get banned for something you are doing then don't do it.
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
ashley Eoner
443
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 07:06:24 -
[3926] - Quote
JGar Rooflestein wrote:
His post is true all i think i can say about it. I put in a ticket and go the same message. Not sure if im allowed to post a SS of the ticket. Replied to asking if im allowed to post what he said in the forums. If you still have doubts put in a ticket and I'm sure you will see the exact same message.
I wish that CCP would just make a thread already to clear this massive argument up. I use videofx so i can see all my miners. Since the ticket i have stopped using its repeater option (now i just tab over to the character and do what needs to be done). All video fx does is save me from having to have 10 monitors. IF they still dont want me to use then ill just put them in windowed mode and line them up all nice and pretty.
3rd party software goes i assume that means that people who play with VMs are screwed..
Like you said and kinete showed earlier. You don't need 10 monitors if you can't use videofx.
I'm guessing they are hitting people who are doing stuff too fast for CCP's taste. I imagine multiboxers that are causing rage reports are being checked carefully too. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
152
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 10:42:03 -
[3927] - Quote
JGar Rooflestein wrote:I think reason why CCP isn't giving us a clear statement is probably due to all the petitions they are getting. Multiboxers send in there support ticket about what they use and is allowed. Then maybe that flags CCP and they begin watching them (just a thought probably not true at all).
from the beginning of my isboxer career i told ccp the names of all of my boxing toons, i stated what Kind of Software i use and what i am intending to do with it, and i was asking if it was violating the eula.
cause i dont want violating the eula.
funny Thing is. german gm told me isboxer is totally forbidden, while lelouch answer still remains.
my concerns about having a german answer as a rule for an international community was swept aside by the gm telling me i have to obey.
nothing happend... cause he just posted his own meaning. sad enough eh can do that in petitions so that normal Players maybe take that as an official answer.
wake up guys. it is not.
official answers on rules and everything related with eve is to be found ONLY in the Forums AND / OR devblogs. NEVER EVER in petitions. i learned that that day.
so here i am, playing with isboxer since 2010.04.23 where lelouch posted that it is indeed ok.
and after january the first 2015 the broadcasting Feature suddenly became a banable offense.
in Germany we have a Thing called "Gewohnheitsrecht" i am not quite sure if that is working in other countries too, but in Germany it is.
have to find out where i have to suit ccp in what Country.
so:
1.) i petitioned myself from the beginning. maybe the reason why i never got banned.
2.) answers in petitions are meanings not rules and never ever you will get the same answer.
i think about contacting my lawyer to look into the customer contract i have with ccp. and how much of the eula is not legal.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
183
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 15:30:25 -
[3928] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:JGar Rooflestein wrote:I think reason why CCP isn't giving us a clear statement is probably due to all the petitions they are getting. Multiboxers send in there support ticket about what they use and is allowed. Then maybe that flags CCP and they begin watching them (just a thought probably not true at all).
from the beginning of my isboxer career i told ccp the names of all of my boxing toons, i stated what Kind of Software i use and what i am intending to do with it, and i was asking if it was violating the eula. cause i dont want violating the eula. funny Thing is. german gm told me isboxer is totally forbidden, while lelouch answer still remains. my concerns about having a german answer as a rule for an international community was swept aside by the gm telling me i have to obey. nothing happend... cause he just posted his own meaning. sad enough eh can do that in petitions so that normal Players maybe take that as an official answer. wake up guys. it is not. official answers on rules and everything related with eve is to be found ONLY in the Forums AND / OR devblogs. NEVER EVER in petitions. i learned that that day. so here i am, playing with isboxer since 2010.04.23 where lelouch posted that it is indeed ok. and after january the first 2015 the broadcasting Feature suddenly became a banable offense. in Germany we have a Thing called "Gewohnheitsrecht" i am not quite sure if that is working in other countries too, but in Germany it is. have to find out where i have to suit ccp in what Country. so: 1.) i petitioned myself from the beginning. maybe the reason why i never got banned. 2.) answers in petitions are meanings not rules and never ever you will get the same answer. i think about contacting my lawyer to look into the customer contract i have with ccp. and how much of the eula is not legal.
LOL the I'll contact my lawyer about the EULA thing again. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
675
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 15:38:46 -
[3929] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:LOL the I'll contact my lawyer about the EULA thing again.
LOL the "I'm still here but I still don't care, no really guys I don't care" thing. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
183
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 15:49:08 -
[3930] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Lady Rift wrote:LOL the I'll contact my lawyer about the EULA thing again. LOL the "I'm still here but I still don't care, no really guys I don't care" thing.
you have never read threads for the tears?
|
|
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
154
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 15:53:52 -
[3931] - Quote
i dont see the Problem checking a Service Company like ccp on a reliable eula.
even i cant see the laughter cause i gonna contact my lawyer about.
i am throwing Money at this game. hence i can check it on legal Terms. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
184
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 17:18:21 -
[3932] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:i dont see the Problem checking a Service Company like ccp on a reliable eula.
even i cant see the laughter cause i gonna contact my lawyer about.
i am throwing Money at this game. hence i can check it on legal Terms.
and this isn't the first time some rando in the forums has had a fit and said they will contact there lawyers over Eves EULA.
That is why it is funny.
|
Sumeragy
Revolution of Chaos
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 17:46:20 -
[3933] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:While true, a lot of people use a biomass alt for the forums. So i don't really see that as a reason to not trust posts.
Me however, I post with my main. You're missing the point which is it's a character that has done NOTHING but troll boxers and proclaim them as cheaters. So excuse me for not believing his supposed GM conversation.
Well i can confirm it. I got almost the same massage, if you aren-¦t beliving me its up to you. Well i would poste mine too here if i would-¦t get banned. Otherway it would rise a **** storm against CCP belive me.
Well CCP is doing all good to lose Players. Look at the numbers when u log in. On Prime times it where up to 50k or even 60k players online. You aren-¦t reaching even 40k anymore.
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
155
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 18:44:14 -
[3934] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:
and this isn't the first time some rando in the forums has had a fit and said they will contact there lawyers over Eves EULA.
That is why it is funny.
with all due respect, i am not some random ock posting with an alt. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
184
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 18:55:36 -
[3935] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:Lady Rift wrote:
and this isn't the first time some rando in the forums has had a fit and said they will contact there lawyers over Eves EULA.
That is why it is funny.
with all due respect, i am not some random ock posting with an alt.
neither am I. But that doesn't matter. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
332
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 22:52:20 -
[3936] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:I suspect it's bullshit. The guy said what was told to him via a support ticket. If that really happened they would have at least locked the thread and/or removed his post.
I have a ticket open. Hopefully it doesn't take forever to get answers.
The post was removed, within hours of being posted.
There are however some references to it scattered around the thread that were done just prior to the original message being removed.
NB; He didn't "say" what was sent to him - He posted a copy of the mail from a Dev in the forums. There are many instances of people posting correspondence from devs around the forums - All get removed as it is considered illegal to post.
As for your ticket response, you really want to hope they simply don't just refer you to this thread, as they have with many others.
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
|
Jallukola
40
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 11:08:37 -
[3937] - Quote
Amusing how this change still spawns thread replies, ironic as my own post may be.
Leo Moracchioli - All About That Bass
Leo Moracchioli - Shake It Off
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
155
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 12:34:05 -
[3938] - Quote
and it will till ccp get the balls to the wall and tells whats up. |
Jallukola
40
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 15:36:58 -
[3939] - Quote
^
Perharps, still delighted that normal alt-multitasking is green.
Leo Moracchioli - All About That Bass
Leo Moracchioli - Shake It Off
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
675
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 15:48:08 -
[3940] - Quote
Jallukola wrote:^
Perhaps, still delighted that normal alt-multitasking is green.
Wanna make a bet? |
|
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3890
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 20:23:52 -
[3941] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them.
The Rules:
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
10. Posting of private CCP communication is prohibited.
The posting of private communication between the Game Masters, EVE Team members, Moderators, Administrators of the forums and forum users is prohibited. CCP respect the right of our players to privacy and as such you are not permitted to publicize private correspondence (including support ticket responses and emails) received from any member of CCP staff.aforementioned parties.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
343
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 20:28:53 -
[3942] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them.[/i]
can you also ask CCP to come talk to its customers?
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
|
ashley Eoner
443
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 20:42:58 -
[3943] - Quote
Jallukola wrote:^
Perharps, still delighted that normal alt-multitasking is green.
For now but I wouldn't bet on it lasting long as there is at least one CSM member who is so rabid at hating boxers that he considers having more then one account as cheating. Yes as in the same as botting etc. At least one CCP member seems to agree with him...
Dark times ahead in this game for everyone.
Even EFT, Evemon, and pyfa would be considered cheating too.
ShadowandLight wrote:ISD Ezwal wrote:I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them.[/i] can you also ask CCP to come talk to its customers?
Ha that's funny. You know they won't respond till they absolutely have to and in all likelihood it'll be a ham fisted and ill advised. |
Drizzd
Eagle Construction Worx
6
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 21:20:20 -
[3944] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Jallukola wrote:^
Perharps, still delighted that normal alt-multitasking is green. For now but I wouldn't bet on it lasting long as there is at least one CSM member who is so rabid at hating boxers that he considers having more then one account as cheating. Yes as in the same as botting etc. At least one CCP member seems to agree with him...
funny thing though that the CSM member you refer to admits using at least 3 accounts - thus breaking his own self-esteemed rules
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
332
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 21:54:28 -
[3945] - Quote
Jallukola wrote:^
Perharps, still delighted that normal alt-multitasking is green.
"Multitasking" has never been an issue, whereas "multiboxing" doing the same thing now needs to be done at the same rate as everything else - In slow motion.
It seems the introduction of reduced jump ranges, fatigue and locking players into an area of space for a year at a time wasn't slowing the game down enough, so now multiboxing has been added to the list of "Eve in slow motion".
I wonder how the marketing dept will handle Eve's new direction.
Most games are working toward more and faster paced action, Eve has gone the opposite direction.
Interesting marketing ploy (if there is anything to market)
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
|
ashley Eoner
443
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 22:07:02 -
[3946] - Quote
Drizzd wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Jallukola wrote:^
Perharps, still delighted that normal alt-multitasking is green. For now but I wouldn't bet on it lasting long as there is at least one CSM member who is so rabid at hating boxers that he considers having more then one account as cheating. Yes as in the same as botting etc. At least one CCP member seems to agree with him... funny thing though that the CSM member you refer to admits using at least 3 accounts - thus breaking his own self-esteemed rules
"rules are for thee not for me" |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6546
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 22:42:51 -
[3947] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Jallukola wrote:^
Perharps, still delighted that normal alt-multitasking is green. "Multitasking" has never been an issue, whereas "multiboxing" doing the same thing now needs to be done at the same rate as everything else - In slow motion. It seems the introduction of reduced jump ranges, fatigue and locking players into an area of space for a year at a time wasn't slowing the game down enough, so now multiboxing has been added to the list of "Eve in slow motion". I wonder how the marketing dept will handle Eve's new direction. Most games are working toward more and faster paced action, Eve has gone the opposite direction. Interesting marketing ploy (if there is anything to market)
Fatigue Online is the new hotness.
I think someone already suggested login fatigue.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
343
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 22:45:58 -
[3948] - Quote
I am starting to track CSM 10 Canidate positions on input duplication and multiboxing, please help me flesh out this list.
Posting in the dual-boxing.com thread out sending me a mail is the best way to communicate.
http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/52023-CSM-10-Canidate-Watch-Who-is-for-and-who-is-against-our-gameplay?p=396794#post396794
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
|
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy
Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 13:19:47 -
[3949] - Quote
It's pretty clear. If you multibox you can't control them both from one client and one click. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
677
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 16:39:19 -
[3950] - Quote
Hilti Enaka wrote:It's pretty clear. If you multibox you can't control them both from one client and one click.
At least *pretend* to read our posts before posting. Rollover and Round Robin are 1 click / action for 1 result each. |
|
|
Kaphrah
Kaphrah Corporation4
37
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 14:32:58 -
[3951] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Trakow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:With 4 monitors in a square, you can activate modules on each of them fairly fast if you simply stick to the corners in the center of the setup. So, banhammer. Well there you go, so just do that. You just proved that you can play just as easily without using VideoFX, so why use it? No, I just proved that player solutions can get you banned for playing EVE without the use of ISBoxer. No, because CCP can see if you're running ISBoxer or not. I am a programmer and it's really easy to include a bit of code that sees what other processes are running, which can then be checked against a list of known software that is banned. It's also easy to find out which windows have focus, and if the focus changes without an ALT-TAB key combination or a mouse-click, that's also an easy way to find round-robin users. Or, alternatively, if the key press action is sent directly to another window, without the focus changing, which is also possible, then that's another red flag that round-robin is being used. It's too easy. One example of being caught red-handed is the link someone posted a while back about an incursion player who got banned. He denied using ISBoxer/input broadcasting at first when he complained on the forum, but then later admitted that he was using VideoFX and round-robin. So it wasn't the input-broadcasting that got him caught, because he wasn't doing that. They obviously knew that he was using the software. I have yet to hear about someone getting banned for using ISBoxer when they actually weren't. And those that have been banned will of course deny using it even if they are, but I have yet to hear about someone getting their account unbanned after finding it was a false accusation.
so mister I know everything, if I am playing for example D3 with ISBoxer (yes, this is allowed), and have one or more eve clients in the background which I tab into from time to time, then I'd get banned following your logic. fantastic, why not check my computer for illegal downloads while we're at it? |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
172
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 14:59:10 -
[3952] - Quote
Drizzd wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Jallukola wrote:^
Perharps, still delighted that normal alt-multitasking is green. For now but I wouldn't bet on it lasting long as there is at least one CSM member who is so rabid at hating boxers that he considers having more then one account as cheating. Yes as in the same as botting etc. At least one CCP member seems to agree with him... funny thing though that the CSM member you refer to admits using at least 3 accounts - thus breaking his own self-esteemed rules
The average is two to three accounts per person in EVE. So the person you talk about is the same as the rest of us and he/she is in good company. On the other hand most of us don't afk multi-account using ISBoxer type software. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
678
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 15:07:27 -
[3953] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:Drizzd wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Jallukola wrote:^
Perharps, still delighted that normal alt-multitasking is green. For now but I wouldn't bet on it lasting long as there is at least one CSM member who is so rabid at hating boxers that he considers having more then one account as cheating. Yes as in the same as botting etc. At least one CCP member seems to agree with him... funny thing though that the CSM member you refer to admits using at least 3 accounts - thus breaking his own self-esteemed rules The average is two to three accounts per person in EVE. So the person you talk about is the same as the rest of us and he/she is in good company. On the other hand most of us don't afk multi-account using ISBoxer type software.
The only people AFK mult-accounting are those who use Skynet carriers. ISBoxer is not the same as a bot that does your work for you. You have to tell ISBoxer what to do for it to do anything at all.
Why am I suddenly reminded of The West Wing mini-arc where the White House staff have to keep telling the press and people that the President's version of MS is not the life-threatening version over and over? |
ashley Eoner
444
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 21:08:09 -
[3954] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Bethan Le Troix wrote:The average is two to three accounts per person in EVE. So the person you talk about is the same as the rest of us and he/she is in good company. On the other hand most of us don't afk multi-account using ISBoxer type software. The only people AFK mult-accounting are those who use Skynet carriers. ISBoxer is not the same as a bot that does your work for you. You have to tell ISBoxer what to do for it to do anything at all. Why am I suddenly reminded of The West Wing mini-arc where the White House staff have to keep telling the press and people that the President's version of MS is not the life-threatening version over and over? Because people tend to be lazy which results in ignorance. I'm also guessing some of this is just trolling or propaganda attempts. You know in the hopes that some lazy people see their post and go OMG ISBOXER IS A BOT!!! /rageatccpinaticket...
Trakow wrote:No, because CCP can see if you're running ISBoxer or not. I am a programmer and it's really easy to include a bit of code that sees what other processes are running, which can then be checked against a list of known software that is banned. It's also easy to find out which windows have focus, and if the focus changes without an ALT-TAB key combination or a mouse-click, that's also an easy way to find round-robin users. Or, alternatively, if the key press action is sent directly to another window, without the focus changing, which is also possible, then that's another red flag that round-robin is being used. It's too easy.
One example of being caught red-handed is the link someone posted a while back about an incursion player who got banned. He denied using ISBoxer/input broadcasting at first when he complained on the forum, but then later admitted that he was using VideoFX and round-robin. So it wasn't the input-broadcasting that got him caught, because he wasn't doing that. They obviously knew that he was using the software. I have yet to hear about someone getting banned for using ISBoxer when they actually weren't. And those that have been banned will of course deny using it even if they are, but I have yet to hear about someone getting their account unbanned after finding it was a false accusation. Wow did I miss this post?
Clearly this is true as when Blizzard started using Warden to do exactly this every single bot and cheat disappeared from World of Warcraft. There's no advertisement for gold sites via floating level 1s. There's no bots running under maps to harvest/mine resource nodes. There certainly are no cheats or anything like that........
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH oh god help us if this dude really is a programmer.
As for the banning aspect at the end of your post all I can say is "you must be new......" |
Shar Chang
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 23:25:54 -
[3955] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:If you are uncertain about your Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing use-case, please get in contact with us, as we would prefer to work with members of the community to come to an amicable resolution. What category should we petition under? As I previously posted, I'm uncertain what "Input Broadcasting" and "Input Multiplexing" mean; are they the same thing? I can't find any useful answer via Google either. EULA would be a good catergory
I saw this post and opened a ticket as I had a question about some of the functionality in ISBoxer. The response I received was that I should go to this thread and post the question for an official CCP answer.
So, should I be asking it here or should the GM who has my ticket actually be responding to the question? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6546
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 00:20:04 -
[3956] - Quote
In some cases it seems they don't know (or pretend to not know) that they're supposed to give an answer.
People have replied by sending them a link to the part saying to open a petition, but we don't know the ultimate response because, well sharing that would get you in trouble, so don't do it
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
117
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 13:28:54 -
[3957] - Quote
Where is that pal who told me goonies are not crying about this issue about 80 pages ago? I wanna see him.
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.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
678
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 16:01:19 -
[3958] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Where is that pal who told me goonies are not crying about this issue about 80 pages ago? I wanna see him.
TIL: pointing out actual faults and criticisms of a company's latest policy that lets GMs swing the banhammer willy-nilly and redirect them to a thread where Developers told people to ask in a ticket = crying. |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
117
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 16:08:22 -
[3959] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:Where is that pal who told me goonies are not crying about this issue about 80 pages ago? I wanna see him. TIL: pointing out actual faults and criticisms of a company's latest policy that lets GMs swing the banhammer willy-nilly and redirect them to a thread where Developers told people to ask in a ticket = crying.
No no no, it's what I were doing.
What he were doing is assuring me that entire goonswarm and pets support this change, and thread in general (and first 4 pages of it in particular) contain no posts which can be qualified as "tears" (both obviously wrong).
And yes, you goonies don't do that either. You just cry like you usually do.
In the first 4 pages you can find one "back to wow" post, a few "unsubscribing" posts, and even one "imma delete my toonies" post. All belong to goonies. I call that crying. How do you call that?
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.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
299
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 16:11:48 -
[3960] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH oh god help us if this dude really is a programmer.
As for the banning aspect at the end of your post all I can say is "you must be new......"
If you see the replies i gave and his responses, yea i am guessing he just learned what task manager is.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
678
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 18:21:17 -
[3961] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:Where is that pal who told me goonies are not crying about this issue about 80 pages ago? I wanna see him. TIL: pointing out actual faults and criticisms of a company's latest policy that lets GMs swing the banhammer willy-nilly and redirect them to a thread where Developers told people to ask in a ticket = crying. No no no, it's what I were doing. What he were doing is assuring me that entire goonswarm and pets support this change, and thread in general (and first 4 pages of it in particular) contain no posts which can be qualified as "tears" (both obviously wrong). And yes, you goonies don't do that either. You just cry like you usually do. In the first 4 pages you can find one "back to wow" post, a few "unsubscribing" posts, and even one "imma delete my toonies" post. All belong to goonies. I call that crying. How do you call that?
Oh, you're on the first dozen pages. I apologize. I'll wait until you hit the current page then. Please reply when you do. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
155
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 20:46:39 -
[3962] - Quote
so a program started with user rights can see my admin processes in Windows.
orly
where is that wannabeprogrammer. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6548
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 23:26:14 -
[3963] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:Where is that pal who told me goonies are not crying about this issue about 80 pages ago? I wanna see him. TIL: pointing out actual faults and criticisms of a company's latest policy that lets GMs swing the banhammer willy-nilly and redirect them to a thread where Developers told people to ask in a ticket = crying. No no no, it's what I were doing. What he were doing is assuring me that entire goonswarm and pets support this change, and thread in general (and first 4 pages of it in particular) contain no posts which can be qualified as "tears" (both obviously wrong). And yes, you goonies don't do that either. You just cry like you usually do. In the first 4 pages you can find one "back to wow" post, a few "unsubscribing" posts, and even one "imma delete my toonies" post. All belong to goonies. I call that crying. How do you call that? Oh, you're on the first dozen pages. I apologize. I'll wait until you hit the current page then. Please reply when you do.
I didn't even know there was a unified position on this that I was supposed to be taking...
One moment while I check in with the local Party branch to be informed about said unified position on this that I was supposed to be taking...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Alternate Allegiance
6
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 00:04:55 -
[3964] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:Drizzd wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Jallukola wrote:^
Perharps, still delighted that normal alt-multitasking is green. For now but I wouldn't bet on it lasting long as there is at least one CSM member who is so rabid at hating boxers that he considers having more then one account as cheating. Yes as in the same as botting etc. At least one CCP member seems to agree with him... funny thing though that the CSM member you refer to admits using at least 3 accounts - thus breaking his own self-esteemed rules The average is two to three accounts per person in EVE. So the person you talk about is the same as the rest of us and he/she is in good company. On the other hand most of us don't afk multi-account using ISBoxer type software.
Them stopping people from having alts won't happen. How are you going to stop someone from making multiple accounts? Restrict the number of clients connecting from that IP? That'll suck for those families that have 4-5 people playing under 1 roof. They stop from doing that it'll be a huge loss on their end.
As for CCP monitoring your programs running...what a joke.
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6548
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 06:38:00 -
[3965] - Quote
Alts online is the way to go.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
corebloodbrothers
Volition Cult
The Volition Cult
1188
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 09:40:31 -
[3966] - Quote
Move on? So much more fun stuff hitting eve s future to focus energy on, new player experience, new sov, rebalancing ishtar online, fanfest, china versus free world eve, ton of devblogs aimed at the future versus going over and over ccp actions versus inout broadcasting.
From what we have seen no unjust bans, and the guys who did get one know why. Same goes for botting. The harder users say it didnt give them a benefit over others and keep whining, the more it shows it did give on.
If the majority of players would be in favor of this crap, then run a csm member, as you shoudl easily get thousands of votes right...
If not, then its a storm in a glass of water really
Look at the future ratehr then ***** about the past, be positive, as much as i love the tears in my email about it, tweetimg i killed isboxer helps me actually getting votes, thnx for that
Greetz
Core
Csm9 csmx candidate |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11939
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:04:02 -
[3967] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Move on? So much more fun stuff hitting eve s future to focus energy on, new player experience, new sov, rebalancing ishtar online, fanfest, china versus free world eve, ton of devblogs aimed at the future versus going over and over ccp actions versus inout broadcasting.
From what we have seen no unjust bans, and the guys who did get one know why. Same goes for botting. The harder users say it didnt give them a benefit over others and keep whining, the more it shows it did give on.
If the majority of players would be in favor of this crap, then run a csm member, as you shoudl easily get thousands of votes right...
If not, then its a storm in a glass of water really
Look at the future ratehr then ***** about the past, be positive, as much as i love the tears in my email about it, tweetimg i killed isboxer helps me actually getting votes, thnx for that
Greetz
Core
Csm9 csmx candidate
You just got my vote.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
682
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:27:48 -
[3968] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Move on? So much more fun stuff hitting eve s future to focus energy on, new player experience, new sov, rebalancing ishtar online, fanfest, china versus free world eve, ton of devblogs aimed at the future versus going over and over ccp actions versus inout broadcasting.
From what we have seen no unjust bans, and the guys who did get one know why. Same goes for botting. The harder users say it didnt give them a benefit over others and keep whining, the more it shows it did give on.
If the majority of players would be in favor of this crap, then run a csm member, as you shoudl easily get thousands of votes right...
If not, then its a storm in a glass of water really
Look at the future ratehr then ***** about the past, be positive, as much as i love the tears in my email about it, tweetimg i killed isboxer helps me actually getting votes, thnx for that
Greetz
Core
Stop comparing ISBoxing and botting. Two completely different things. If you'd get your head out of the sand and actually read the thread, you'd realize people are getting banned for following the new rules that CCP laid out to us. If CCP secretly created a ruling regarding ISBoxer (where they said "x commands per second") and didn't tell the players, you have an obligation to tell us as that would be (with a little bit of argument) false advertising. Additionally, may be obtain a comment from you about another CSM's position of "one client per person"? What is your thought on that?
And for Pete's sake, stop using Kafkatraps. All it does is point out your immaturity and your lack of substantial argument against ISBoxer. Christ, I feel like I'm talking to a twelve year old on XBox Live. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
299
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:47:23 -
[3969] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Move on? So much more fun stuff hitting eve s future to focus energy on, new player experience, new sov, rebalancing ishtar online, fanfest, china versus free world eve, ton of devblogs aimed at the future versus going over and over ccp actions versus inout broadcasting.
From what we have seen no unjust bans, and the guys who did get one know why. Same goes for botting. The harder users say it didnt give them a benefit over others and keep whining, the more it shows it did give on.
If the majority of players would be in favor of this crap, then run a csm member, as you shoudl easily get thousands of votes right...
If not, then its a storm in a glass of water really
Look at the future ratehr then ***** about the past, be positive, as much as i love the tears in my email about it, tweetimg i killed isboxer helps me actually getting votes, thnx for that
Greetz
Core
Csm9 csmx candidate
Spot the CSM member that didn't read the thread, doesn't understand our concerns and doesn't care about improving communication between CCP and the players.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
156
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:27:48 -
[3970] - Quote
just ignore the corebloodstupid.
he is just a bittervet without a future, cause i already outlived his.
i think a few csm just forgot for what they got voted on. and that they have a responsibility.
i am still waiting for a clear answer from ccp. come on. it is not so hard... |
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6548
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:33:31 -
[3971] - Quote
Ah, the csm. I already voted, thanks to the great information provided by the CFC's excellent fact-gathering committee.
There's apparently some handy "window preview" and organizing program around:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=389086
Looks handy.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
ashley Eoner
447
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:11:35 -
[3972] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Move on? So much more fun stuff hitting eve s future to focus energy on, new player experience, new sov, rebalancing ishtar online, fanfest, china versus free world eve, ton of devblogs aimed at the future versus going over and over ccp actions versus inout broadcasting.
From what we have seen no unjust bans, and the guys who did get one know why. Same goes for botting. The harder users say it didnt give them a benefit over others and keep whining, the more it shows it did give on.
If the majority of players would be in favor of this crap, then run a csm member, as you shoudl easily get thousands of votes right...
If not, then its a storm in a glass of water really
Look at the future ratehr then ***** about the past, be positive, as much as i love the tears in my email about it, tweetimg i killed isboxer helps me actually getting votes, thnx for that
Greetz
Core
Csm9 csmx candidate
Hey aren't you the one that kept AFKing fleets at planets and couldn't be bothered to use anything as defense not even a bubble (bubbles easily stop isbox bombers)? Then you would rage when you got bombed? Especially if it was an isboxed fleet..
Also could you spend a little time and read the thread so your next comment will be somewhat on topic. I know it's annoying to actually have to listen to what people say and it's much easier to beat up a strawman but really you're a CSM so you should hold yourself to a higher level then that. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
334
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:42:48 -
[3973] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:corebloodbrothers wrote:Move on? So much more fun stuff hitting eve s future to focus energy on, new player experience, new sov, rebalancing ishtar online, fanfest, china versus free world eve, ton of devblogs aimed at the future versus going over and over ccp actions versus inout broadcasting.
From what we have seen no unjust bans, and the guys who did get one know why. Same goes for botting. The harder users say it didnt give them a benefit over others and keep whining, the more it shows it did give on.
If the majority of players would be in favor of this crap, then run a csm member, as you shoudl easily get thousands of votes right...
If not, then its a storm in a glass of water really
Look at the future ratehr then ***** about the past, be positive, as much as i love the tears in my email about it, tweetimg i killed isboxer helps me actually getting votes, thnx for that
Greetz
Core
Csm9 csmx candidate You just got my vote.
Funny but this post lost him mine.
And if this is the sort of thing players are basing who they vote for on.. CSM X is done, useless and may as well be disbanded. All before voting even has ended.
Only the most naive could believe CSM elections are anything more than the power blocks controlling the voting.
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
|
Rosewalker
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
162
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:59:34 -
[3974] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Trakow wrote:No, because CCP can see if you're running ISBoxer or not. I am a programmer and it's really easy to include a bit of code that sees what other processes are running, which can then be checked against a list of known software that is banned. It's also easy to find out which windows have focus, and if the focus changes without an ALT-TAB key combination or a mouse-click, that's also an easy way to find round-robin users. Or, alternatively, if the key press action is sent directly to another window, without the focus changing, which is also possible, then that's another red flag that round-robin is being used. It's too easy.
One example of being caught red-handed is the link someone posted a while back about an incursion player who got banned. He denied using ISBoxer/input broadcasting at first when he complained on the forum, but then later admitted that he was using VideoFX and round-robin. So it wasn't the input-broadcasting that got him caught, because he wasn't doing that. They obviously knew that he was using the software. I have yet to hear about someone getting banned for using ISBoxer when they actually weren't. And those that have been banned will of course deny using it even if they are, but I have yet to hear about someone getting their account unbanned after finding it was a false accusation. Wow did I miss this post? Clearly this is true as when Blizzard started using Warden to do exactly this every single bot and cheat disappeared from World of Warcraft. There's no advertisement for gold sites via floating level 1s. There's no bots running under maps to harvest/mine resource nodes. There certainly are no cheats or anything like that........ HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH oh god help us if this dude really is a programmer. As for the banning aspect at the end of your post all I can say is "you must be new......"
If you're arguing for ISBoxer, you probably don't want to bring up Warden.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Alternate Allegiance
6
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 22:33:46 -
[3975] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Move on? So much more fun stuff hitting eve s future to focus energy on, new player experience, new sov, rebalancing ishtar online, fanfest, china versus free world eve, ton of devblogs aimed at the future versus going over and over ccp actions versus inout broadcasting.
From what we have seen no unjust bans, and the guys who did get one know why. Same goes for botting. The harder users say it didnt give them a benefit over others and keep whining, the more it shows it did give on.
If the majority of players would be in favor of this crap, then run a csm member, as you shoudl easily get thousands of votes right...
If not, then its a storm in a glass of water really
Look at the future ratehr then ***** about the past, be positive, as much as i love the tears in my email about it, tweetimg i killed isboxer helps me actually getting votes, thnx for that
Greetz
Core
Csm9 csmx candidate
Like every one has said that quoted this comment. You are behind. Most multiboxers have moved on. Learned new ways to control their alts. Them doing this is raising the question that hasn't been answered (well it has just half assed). That question is "Is this allowed". We want CCP to say what third party applications they will look past. What we as multiboxers are allowed to use. You probably will say "put in a petition". Most have done that and everyone gets the same answer. That answer in short is CCP saying "Don't use third party software and applications that can change the game."
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
349
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 00:00:53 -
[3976] - Quote
I hope everyone who enjoys multiboxing remembers statements like CoreBloodBrothers.
I have a list of candidates that in my opinion support multiboxing and have their direct quotes from their responses.
http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/52023-CSM-10-Canidate-Watch-Who-is-for-and-who-is-against-our-gameplay
Please vote with your heart and don't take my own word for who is best.
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
693
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 03:42:16 -
[3977] - Quote
http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/51980-The-Banned-thread?p=396907&viewfull=1#post396907
Y'all remember when you said "multiboxing isn't banned" and "we're just banning input duplication" and "VideoFX is fine"?
Good joke. VideoFX is now being banned. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11943
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:04:42 -
[3978] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Funny but this post lost him mine.
Go vote for one of the people who support cheating, then.
I am glad to see CSM candidates taking a stand on things like this.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
693
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:11:17 -
[3979] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:[isboxing =] cheating
[Citation Needed] |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11943
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:15:14 -
[3980] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:[isboxing =] cheating [Citation Needed]
Oh, sure. Luckily we were recently given the final word on the matter.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
695
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:18:48 -
[3981] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:[isboxing =] cheating [Citation Needed] Oh, sure. Luckily we were recently given the final word on the matter.
He only discussed banning input broadcasting / duplication, not Round Robin, and certainly not the entire program itself.
Please try to read instead of swallowing whatever pill is handed your way. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11943
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:25:46 -
[3982] - Quote
The really funny part is how people are linking the "dual boxing" site and the testimonials on it as proof of anything.
Personally, I'd like to see a CCP or at least unbiased source on how many people have actually been banned for simple dual boxing. Because I do that myself, and I've never even gotten so much as a GM warning for it.
It seems to me, like these people were banned for a greater offense than they're letting on, and trying to cry innocent. Some of them are obvious botters, what's more.
The message was clear from the start: Stop giving yourself an unfair advantage with the ISBoxer program.
Apparently that's not clear enough for some people.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
695
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:28:51 -
[3983] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:giving yourself an unfair advantage with the ISBoxer program.
[Citation Needed]
If ISBoxer gives a player an advantage, so does PYFA, EFT, EVEMon, Fuzzworks, and EVE-Central, to name a few. |
Sibyyl
Gallente Federation
23511
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:30:40 -
[3984] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
He only discussed banning input broadcasting / duplication, not Round Robin, and certainly not the entire program itself.
Please try to read instead of swallowing whatever pill is handed your way.
From folks I have spoken to, CCP is preferring to be ambiguous on the matter of Round Robin input. I would guess that silence is a way of not explicitly condoning, but not explicitly removing from the game.
This sort of grey area is, in my opinion, a very risky thing to be in. But each person has their own choices to make about their own accounts, right?
Rush to danger, wind up nowhere
Sabriz for CSM go go go
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
349
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:32:59 -
[3985] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:giving yourself an unfair advantage with the ISBoxer program. [Citation Needed] If ISBoxer gives a player an advantage, so does PYFA, EFT, EVEMon, Fuzzworks, and EVE-Central, to name a few.
I just updated 250 market orders worth dozens of billions of isk using a 3rd party program called Evernus. Using a hotkey built into the program it highlights an open order in Evernus and copys the new correct price to my clipboard.
I then just paste this price into EVE and move to the next order.
it took me minutes
it would take me wayyyyy longer if i had to gather up all the market data myself.
Please tell me how this isnt a 3rd party program that gains me an advantage over other players in the acquisition of isk.
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11943
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:33:39 -
[3986] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:giving yourself an unfair advantage with the ISBoxer program. [Citation Needed] If ISBoxer gives a player an advantage, so does PYFA, EFT, EVEMon, Fuzzworks, and EVE-Central, to name a few.
Not in the game client, no.
Why is this so hard for you? Are you that dead set on keeping this unfair advantage? I mean, it should be pretty simple for you. Don't use ISBoxer anymore. For anything. Run multiple instances of the client without a central control function, and you are 100% safe.
No one has ever been banned for alt tabbing, no matter how some of you are trying to claim that the sky is falling.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
695
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:37:25 -
[3987] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:giving yourself an unfair advantage with the ISBoxer program. [Citation Needed] If ISBoxer gives a player an advantage, so does PYFA, EFT, EVEMon, Fuzzworks, and EVE-Central, to name a few. Not in the game client, no. Why is this so hard for you? Are you that dead set on keeping this unfair advantage? I mean, it should be pretty simple for you. Don't use ISBoxer anymore. For anything. Run multiple instances of the client without a central control function, and you are 100% safe. No one has ever been banned for alt tabbing, no matter how some of you are trying to claim that the sky is falling.
Again, give me definite proof that it provides an unfair advantage, and then we can talk. Hell, give me ANY proof! As soon as you do, we can discuss banning it as well as all these other programs I mentioned. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11943
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:39:44 -
[3988] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Again, give me definite proof that it provides an unfair advantage, and then we can talk. Hell, give me ANY proof!
I don't have to. CCP banned it for such.
Quote:
As soon as you do, we can discuss banning it as well as all these other programs I mentioned.
EFT does not directly effect the game client. Neither does EVE Central, or DotLan, or whatever else you want to bring up.
It's literally apples and oranges at this point. You keep pointing to things like that as though they offer any defense to blatantly cheating. But they don't.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Alternate Allegiance
7
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:48:22 -
[3989] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:giving yourself an unfair advantage with the ISBoxer program. [Citation Needed] If ISBoxer gives a player an advantage, so does PYFA, EFT, EVEMon, Fuzzworks, and EVE-Central, to name a few. Not in the game client, no. Why is this so hard for you? Are you that dead set on keeping this unfair advantage? I mean, it should be pretty simple for you. Don't use ISBoxer anymore. For anything. Run multiple instances of the client without a central control function, and you are 100% safe. No one has ever been banned for alt tabbing, no matter how some of you are trying to claim that the sky is falling.
I will say what I on every response.
ISBoxer feature for VideoFx should still be allowed. It helps the computer run multiple clients smoother.
Its the same as running them all in windowed mode sized properly to fit on 1 monitor. I can do this (currently doing so) or get 10 monitors. Doing this howerver does put some strain on the computer. VideoFx i can set it up to bring no strain to the computer and do what i just listed. So why is feature all of a sudden game changing? People may or may not have been banned yet for using VideoFx but it s what CCP is saying to some that its 3rd party and you can be banned. Where you have 1 GM saying its okay.
1 are right on part of one thing. You can call using Input Broadcast as cheating i guess. It does give players an advantage. But most (i know i have) have moved on.
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
695
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:49:28 -
[3990] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Again, give me definite proof that it provides an unfair advantage, and then we can talk. Hell, give me ANY proof!
I don't have to. CCP banned it for such.
*facepalm* No, they banned it because Corebloodbrother whined and cried enough to get them to ban it.
Quote:Quote:As soon as you do, we can discuss banning it as well as all these other programs I mentioned. EFT does not directly effect the game client. Neither does EVE Central, or DotLan, or whatever else you want to bring up. It's literally apples and oranges at this point. You keep pointing to things like that as though they offer any defense to blatantly cheating. But they don't.
Sorry, but if using VideoFX to arrange your windows and make things easier on a single monitor is cheating, so is using multiple monitors.
Pyfa provides a marked advantage over someone who isn't using it as it allows a player to test multiple fits without spending ISK buying modules or implants that wouldn't work.
EVEMon allows a player to calculate the fastest training time with a pre-set attribute setting, and it allows a player to optimize years of training with perfectly placed attribute remaps. Players without such a program cannot shave years off their plan and optimize their training without lots of paper and pencil math and calculation. Additionally EVEMon allows you to input a specific fit and it will calculate all the skills you need for that fit and will optimize your attribute remaps.
Fuzzworks lets a player see where to spend his LP and on what in order to squeeze the most ISK out of his LP. A player without Fuzzworks would have to spend much longer checking market orders in order to obtain the same ISK / LP ratio.
EVE Central lets a player spend the least amount of ISK on a fit or skillbooks in the entire EVE Universe because he is able to find the cheapest market orders in the universe.
Of course, I posted all this before, but you chose to not read the thread. |
|
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1368
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:53:55 -
[3991] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Again, give me definite proof that it provides an unfair advantage, and then we can talk. Hell, give me ANY proof! As soon as you do, we can discuss banning it as well as all these other programs I mentioned. Input duplication was ruled unfair by those with the capacity to make such a decision, thus input duplication is unfair. Input duplication is reasonably and provably distinct from aggregating game related information and calculations. Input duplication acts within the client to control characters directly, none of what you mention does.
As such it doesn't hold that aggregating information provides an unfair advantage because input duplication does unless you take the position that all advantages are unfair. That get us into some silly reasoning though. Is looking at the wiki unfair? Using excel for industry work? Where is the line? Am I even allowed to know more about something in the game than another person?
As of yet, those with the authority to decide what is and isn't unfair have decided information aggregation as done by the tools you mention is not unfair. That is your proof. The fact that they haven't been defined as such means they aren't. Welcome to playing online games altered arbitrarily by their creators.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11943
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:57:52 -
[3992] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
*facepalm* No, they banned it because Corebloodbrother whined and cried enough to get them to ban it.
Yeah, there sure wasn't anyone else complaining about it for the last few years...
Quote:
Pyfa
EVEMon
Fuzzworks
EVE Central
Do not effect the game client directly.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
696
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 05:04:26 -
[3993] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Input duplication was ruled unfair by those with the capacity to make such a decision, thus input duplication is unfair.
So if The Weather Channel tells you that the sky is red, you'll believe that without question?
Quote:Input duplication is reasonably and provably distinct from aggregating game related information and calculations. Input duplication acts within the client to control characters directly, none of what you mention does.
Sorry, I don't know what you're saying. If you mean there's a problem with multiple ships doing the same action at the same time, I think we need to introduce you to the Alpha Fleet doctrine, as that relies on coordinated F1s from many dozens or hundreds of ships at the same time.
Quote:As such it doesn't hold that aggregating information provides an unfair advantage because input duplication does unless you take the position that all advantages are unfair. That get us into some silly reasoning though. Is looking at the wiki unfair? Using excel for industry work? Where is the line? Am I even allowed to know more about something in the game than another person?
CCP (and corebloodbrother)'s position is (not) very clear: This provides some measure of advantage over someone without it in very specific, controlled, niche instances, ergo it must be bad. Since the other programs mentioned provide similar advantages but in a much broader sense, then they are also bad under their "view". Currently CCP's actions are the definition of "silly reasoning".
Quote:As of yet, those with the authority to decide what is and isn't unfair have decided information aggregation as done by the tools you mention is not unfair. That is your proof. The fact that they haven't been defined as such means they aren't. Welcome to playing online games altered arbitrarily by their creators.
Again, if CNN tomorrow declared that all Democrats were Communists as red as Lenin, would you believe it? I was brought up and taught to think critically regarding encounters in my life, not to play "follow the leader". Why is asking for clarification on an issue suddenly criminalized and placed on a level like the T20 scandal? |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
696
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 05:09:16 -
[3994] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
*facepalm* No, they banned it because Corebloodbrother whined and cried enough to get them to ban it.
Yeah, there sure wasn't anyone else complaining about it for the last few years...
If you mean the weekly "wah some multiboxer stole my asteroids" threads, the "wah someone ganked my AFK freighter that had 20b worth of blue loot in it" threads, or (and this is my favorite) the one from Corebloodbrother where he said "wah my PVP fleet that was sitting on a planet 100% AFK got bombed" thread in GD, good one. I needed a chuckle. Those threads were summarily debunked and laughed out of GD as being full of fallacies, incorrect information, and outright lying.
Quote:Quote:
Pyfa, EVEMon, Fuzzworks, EVE Central
Do not affect the game client directly.
Except they do affect the EVE universe as mentioned previously. Please re-read.
Neither does VideoFX. It uses Windows Aero, a Microsoft application / program / service. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11943
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 05:12:09 -
[3995] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
If you mean...
No, I don't mean those. I mean the threads, over and over again, that brought up whether controlling twenty clients with a single mouse click was acceptable or not.
Turns out, it's not.
I celebrate that decision, as it's one that I thought CCP would never have the balls to make.
Quote:
Except they do affect the EVE universe as mentioned previously.
They do not effect the in game client. Whether they have an effect on the person using them is entirely different from effecting the client.
Such justification. Methinks he doth protest too much.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1368
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 05:18:51 -
[3996] - Quote
There is no room for belief or disbelief in the ruling. It stands as is. We can doubt the reasoning sure, but the fact of the decision remains and is not altered by whether you think they were truthful about the process. Your analogy to the whether channel would only make sense if they actually had the capacity to make the sky red. CCP is the authority on what is fair, thus what they say is unfair is unfair.
And no, I had no statement regarding the act of ships moving in unison, rather controlling characters (plural) directly, or to be more specific, in a manner that one would only be able to control a single character without outside tools. I think you know that though and are purposefully redirecting.
As to the programs, it's not an advantage as in ANY advantage that is bad, which appears to be the point of logical failure for you. It's an advantage as in one specific advantage, and not to be combined with the idea of all advantages. Doing so evidences faulty logic based upon intentional misinterpretation. Nowhere has it been stated that all advantages should be removed, nor has it been even hinted at that this is advantageous. That is an argument of your own manufacture.
As to the last part, see again, without the actual authority to make the statement a reality, like say the full control of the EULA and TOS of the game, which CCP has, your statement is in no way equivalent. CCN doesn't have the power to factually redefine individuals, though they may act as if they do, and as such can't be compared with CCP's control over the rules of the game. If you want clarification sure, ask, I have a petition in right now, but attacking other tools with fabricated arguments isn't requesting clarification. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
696
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 05:24:51 -
[3997] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
If you mean...
No, I don't mean those. I mean the threads, over and over again, that brought up whether controlling twenty clients with a single mouse click was acceptable or not. Turns out, it's not. I celebrate that decision, as it's one that I thought CCP would never have the balls to make.
You mean the threads where people pointed out time and time again where when an ISBoxer screwed the pooch, he lost 20x the ISK a single person with a single client would lose? Because that seems like a fairly hefty risk that the boxer would take whenever he undocks or attempts to perform an action. And let's not forget the very valid and ever-ignored factor of EWAR being used against an ISBoxer has a much greater effect than if EWAR were to be used against a fleet of human beings.
Quote:Quote:
Except they do affect the EVE universe as mentioned previously.
They do not effect the in game client. Whether they have an effect on the person using them is entirely different from effecting the client. Such justification. Methinks he doth protest too much.
Please, leave the Kafkatraps to Corebloodbrother. He does them so much better, especially with his broken english.
ISBoxer does not modify any part of the client that would cause a given character to earn ISK at an accelerated rate than someone who isn't. ISBoxer does not allow a player to make decisions at an increased rate, nor does it magically slow down his client (a la Matrix) to the point that he would be able to input and execute multiple commands before another player would be able to react in any way, shape, or form. ISBoxer does not allow a player to ignore incoming DPS, or magically increase his tank, or his DPS, or anything else that would constitute an advantage. And finally, ISBoxer does not in any way, shape, form, or inkling offer any sort of advantage to a fleet of characters that an equally skilled, fitted, experienced, and connected fleet of people would not have. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11943
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 05:51:11 -
[3998] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
You mean the threads where people pointed out time and time again where when an ISBoxer screwed the pooch, he lost 20x the ISK a single person with a single client would lose?
No, I mean the threads discussing the people who would ISBot an entire incursion fleet, racking in a ludicrous income with zero downsides.
Quote:
ISBoxer does not modify any part of the client that would cause a given character to earn ISK at an accelerated rate than someone who isn't.
Except for the part that's banned, that lets you duplicate input clicks to multiple clients.
I mean, if it wasn't such a huge advantage, then losing it clearly is no big loss. You can't really have it both ways.
Quote: And finally, ISBoxer does not in any way, shape, form, or inkling offer any sort of advantage to a fleet of characters that an equally skilled, fitted, experienced, and connected fleet of people would not have.
Except for the level of synchronicity that only a machine can achieve, on a scale that is otherwise impossible.
Why not just play fair, like everyone else?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
696
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 06:10:26 -
[3999] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:No, I mean the threads discussing the people who would ISBot an entire incursion fleet, racking in a ludicrous income with zero downsides.
Zero downsides, other than fear of gankers, getting jammed, selecting the wrong beacon and entering the wrong site, being contested out of a system, and being subjected to the whims of the larger incursion fleets with premature closings, sure, there's no downsides. And there is no ISBoxer out there who earned more isk per character than an identical fleet would.
Quote:Quote:
ISBoxer does not modify any part of the client that would cause a given character to earn ISK at an accelerated rate than someone who isn't.
Except for the part that's banned, that lets you duplicate input clicks to multiple clients. I mean, if it wasn't such a huge advantage, then losing it clearly is no big loss. You can't really have it both ways.
Again, leave the Kafkatraps to Corebloodbrothers.
Duplicating input clicks to multiple clients can be programmed as an OS level command, not a client level command.
Quote:Quote: And finally, ISBoxer does not in any way, shape, form, or inkling offer any sort of advantage to a fleet of characters that an equally skilled, fitted, experienced, and connected fleet of people would not have. Except for the level of synchronicity that only a machine can achieve, on a scale that is otherwise impossible. Why not just play fair, like everyone else?
Point out which machine is responsible for the arty tempest alpha synching, or bombing synching. Hint: It's not yours.
Because your definition of "unfair" dances down the line of "you have multiple accounts logged in / you have an OGB / you have implants / you use combat boosters, ergo you're cheating". I admit that was a slippery slope fallacy, but I've seen too many people express those exact sentiments in local / mails that I couldn't help include it. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6548
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 07:25:31 -
[4000] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
He only discussed banning input broadcasting / duplication, not Round Robin, and certainly not the entire program itself.
Please try to read instead of swallowing whatever pill is handed your way.
From folks I have spoken to, CCP is preferring to be ambiguous on the matter of Round Robin input. I would guess that silence is a way of not explicitly condoning, but not explicitly removing from the game. This sort of grey area is, in my opinion, a very risky thing to be in. But each person has their own choices to make about their own accounts, right?
Gotta petition until you get a response.
They will doubtless just bounce you to the thread, if so you're not safe. I guess perhaps you might escalate it to someone who can/will give you a firm answer.
But don't share it, whatever it is
Wait, is Round robin the "press button X to move from window N to window N+1" ?
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
306
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 11:15:52 -
[4001] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
You mean the threads where people pointed out time and time again where when an ISBoxer screwed the pooch, he lost 20x the ISK a single person with a single client would lose?
No, I mean the threads discussing the people who would ISBot an entire incursion fleet, racking in a ludicrous income with zero downsides.
They make no more than a standard incursion fleet, and require X more ships X more isk to fit and buy those ships, require X more plex or account subscriptions. In other words completely indistinguishable to a non isboxer fleet. And then you show your bias with that "ISBot" phrase. ISBoxer is not a bot. Has never been a bot and just shows that yout really only care about the fact that your not as space pixel rich as some incursion runners.
It is even funny that you think its all that much ISK. Compared to C5 C6 escals, its pretty grindy low return work. Multboxers have lived in C5s in the past and you can do it with less accounts and make far more total, so really a lot more per account. Also since this can be done with only 3-5 characters if you know what you are doing, alt tab works fine.
ISBoxer cannot make rats give bigger bounties, does not increase LP payout and doesn't change per player payouts in incursions.
And all this from CODE. You know a large part of you guys "cheat" according to your definition. CODE don't exactly hide it.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
306
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 11:17:30 -
[4002] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Wait, is Round robin the "press button X to move from window N to window N+1" ?
Yes. It something that you don't need anything but a clever setup in windows to do. Even more to the point, its not all that different from changing alt-tab to a just tab, and doing butting X, tab, button X tab....
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
ashley Eoner
450
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 21:07:14 -
[4003] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, I mean the threads discussing the people who would ISBot an entire incursion fleet, racking in a ludicrous income with zero downsides.
Other then losing billions of isk in ships because of a fluctuation in electrical power, a momentary ISP lag, a system crash, EVe's servers being fickle, something between you and eve being fickle, gankers appearing, ECM griefers, and more.
Think of all the times eve lagged for a few seconds and realize that when multiboxing incursions that means one ship maybe two dead.
Getting contested was a daily existence when boxing. Player fleets were generally hostile to boxed fleets.
If you thought they boxers were running in complete safety then you're clueless and you should of taken it upon yourself to remove that safety. I lost count of how many times I had gankers hit me because at times it was a daily event. I was even forced to dock many times because of persistent gank fleets.
You can make more isk in complete safety by playing the market which requires an hour or so of your time a day.
You can sit on a gate with a neutral and gank your way to more isk per hour with complete safety.
You can make similar isk in a variety of activities in eve. Some with less danger and some with more. Danger of course is something you could always bring to any of the highsec activities.
Regardless as nolak said earlier. No isboxed fleet could out earn a player run fleet.
What's hilarious is I made WAAAY more isk in almost complete safety in WHs and some sections of null. WHs in specific are isk printing machines. I had far fewer hostile interactions in a WH then I did incursion running. I just ran incursions because I had a job change and other stuff that occurred in personal life which screwed with my ability to log in consistently.
Kaarous Aldurald is a NERF HIGHSEC troll alt which was probably made by a bittervet to mess with the ability of others to make isk. He appears in nearly every single thread involving highsec and isk making. He then proceeds to make ridiculous claims and then distorts anything that gets said. All in an effort to get highsec nerfed as much as possible. His posting patterns seem to indicate anger at CCP as he seems to try everything he can to push ideas that would hurt EVE.
|
Jeanette Leon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 23:36:47 -
[4004] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
...
The message was clear from the start: Stop giving yourself an unfair advantage with the ISBoxer program.
Apparently that's not clear enough for some people.
Clear as mud.
Tell us, oh enlightened One, all about fair and unfair advantages and maybe this thread will not reach 200 pages
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11958
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 00:49:43 -
[4005] - Quote
Jeanette Leon wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
...
The message was clear from the start: Stop giving yourself an unfair advantage with the ISBoxer program.
Apparently that's not clear enough for some people.
Clear as mud. Tell us, oh enlightened One, all about fair and unfair advantages and maybe this thread will not reach 200 pages
Personally, I'd suggest ceasing any and all use of ISBoxer. Judging from some of the bleating, it looks like some people tried to find a way around the whole "input duplication is unequivocally banned" thing, and got hammered for that too. (of course, as I mentioned before, some of the people in that "dualboxing.com" site are likely botters trying to make excuses)
Stop using that program. I get it, you paid twenty bucks or whatever for it. You've racked up ridiculous advantages against your fellow players for years for that twenty bucks. Now it's time to give up the ghost.
Either bring out of the old extra monitors trick, or alt tab like the rest of us. No one ever got banned doing that.
I honestly cannot imagine why anyone would honestly need twenty accounts working together in perfect synchronization anyway. And I use the word "honestly" in there deliberately. If you guys aren't getting an unreasonable advantage using ISBoxer, then you're fighting awfully hard to keep something that you're claiming doesn't matter.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
710
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 01:09:48 -
[4006] - Quote
Personally, I'd suggest ceasing any and all use of EVEMon, PYFA, EFT, and Fuzzworks. Judging from some of the bleating, it looks like some people tried to find a way around the whole "cannot gain an advantage over another" thing, and got hammered for that too. (of course, as I mentioned before, some of the people in that "Fuzzworks" site are likely lazy people trying to make excuses as to why they don't do the math themselves)
Stop using those websites. I get it, you spent all that time downloading and installing them. You've racked up ridiculous advantages against your fellow players for years for that time. Now it's time to give up the ghost.
Either bring out of the old cache scraping trick, or put some alts in each trade-hub like the rest of us. No one ever got banned doing that.
I honestly cannot imagine why anyone would honestly need any of these programs as you can just do the math and calculations by hand. And I use the word "honestly" in there deliberately. If you guys aren't getting an unreasonable advantage using EFT, PYFA, EVEmon, or Fuzzowkrs, then you're fighting awfully hard to keep something that you're claiming doesn't matter.
End of Sarcasm.
Someone *did* get banned for the old duct-tape-mouse-and-dowel trick: https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/oldrigs
You still haven't provided any claim or proof, tangible or otherwise, that ISBoxer provides advantages. Since you made such a claim without evidence, we can dismiss said claim without evidence. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11958
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 01:17:49 -
[4007] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Personally, I'd suggest ceasing any and all use of EVEMon, PYFA, EFT, and Fuzzworks.
Those don't effect the game client, and you're only bringing up as a diversion.
Quote:
Stop using those websites. I get it, you spent all that time downloading and installing them.
You don't install websites... lol.
Quote:
Either bring out of the old cache scraping trick, or put some alts in each trade-hub like the rest of us. No one ever got banned doing that.
No one ever got banned for any of those websites either.
Keep comparing apples and oranges, dude. The ruling on ISBotter isn't going to change just because you stomp your feet and cry about Fuzzworks.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Marsha Mallow
1975
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 02:05:43 -
[4008] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Player fleets were generally hostile to boxed fleets.
Maybe they have a point.
Jeanette Leon wrote:Tell us, oh enlightened One, all about fair and unfair advantages and maybe this thread will not reach 200 pages
200 pages of screaming 'BUT THAT ISN'T FAIR CCCCPEEEE' would be feeble. Let's aim for 500.
Nolak Ataru wrote:You still haven't provided any claim or proof, tangible or otherwise, that ISBoxer provides advantages.
If it doesn't provide any advantages stop using it.
These rambling commentaries from ashley (which are really helpful to assist tear collectors work out exactly how to disrupt you in a EULA compliant manner) suggest that being an ISBotter has risk, is really annoying and isn't a particularly enjoyable game experience. Making sure newbros aren't sucked into such a disgusting cycle is a challenge, but we're all about that here.
Nolak Ataru wrote:End of Sarcasm.
^ This is where you are going wrong btw. The sarcasm never ends, and even if it did you don't need to announce it. Cupcake.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
711
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 02:05:44 -
[4009] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Those don't effect the game client, and you're only bringing up as a diversion.
They affect the EVE Universe more than ISBoxer does. ISBoxer does not modify the game client in any way that can be construed to break the EULA or 6A3.
Quote:Quote:Stop using those websites. I get it, you spent all that time downloading and installing them. You don't install websites... lol.
Thank you for pointing that out. I edited my post to reflect the correction.
Quote:Quote:Either bring out of the old cache scraping trick, or put some alts in each trade-hub like the rest of us. No one ever got banned doing that. No one ever got banned for any of those websites either. Keep comparing apples and oranges, dude. The ruling on ISBotter isn't going to change just because you stomp your feet and cry about Fuzzworks.
Congrats at dodging where I debunked your "nobody got banned for multiple mice or keyboards".
Nobody ever got banned for said websites because nobody ever raised enough of a fuss to CCP about them. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand. You continue to provide no proof or anything to back up your claims that ISBoxer provides some advantage, and I'm beginning to grow tired of dealing with the EVE equivalent of the hobo on the corner ranting about how the government is a bunch of lizard people who also happen to be controlling members of the NWO and/or the Illuminati. Yes, it may be true, but since you have zero proof.....
And finally, on /r/TodayILearned: requesting proof for unsubstantiated claims, requesting simple sit-downs and chats, and asking for a corporation to implement their EULA across the board = stamping you feet and crying. Next week, on our segment on CODE: Are they really CCP employees in disguise, we delve in to the alliance that will not let a hulk live!
e:
If it doesn't provide any advantages stop using it.
We'll stop ISBoxing if everyone else stops using the other programs. Deal? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11959
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 02:27:00 -
[4010] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
They affect the EVE Universe more than ISBoxer does. ISBoxer does not modify the game client in any way that can be construed to break the EULA or 6A3.
CCP disagrees.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Marsha Mallow
1976
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 02:37:21 -
[4011] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:If it doesn't provide any advantages stop using it.
We'll stop ISBoxing if everyone else stops using the other programs. Deal?
Nope.
You need to look more closely at the comments from moderators on the forums you frequent btw.
Quote:If you want to instigate EvE drama, you will need to find another place to do it. You are inviting negative attention to this community.
I really enjoyed the collective outrage here over an earlier poster relinking a Devmail clarifying the new botruling when you are openly posting your own forum sig ban message on playersites. Classy.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Alternate Allegiance
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 03:12:23 -
[4012] - Quote
Nolak Ataru I will say this you do keep bringing up the website apps like Eve wiki, Eve central and dotlan. Those don't really change the way the game is being played. ISBoxers feature for Input broadcast does change the way the game is played chages every game that it supports. You can control multiple clients with almost perfect timing. Something you will only rarely get in a fleet of actual players. CCP did what it thought was best by banning it. Now other features of ISBoxer are not really what i'd call game changing. Those features I would compare to the websites and other applications.
Which all those do is enhance the visual side of Eve.
Just wish CCP was a bit more clear and supportive to help people understand what can and can't be done. Just saying don't do it sometimes isn't enough.
Telling CCP to ban the use of EFT is like telling Blizzard to ban Icy-Viens.
Telling CCP to ban the use of EveMon (think thats the skill one) is like telling Blizzard to ban WoW app.
*ya for the blizz ref xD i went there.
These applications and webpages are supported 100% by eve to help newer and older players learn to play better and make there experience better. Which is why they added the feature to import/export your builds.
They removed Input Broadcasting not just because a few possible 100 people complained. They did to increase new player experience. Like hwo they nerfed the sov sturctures and more to come. They want new players to come in and enjoy the game. They want fleets of 20 actual people fight against a multiboxer to actual be enjoyable. With a player having to tab over and some what physically control the accounts makes it that much more enjoyable. Instead of ths guy controlling 20 accounts but only has to use 1 client. CCP just looking out to make the game better.
I was against it till I got the hang of controlling my miners. No matter how much complaining happens CCP will not bring that option back. But they should be more clear on Third party applications other than the obvious.
Just don't ban VideoFX. All I ask. Don't see how you can call VideoFX cheating honestly. Just my opinion tho.
IF a gm replied to this thread saying "Hey this is what is banned this is what you can do. " I'm sure this thread would stop. (probably not tho)
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
711
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 04:05:42 -
[4013] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
They affect the EVE Universe more than ISBoxer does. ISBoxer does not modify the game client in any way that can be construed to break the EULA or 6A3.
CCP disagrees.
1) CCP has provided no proof or documentation to support their hilarious claim.
2) Certain CCP and CSM members also wants to reduce everyone to one client per person. Do you support that as well?
Marsha Mallow wrote:I have nothing to say that would counter the arguments presented so I'll just use strawmen fallacies and tu quoque fallacies. I shall attack the player instead and pray that nobody realizes that he has brought up multiple valid points and that nobody has brought any evidence to support CCP's decision.
JGar Rooflestein wrote:Nolak Ataru I will say this you do keep bringing up the website apps like Eve wiki, Eve central and dotlan. Those don't really change the way the game is being played. ISBoxers feature for Input broadcast does change the way the game is played chages every game that it supports. You can control multiple clients with almost perfect timing. Something you will only rarely get in a fleet of actual players.
1) I bring these up in reference to 6A3, the accelerated gameplay clause, as CCP has quoted that time and time again here. I outlined multiple programs and each way they can he used to gain ISK at an increased rate than a non-user. Nobody has bothered to dispute these claims other than to plug their ears, stick their head in the sand, and sing Ave Maria at the top of their lungs.
2) If you search around, you will obtain a fleet of players in alpha-BS that can coordinate an alpha strike that would match or even rival ISBoxer. Just because a fleet of BRAVE pilots cannot coordinate a 1400 strike does not mean that ISBoxer is suddenly overpowered.
The people who were complaining about the ISBoxed incursion fleets were comparing a fleet of nightmares and Nestors with more ISK in their fits and in their implants than a WTM HQ fleet, with razor-thin tanks, to an "average" VG fleet with LSEs or 1600s. This is whats known as a "fallacy of comparisons"; kind of like when someone tries to compare a Odyssey to a Mustang and asks "which is better".
e: Video FX isn't banned, but using it too quickly will get you banned. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11959
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 04:09:12 -
[4014] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
1) CCP has provided no proof or documentation to support their hilarious claim.
This is hilarious. The sheer entitlement of this statement, and the irony.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Jeanette Leon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 04:23:00 -
[4015] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Personally, I'd suggest ceasing any and all use of ISBoxer. Judging from some of the bleating, it looks like some people tried to find a way around the whole "input duplication is unequivocally banned" thing, and got hammered for that too. (of course, as I mentioned before, some of the people in that "dualboxing.com" site are likely botters trying to make excuses)
Stop using that program. I get it, you paid twenty bucks or whatever for it. You've racked up ridiculous advantages against your fellow players for years for that twenty bucks. Now it's time to give up the ghost.
Either bring out of the old extra monitors trick, or alt tab like the rest of us. No one ever got banned doing that.
I honestly cannot imagine why anyone would honestly need twenty accounts working together in perfect synchronization anyway. And I use the word "honestly" in there deliberately. If you guys aren't getting an unreasonable advantage using ISBoxer, then you're fighting awfully hard to keep something that you're claiming doesn't matter.
Isboxer and the likes are cool as OP clearly stated examples of authorized input broadcasting. As I'm aware that function does not come default with EVE client.
I have no doubts at all when I'm allowed to use it.
My concerns are others, as we say in my country, 'you can't only be, you also have to look like you are' (hope that makes sense).
Is that the case here? Shall I gimp my game-play based on misinformation around the web?
I'm not trying to get around anything.
I'd just like that the people who actually make the game and the rules would not leave the costumers hanging with the lack of information. Commonly used functions by multiboxers are well known, the subject had been beat beyond dead, and I'm still waiting clarifications from CCP, wich cba it seems.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
711
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 05:01:39 -
[4016] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
1) CCP has provided no proof or documentation to support their hilarious claim.
This is hilarious. The sheer entitlement of this statement, and the irony.
TIL: Asking for evidence that a program is detrimental to EVE's health after CCP stated that it was = entitlement.
This isn't tumblr. We aren't run by entitlement, emotion, and privilege here. If I was really "entitled", as you said, I'd be demanding a full reimbursement of either my money, or my time spent not running, and I'd top it off by demanding CCP Seagull to personally apologize to me.
Since I don't,,,,, |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6549
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 05:34:00 -
[4017] - Quote
JGar Rooflestein wrote:
IF a gm replied to this thread saying "Hey this is what is banned this is what you can do. " I'm sure this thread would stop. (probably not tho)
You're quite safe since it's pretty much established they will never give a straight answer
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
ashley Eoner
452
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 07:30:15 -
[4018] - Quote
JGar Rooflestein wrote:Nolak Ataru I will say this you do keep bringing up the website apps like Eve wiki, Eve central and dotlan. Those don't really change the way the game is being played. ISBoxers feature for Input broadcast does change the way the game is played chages every game that it supports. You can control multiple clients with almost perfect timing. Something you will only rarely get in a fleet of actual players. CCP did what it thought was best by banning it. Now other features of ISBoxer are not really what i'd call game changing. Those features I would compare to the websites and other applications.
Which all those do is enhance the visual side of Eve.
Just wish CCP was a bit more clear and supportive to help people understand what can and can't be done. Just saying don't do it sometimes isn't enough.
Telling CCP to ban the use of EFT is like telling Blizzard to ban Icy-Viens.
Telling CCP to ban the use of EveMon (think thats the skill one) is like telling Blizzard to ban WoW app.
*ya for the blizz ref xD i went there.
These applications and webpages are supported 100% by eve to help newer and older players learn to play better and make there experience better. Which is why they added the feature to import/export your builds.
They removed Input Broadcasting not just because a few possible 100 people complained. They did to increase new player experience. Like hwo they nerfed the sov sturctures and more to come. They want new players to come in and enjoy the game. They want fleets of 20 actual people fight against a multiboxer to actual be enjoyable. With a player having to tab over and some what physically control the accounts makes it that much more enjoyable. Instead of ths guy controlling 20 accounts but only has to use 1 client. CCP just looking out to make the game better.
I was against it till I got the hang of controlling my miners. No matter how much complaining happens CCP will not bring that option back. But they should be more clear on Third party applications other than the obvious.
Just don't ban VideoFX. All I ask. Don't see how you can call VideoFX cheating honestly. Just my opinion tho.
IF a gm replied to this thread saying "Hey this is what is banned this is what you can do. " I'm sure this thread would stop. (probably not tho) Hi bro how about you read the thread and realize that broadcasting hasn't been a point of contention for at least 100 pages.....
Right now you can be banned for doing anything too quickly or in a manner that gives you an "unfair advantage" which could be construed to include things such as having a neutral repper, OGB, etc. That's why CCP isn't giving us anything clear because they know they are just banning based on feelings and psssshhhh... In that vein EFT and such all give an unfair advantage over a person who hasn't been exposed to those programs/web sites.
If you couldn't beat a multiboxer fleet with an equal sized/ship fleet then you were being lead by a really bad FC. It doesn't take much to screw the old isboxer fleets. Old repeater based isboxers only had the advantage when you fought them on their terms. Which frankly if you did that then in my view you deserved to lose. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
309
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 07:54:03 -
[4019] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Jeanette Leon wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
...
The message was clear from the start: Stop giving yourself an unfair advantage with the ISBoxer program.
Apparently that's not clear enough for some people.
Clear as mud. Tell us, oh enlightened One, all about fair and unfair advantages and maybe this thread will not reach 200 pages Personally, I'd suggest ceasing any and all use of ISBoxer.
If your Alliance did that. They would probably disband. CCP has straight out said one of the biggest users of isboxer and broadcasting is gankers!
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 08:32:52 -
[4020] - Quote
I would like to add a few things to this conversation.
Comparing a repeater based isboxed incursion fleet to a PUG is just silly. That would be like comparing ISN's bling fleet with a PUG. The difference in isk being fielded is massive. At my peak I ran 9 NMs 1 Nestor like at least one other boxer I knew. I was able to do 5 minute tick to tick OTAs (perfect spawns etc) and the other fellow was faster than me (he'd hit mid 4 minute when everything was perfect and he was hustling). That's about on par with a blinged player fleet if not a bit slower.
My fleet consisted of 9 NMs at a cost of 4.3 billion isk EACH. The nestor was cheaper at 3.6 billion isk. Total ISK value of just the NMs and Nestor was about 42.3 billion isk. I also used a venture for ore dropping and of course a perfect booster.
It should be clear at this point that my NMs had almost no tank and relied on pure DPS to clear sites before incoming damage became a problem. I ran with 2x warp speed rigs on the nms and 1x warp speed rig on the nestor. This made me very VERY vulnerable to gankers, ECM, lag spikes, power outages etc. I mentioned power outage because I lost 3 ships (13b isk) one time due to a sudden loss of power. There's a million different things that can cause you to lose isk when solo boxing an incursion fleet. I know this because I've lost ships to many of them. The most frustrating losses are those connected to lag spikes between Eve's servers and me.
In theory when everything was absolutely perfect I could do up to 1.2b an hour. Keep in mind I couldn't stop to take a drink or even think of chatting if I wanted to achieve that rate. I also couldn't have any fleets fighting for sites or be in an incursion system with lots of long warps. This of course excludes time spent converting LP, moving the fleet, setting up the fleet, or twenty other things I am forgetting about that cost me time when I tried to run incursions.
In comparison my current fleet is dirt cheap. One of my old NMs would pay for the majority of my ships that I'm using now. |
|
|
Rosewalker
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
162
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 13:55:25 -
[4021] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
They affect the EVE Universe more than ISBoxer does. ISBoxer does not modify the game client in any way that can be construed to break the EULA or 6A3.
CCP disagrees. 1) CCP has provided no proof or documentation to support their hilarious claim.
I have a question.
According to what I've read on the Dual-Boxing.com forums, people are being told that Section 6A3 doesn't matter because the uses ISBoxer users are being banned/petitioning for are violating Section 6A2 of the EULA.
Section 6A2 of EVE Online EULA wrote:
You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
I've written in the past that ISBoxer doesn't violate 6A2, so it appears I'm wrong. If I understand correctly, the problem CCP has is using the ability to paste several sections of other clients into the one big screen that I always see in the YouTube videos. How exactly is that done? Is that main screen a DX Nothing window and everything is mashed together in that?
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
715
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 13:59:16 -
[4022] - Quote
It's done using Windows Aero, so the fact that CCP has the gall to claim it breaks 6A2 is hilarious, unless CCP recently bought out Microsoft and we didn't notice. |
Rosewalker
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
162
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 14:34:22 -
[4023] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:It's done using Windows Aero, so the fact that CCP has the gall to claim it breaks 6A2 is hilarious, unless CCP recently bought out Microsoft and we didn't notice.
So Windows Aero is used to copy and paste bits of windows from several clients in order to make one main window?
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
715
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 14:48:31 -
[4024] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:It's done using Windows Aero, so the fact that CCP has the gall to claim it breaks 6A2 is hilarious, unless CCP recently bought out Microsoft and we didn't notice. So Windows Aero is used to copy and paste bits of windows from several clients in order to make one main window?
Well there's multiple ways to set up a screen. I suggest watching a few of the videos on the dual-boxing forums. Versi is probably the guy who uses VideoFX to it's fullest potential (so far) in EVE, and he does a good job explaining it in his videos. |
Rosewalker
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
162
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 15:26:08 -
[4025] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rosewalker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:It's done using Windows Aero, so the fact that CCP has the gall to claim it breaks 6A2 is hilarious, unless CCP recently bought out Microsoft and we didn't notice. So Windows Aero is used to copy and paste bits of windows from several clients in order to make one main window? Well there's multiple ways to set up a screen. I suggest watching a few of the videos on the dual-boxing forums. Versi is probably the guy who uses VideoFX to it's fullest potential (so far) in EVE, and he does a good job explaining it in his videos.
I've watched Seraphin Foad's tutorial and am watching Tronnic's now. A question just occurred to me. Does dxNothing.exe run within the EVE client's memory space?
Back to watching videos.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
715
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 16:34:04 -
[4026] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Rosewalker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:It's done using Windows Aero, so the fact that CCP has the gall to claim it breaks 6A2 is hilarious, unless CCP recently bought out Microsoft and we didn't notice. So Windows Aero is used to copy and paste bits of windows from several clients in order to make one main window? Well there's multiple ways to set up a screen. I suggest watching a few of the videos on the dual-boxing forums. Versi is probably the guy who uses VideoFX to it's fullest potential (so far) in EVE, and he does a good job explaining it in his videos. I've watched Seraphin Foad's tutorial and am watching Tronnic's now. A question just occurred to me. Does dxNothing.exe run within the EVE client's memory space? Back to watching videos.
dxNothing.exe is a separate program that does not interact with the EVE client. |
Rosewalker
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
162
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 18:46:37 -
[4027] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rosewalker wrote:
I've watched Seraphin Foad's tutorial and am watching Tronnic's now. A question just occurred to me. Does dxNothing.exe run within the EVE client's memory space?
Back to watching videos.
dxNothing.exe is a separate program that does not interact with the EVE client.
Okay, don't shoot the messenger, but I think I figured out what CCP is thinking. Let's break down 62A. The first part reads:
"You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment..."
If this means within the client, then ISBoxer passes this test, as dxNothing.exe does not interact with the client. Now, the second part:
"...or change how the Game is played."
I watched a video of someone running a Vanguard site with 12 Nightmares and 1 Onerious. The video maker, Tonksi, ran everything in 2 windows. If a player not using any multiboxing software were trying to do that, he would need to interact with 12 windows. I believe that is what is meant by "change how the Game is played."
Please remember, I'm not making an argument trying to justify banning people. I'm trying to figure out what, if the forums where ISBoxer users hang out are correct, CCP is already doing.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
716
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 19:32:27 -
[4028] - Quote
I might be so inclined to agree with you if one of these multiple things wasn't happening: One, CCP is currently working on a program that imitates ISBOXER's video FX layout and indeed is supporting it as a third party program. The second thing is that CCP currently allows for the player to resize any window (exefile or in-game wondow),that's changing the way the information is presented and changing the way that the player interacts with a client. Furthermore, the nebulous use and meaning of "how the game is played" can be construed to limit a player from any number of activities, including ganking and scamming. It is nothing short of a "we get to tell you how you can play the game" clause and should be taken with a grain of salt whenever it is cited as it can be viewed as "We have no real argument against that but we still want to ban it".
Additionally, you can force Windows to have "alt tab" cycle through instead of switch between A and B. |
Jeanette Leon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 19:47:19 -
[4029] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Rosewalker wrote:
I've watched Seraphin Foad's tutorial and am watching Tronnic's now. A question just occurred to me. Does dxNothing.exe run within the EVE client's memory space?
Back to watching videos.
dxNothing.exe is a separate program that does not interact with the EVE client. Okay, don't shoot the messenger, but I think I figured out what CCP is thinking. Let's break down 62A. The first part reads: "You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment..." If this means within the client, then ISBoxer passes this test, as dxNothing.exe does not interact with the client. Now, the second part: "...or change how the Game is played." I watched a video of someone running a Vanguard site with 12 Nightmares and 1 Onerious. The video maker, Tonksi, ran everything in 2 windows. If a player not using any multiboxing software were trying to do that, he would need to interact with 12 windows. I believe that is what is meant by "change how the Game is played." Please remember, I'm not making an argument trying to justify banning people. I'm trying to figure out what, if the forums where ISBoxer users hang out are correct, CCP is already doing.
Those 2 windows are pieces of all windows arranged like he fancies. He's interacting wtih all 13 windows one at a time.
It only changes how the game is seen, not played.
This is EVE, not the trying to figure out the rules game. That one sucks, I don't wanna play that, I wanna play EVE
I ask again, CCP, please come forward with some clarification
|
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Alternate Allegiance
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 20:51:51 -
[4030] - Quote
Jeanette Leon wrote:Rosewalker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Rosewalker wrote:
I've watched Seraphin Foad's tutorial and am watching Tronnic's now. A question just occurred to me. Does dxNothing.exe run within the EVE client's memory space?
Back to watching videos.
dxNothing.exe is a separate program that does not interact with the EVE client. Okay, don't shoot the messenger, but I think I figured out what CCP is thinking. Let's break down 62A. The first part reads: "You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment..." If this means within the client, then ISBoxer passes this test, as dxNothing.exe does not interact with the client. Now, the second part: "...or change how the Game is played." I watched a video of someone running a Vanguard site with 12 Nightmares and 1 Onerious. The video maker, Tonksi, ran everything in 2 windows. If a player not using any multiboxing software were trying to do that, he would need to interact with 12 windows. I believe that is what is meant by "change how the Game is played." Please remember, I'm not making an argument trying to justify banning people. I'm trying to figure out what, if the forums where ISBoxer users hang out are correct, CCP is already doing. Those 2 windows are pieces of all windows arranged like he fancies. He's interacting wtih all 13 windows one at a time. It only changes how the game is seen, not played. This is EVE, not the trying to figure out the rules game. That one sucks, I don't wanna play that, I wanna play EVE I ask again, CCP, please come forward with some clarification
Like you said Video FX is a visual enhancement. Does not change the game play at all.
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
|
|
Rosewalker
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
162
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 22:23:34 -
[4031] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:I might be so inclined to agree with you if one of these multiple things wasn't happening: One, CCP is currently working on a program that imitates ISBOXER's video FX layout and indeed is supporting it as a third party program. The second thing is that CCP currently allows for the player to resize any window (exefile or in-game wondow),that's changing the way the information is presented and changing the way that the player interacts with a client. Furthermore, the nebulous use and meaning of "how the game is played" can be construed to limit a player from any number of activities, including ganking and scamming. It is nothing short of a "we get to tell you how you can play the game" clause and should be taken with a grain of salt whenever it is cited as it can be viewed as "We have no real argument against that but we still want to ban it".
Additionally, you can force Windows to have "alt tab" cycle through instead of switch between A and B.
I still think it has something to do with dxNothing.exe. If I understand the tutorial videos correctly, it's not really a part of ISBoxer. If you want to use the executable, you have to do some sort of import process.
If we just forget about all the technical specs on how ISBoxer does its magic, do you think CCP is just looking at the videos, seeing 12 cutouts of firing buttons on the screen and segments of 12 overviews, and saying, "That's bad, that changes our game, we don't like" ?
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Alternate Allegiance
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 22:41:02 -
[4032] - Quote
http://isboxer.com/wiki/DxNothing
http://isboxer.com/wiki/Video_FX
My set up. I click the launch monitor 1 opens the main character then on monitor 2 it will load the dxnothing with 10 windows versions of the clients in a nice order so i can see it. The video FX side makes it to were i can interact with all windows.
Everything those to things offer can be done 100% with windows applications. Video FX and DXNothing do not effect the client directly it only affects the window its told to effect.
Think of Video FX and the DxNothing as PIP (Picture in Picture) on your TV.
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
718
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 22:41:03 -
[4033] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:I might be so inclined to agree with you if one of these multiple things wasn't happening: One, CCP is currently working on a program that imitates ISBOXER's video FX layout and indeed is supporting it as a third party program. The second thing is that CCP currently allows for the player to resize any window (exefile or in-game wondow),that's changing the way the information is presented and changing the way that the player interacts with a client. Furthermore, the nebulous use and meaning of "how the game is played" can be construed to limit a player from any number of activities, including ganking and scamming. It is nothing short of a "we get to tell you how you can play the game" clause and should be taken with a grain of salt whenever it is cited as it can be viewed as "We have no real argument against that but we still want to ban it".
Additionally, you can force Windows to have "alt tab" cycle through instead of switch between A and B. I still think it has something to do with dxNothing.exe. If I understand the tutorial videos correctly, it's not really a part of ISBoxer. If you want to use the executable, you have to do some sort of import process. If we just forget about all the technical specs on how ISBoxer does its magic, do you think CCP is just looking at the videos, seeing 12 cutouts of firing buttons on the screen and segments of 12 overviews, and saying, "That's bad, that changes our game, we don't like" ?
dxNothing is little more than an exe blank window using Direct X. You have to add it to a character set (football team, essentially) for it to do anything.
Even if that *was* all that CCP was doing, people can do similar setups with a stack of monitors if they so desire. As I mentioned, Windows can be configured to cycle through current windows with alt-tab and you can spam Alt-Tab + F1 fast enough to land in the same server cycle time. |
Rosewalker
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
162
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 23:12:01 -
[4034] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rosewalker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:I might be so inclined to agree with you if one of these multiple things wasn't happening: One, CCP is currently working on a program that imitates ISBOXER's video FX layout and indeed is supporting it as a third party program. The second thing is that CCP currently allows for the player to resize any window (exefile or in-game wondow),that's changing the way the information is presented and changing the way that the player interacts with a client. Furthermore, the nebulous use and meaning of "how the game is played" can be construed to limit a player from any number of activities, including ganking and scamming. It is nothing short of a "we get to tell you how you can play the game" clause and should be taken with a grain of salt whenever it is cited as it can be viewed as "We have no real argument against that but we still want to ban it".
Additionally, you can force Windows to have "alt tab" cycle through instead of switch between A and B. I still think it has something to do with dxNothing.exe. If I understand the tutorial videos correctly, it's not really a part of ISBoxer. If you want to use the executable, you have to do some sort of import process. If we just forget about all the technical specs on how ISBoxer does its magic, do you think CCP is just looking at the videos, seeing 12 cutouts of firing buttons on the screen and segments of 12 overviews, and saying, "That's bad, that changes our game, we don't like" ? dxNothing is little more than an exe blank window using Direct X. You have to add it to a character set (football team, essentially) for it to do anything. Even if that *was* all that CCP was doing, people can do similar setups with a stack of monitors if they so desire. As I mentioned, Windows can be configured to cycle through current windows with alt-tab and you can spam Alt-Tab + F1 fast enough to land in the same server cycle time.
I'm trying to figure out the logic behind CCP's rulings. I'll leave it to others to pick apart the logic.
The second part of Section 6A2 basically states that if you change the way our game plays, then we'll ban you. The thing about setting up the windows carefully and Alt-Tabbing, even setting up that trick your talking about, is that there is no outside software involved (the OS does not count), and a player has to interact with 13 distinct Windows (not 12, I failed at maths ). In the video I watched, I saw 13 ships being controlled by interacting with only 2 windows. So is the rule that each ship requires its own window or you get banned?
I can even see how CCP detects for that. The ISBoxer process (ISBoxer.dll is how it shows up, I think) operates in the EVE client's memory space. If they can also detect dxNothing.exe running, then they would know someone is running multiple ships from one dxNothing window.
If what I just typed is how CCP is thinking, are there any holes? Like dxNothing.exe can be running even when there is no dxNothing window being used?
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Alternate Allegiance
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 00:05:01 -
[4035] - Quote
No nothing about ISBoxer phyically runs through Eve launcher. It will effect Windows that you tell it to effect. Which is what your profle set up in ISboxer pretty much does. You basically tell it what windows its going to use and work in. The only thing that ISBoxer will do to the eve launcher is run it when you start up your profile.
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
719
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 01:58:11 -
[4036] - Quote
dxNothing doesn't touch any other file other than Windows Aero and innerspace.
dxNothing can be running even if no VideoFX is being used, correct.
The problem with the "each ship has it's own window" argument is that people have no obligation to purchase multiple monitors. One of the boxers used to 10-box PVP by simple alt-tab, and Super and Titan pilots sure aren't going to be happy if CCP tells them they can't use multiple toons without multiple monitors. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11961
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 01:59:56 -
[4037] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:and Super and Titan pilots sure aren't going to be happy if CCP tells them they can't use multiple toons without multiple monitors.
Where is anyone saying that you can't alt+tab?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Alternate Allegiance
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 02:18:38 -
[4038] - Quote
..some reason it posted this twice.
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Alternate Allegiance
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 02:19:32 -
[4039] - Quote
JGar Rooflestein wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:[quote=Nolak Ataru]and Super and Titan pilots sure aren't going to be happy if CCP tells them they can't use multiple toons without multiple monitors. Where is anyone saying that you can't alt+tab?
Some where about 15 or more post ago someone claims to have or heard someone getting banned for Alt Tabbing to fast. This i believe is false. Them banning people because they did a command or typed something to fast is unheard of. Like if i said something in chat could i be banned for typing that sentence too fast? Or when i go use the hot key to target something.. I spam my mouse clicks could i be banned for that? Doubtful.
CCP will never stop the usage of multiple accounts. No game will. Its impossible unless they limit the amount of connections from a certain IP which is just wrong. Maybe you have 20 people living under 1 roof who all play eve.
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
719
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 02:20:29 -
[4040] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:and Super and Titan pilots sure aren't going to be happy if CCP tells them they can't use multiple toons without multiple monitors. Where is anyone saying that you can't alt+tab?
I was inferring that from Rosewater mentioning something about "one client per monitor" titan and super pilots with a single monitor would be upset that they wouldn't be allowed to alt-tab. |
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11961
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 02:31:32 -
[4041] - Quote
JGar Rooflestein wrote:
Some where about 15 or more post ago someone claims to have or heard someone getting banned for Alt Tabbing to fast.
Okay, and that's an obvious lie.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Rosewalker
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
162
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 02:45:47 -
[4042] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:and Super and Titan pilots sure aren't going to be happy if CCP tells them they can't use multiple toons without multiple monitors. Where is anyone saying that you can't alt+tab? I was inferring that from Rosewater mentioning something about "one client per monitor" titan and super pilots with a single monitor would be upset that they wouldn't be allowed to alt-tab.
Sorry, not one client per monitor. One ship per window. One client per monitor would be silly.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
352
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 03:02:19 -
[4043] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:JGar Rooflestein wrote:
Some where about 15 or more post ago someone claims to have or heard someone getting banned for Alt Tabbing to fast.
Okay, and that's an obvious lie.
how? there's an person who claimed to speak to ex-ccp employee that CCP is having a very hard time detecting ISBoxer users to begin with
http://i.imgur.com/ICHDvKa.png
if i alt tab "too fast" or use rollovers / vfx / round-robin (all of which are not named to be against the EULA) how could CCP ever tell what method I am using? Especially with smaller amount of clients (probably in the < 5 range).
Really to be 100% honest, people are reporting other people for "breaking the EULA" and GM's are just making snapshot decisions that someone MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be breaking the Input Duplication ban and have zero ability to know if they are using another solution that might look similar but is in fact NOT sending "one command to more then one client at the same time".
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11961
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 03:16:24 -
[4044] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:
how?
You're actually asking me how it's a lie that anyone, ever, got banned for alt tabbing?
And you're doing this on the basis of an unconfirmed statement by someone on a third party forum, saying "friend of a friend".
Are you nuts?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
719
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 03:18:52 -
[4045] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:and Super and Titan pilots sure aren't going to be happy if CCP tells them they can't use multiple toons without multiple monitors. Where is anyone saying that you can't alt+tab? I was inferring that from Rosewater mentioning something about "one client per monitor" titan and super pilots with a single monitor would be upset that they wouldn't be allowed to alt-tab. Sorry, not one client per monitor. One ship per window. One client per monitor would be silly.
Wait, what's your definition of "Window"? Because using dxNothing or similar programs to arrange multiple clients in a single window is nothing new and is the same as having one full screen window and one re-adjusted window, and telling Windows to force the re-adjusted window to stay on top. Additionally, from what I am told, super and titan pilots use VideoFX to jump their ships across the universe. [REDACTED] , for example, uses VideoFX to keep tabs on his archon pilot while he uses his supercap to remove other supers / titans. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
719
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 03:21:28 -
[4046] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:how? You're actually asking me how it's a lie that anyone, ever, got banned for alt tabbing? And you're doing this on the basis of an unconfirmed statement by someone on a third party forum, saying "friend of a friend". Are you nuts?
Irony: You're going so far out of your way to defend CCP that you passed Bugs Bunny on his way to Albuquerque, and to give them the benefit of the doubt, while at the same time attacking anyone who is part of a close-knit community that you aren't part of who regularly share information about setups and news..... |
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Alternate Allegiance
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 03:30:19 -
[4047] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:
how?
You're actually asking me how it's a lie that anyone, ever, got banned for alt tabbing? And you're doing this on the basis of an unconfirmed statement by someone on a third party forum, saying "friend of a friend". Are you nuts?
Ya highly doubt anyone has honestly been banned for doing commands to fast. Now I can see if someone is watching you and your alts target and shoot almost milliseconds apart then maybe just maybe ccp will say something. But that's only if they are physically watching you.
Can say you will never be banned for alt tabbing to fast. That's just unheard.
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Alternate Allegiance
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 03:35:57 -
[4048] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:JGar Rooflestein wrote:
Some where about 15 or more post ago someone claims to have or heard someone getting banned for Alt Tabbing to fast.
Okay, and that's an obvious lie. how? there's an person who claimed to speak to ex-ccp employee that CCP is having a very hard time detecting ISBoxer users to begin with http://i.imgur.com/ICHDvKa.png
if i alt tab "too fast" or use rollovers / vfx / round-robin (all of which are not named to be against the EULA) how could CCP ever tell what method I am using? Especially with smaller amount of clients (probably in the < 5 range). Really to be 100% honest, people are reporting other people for "breaking the EULA" and GM's are just making snapshot decisions that someone MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be breaking the Input Duplication ban and have zero ability to know if they are using another solution that might look similar but is in fact NOT sending "one command to more then one client at the same time".
That SS yes there is a way to bypass it. Now ISBoxer comes default with Input broadcasting disabled but you can go in and enabled it again. Simple as that. But CCP has stated that they will allow it for window arrangement and login. SO with this I have assumed its a thirdparty software they will look past as long as you are not using Input broadcasting out side what they said. SO with that I may use my VideoFx again.
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11961
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 03:39:17 -
[4049] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:how? You're actually asking me how it's a lie that anyone, ever, got banned for alt tabbing? And you're doing this on the basis of an unconfirmed statement by someone on a third party forum, saying "friend of a friend". Are you nuts? Irony: You're going so far out of your way to defend CCP that you passed Bugs Bunny on his way to Albuquerque, and to give them the benefit of the doubt, while at the same time attacking anyone who is part of a close-knit community that you aren't part of who regularly share information about setups and news.....
Yeah, gotta say, I give CCP the benefit of the doubt before anyone posting on that botting apologist website.
I don't think that's unreasonable.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
719
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 04:05:36 -
[4050] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:how? You're actually asking me how it's a lie that anyone, ever, got banned for alt tabbing? And you're doing this on the basis of an unconfirmed statement by someone on a third party forum, saying "friend of a friend". Are you nuts? Irony: You're going so far out of your way to defend CCP that you passed Bugs Bunny on his way to Albuquerque, and to give them the benefit of the doubt, while at the same time attacking anyone who is part of a close-knit community that you aren't part of who regularly share information about setups and news..... Yeah, gotta say, I give CCP the benefit of the doubt before anyone posting on that botting apologist website. I don't think that's unreasonable.
Since you're so set in your ways to see ISBoxer as nothing but a bot, and your complete refusal to even consider that it isn't, coupled with your fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject, leads me to believe you are nothing more than a troll, and as such I will attempt to ignore you until you bring something tangible to the table. Have a good day, and I wish you the best of luck with EVE. |
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11961
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 04:10:05 -
[4051] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Since you're so set in your ways to see ISBoxer as nothing but a bot, and your complete refusal to even consider that it isn't, coupled with your fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject, leads me to believe you are nothing more than a troll, and as such I will attempt to ignore you until you bring something tangible to the table. Have a good day, and I wish you the best of luck with EVE.
Notice how none of that is actually proof of his less-than-anecdote, folks.
Care to actually try and back up the claim that people are, or ever were banned for alt tabbing? If not, at least have the dignity to admit that you're just blowing smoke.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
719
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 04:24:03 -
[4052] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Since you're so set in your ways to see ISBoxer as nothing but a bot, and your complete refusal to even consider that it isn't, coupled with your fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject, leads me to believe you are nothing more than a troll, and as such I will attempt to ignore you until you bring something tangible to the table. Have a good day, and I wish you the best of luck with EVE.
Notice how none of that is actually proof of his less-than-anecdote, folks. Care to actually try and back up the claim that people are, or ever were banned for alt tabbing? If not, at least have the dignity to admit that you're just blowing smoke.
The irony of you asking me to provide proof of something I never claimed, while at the same time not providing proof to back up your own claims, is extremely amusing. I never made the claim that alt-tab got someone banned, however, I do have this guy http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/51980-The-Banned-thread?p=396907&viewfull=1#post396907 who got banned for running this setup without broadcasting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFdYO9h0H3Y&feature=youtu.be
Your turn. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11961
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 04:30:43 -
[4053] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
The irony of you asking me to provide proof of something I never claimed, while at the same time not providing proof to back up your own claims
What claim? All I'm doing is asking for any proof besides the obviously biased website you keep linking.
"dualboxing.com" is not a source that anyone here should believe. Their agenda is clear, to keep right on cheating their way through this game.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
719
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 05:53:44 -
[4054] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
The irony of you asking me to provide proof of something I never claimed, while at the same time not providing proof to back up your own claims
What claim? All I'm doing is asking for any proof besides the obviously biased website you keep linking. "dualboxing.com" is not a source that anyone here should believe. Their agenda is clear, to keep right on cheating their way through this game.
Lax tries his best to make sure that ISBoxer follows each game's specific EULA, but I didn't expect you to know that given your prejudices and inherent biases. I love the fact that you outright ignored my proof that so thoroughly demolished your argument, and that you snipped it out.
As for your "source that anyone here should believe", I must wonder whether or not you understand what happens when you take a group of human beings, give them a means to communicate amongst themselves, and add time. People form friendships, grow to know each other, and tend to not be tinfoil-hat suspicious of each other when something happens (especially when it's something as serious as being banned).
And finally, as much as I hate to attack a player, I really must ask: Do you believe that Fox News and ABC are unbiased? Of course there's going to be bias on any forum, including EVE's, especially with CCP's draconian policy on stiffling the spread of information obtained in petitions and conversations, in-game and out. Additionally, since we're on the subject, what is your definition of "bias"? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11961
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 09:40:35 -
[4055] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
As for your "source that anyone here should believe", I must wonder whether or not you understand what happens when you take a group of human beings, give them a means to communicate amongst themselves, and add time. People form friendships, grow to know each other, and tend to not be tinfoil-hat suspicious of each other when something happens (especially when it's something as serious as being banned).
Yeah, I guess that totally does mean that the claim of "I got banned for alt tabbing too fast" isn't, in fact, totally bogus.
Oh, wait, nope. That's still an obvious lie from someone trying to cover his ass for botting.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
725
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 13:44:39 -
[4056] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
As for your "source that anyone here should believe", I must wonder whether or not you understand what happens when you take a group of human beings, give them a means to communicate amongst themselves, and add time. People form friendships, grow to know each other, and tend to not be tinfoil-hat suspicious of each other when something happens (especially when it's something as serious as being banned).
Yeah, I guess that totally does mean that the claim of "I got banned for alt tabbing too fast" isn't, in fact, totally bogus. Oh, wait, nope. That's still an obvious lie from someone trying to cover his ass for botting.
Your astounding lack of knowledge on the subject of ISBoxer and bots aside (which I and others find quite funny given rumors of CODE's origins as an anti-bot effort, not to mention the fact that there are (or were) a lot of ISBoxers who multiboxed Catalysts in CODE), I will admit that no, it does not mean that any such thread is to be taken with faith. However, if we apply Occam's Razor to some of these threads and bans, we quickly find that some of the claims that they were "botting" fall apart under scrutiny. Especially when you consider that at least one of the people who received a ban was instrumental in devising the means to continue to multibox a fleet without using ISBoxer's broadcast feature, round robin or otherwise, at all. Now, I ask you, if we developed a way to continue to multibox within the new confines of the rules, do you honestly think that someone would "revert" to broadcasting if he knew it was a surefire way to get banned? I realize this may be too much to swallow, but let me draw a parallel to Hyperdunking. Players figured out a way to shorten the time period between suicide ganking and re-shipping, and people (freighter pilots and highsec players alike) complained about it. Before this, you had one ship that you'd go out and suicide, then you'd hope you brought enough players to take out a freighter, and sit in station for your criminal period (or head to null, either way).
Now, going by a strict interpretation of the EULA, Hyperdunking is illegal, but no doubt you'll bend over backwards to defend it, being in CODE and all.
That was called a generalization, my dear friend. Just as you generalized all ISBoxers to be botters constantly breaking the EULA and no doubt "selling their ISK for RMT" without so much as a puff of proof, so too did I generalize every CODE member to being a F1 monkey who wants to defend whatever new exploit he may have found for ganking. For the future, I'd advise against making sweeping generalizations and stick to using facts and data..... if you had any, that is. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 13:58:51 -
[4057] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFdYO9h0H3Y&feature=youtu.be
In this video at .29s it looks like he's using a macro on his mousewheel to both cycle through windows as well as activate a mouseclick at the same time...unless he's able to do 20 presses of each in 2 seconds without breaking the alternation. So yeah imho it's a valid ban from watching the video without even seeing the server logs.
Also I love his commentary:
"The changes are frustrating but not really effective"
"it ends up taking me about 2 minutes [to setup at the start of each site]"
"This site ended up taking me 19 or 20 minutes, the next site took me...like 18 minutes"
"I could probably have these sites down to 10-12 minutes apiece"
- So somewhere between a 10-20% efficiency nerf just from the setup times
"rattlesnakes using geckos"
- Another nerf to running time? Drone travel times + lower overall DPS and application including just targetting random NPCs with the fire and forget cruise missiles versus an NM fleet focus firing each target with almost perfect synchronisation.
"it's inconvenient because you end up having to manually control all your logistics"
"the most difficult part of it is when travelling"
- Made it less easy to use (= a plus for the multiboxers wanting a challenge, surely?) - but yes a further nerf to their overall efficiency and ease of use.
"What are you gonna do with all that isk, it's so hard to find pvp when you're multiboxing"
- Well, plex all your accounts, then just pvp one or two at a time with massive income buffs behind them...seems kinda obvious doesn't it?
Basically I don't think CCP did want to completely eliminate multiboxing, just nerf the efficiency of multiplexed setups which as shown above, is working completely as intended as far as I can see (even for people that look like they're using a macro setup) |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11961
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 14:14:18 -
[4058] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Especially when you consider that at least one of the people who received a ban was instrumental in devising the means to continue to multibox a fleet without using ISBoxer's broadcast feature, round robin or otherwise, at all.
With an illegal mouse macro, as the Eli Apol demonstrates above. That APM is not humanly possible without machine assistance.
You people are just bound and determined on this foolishness, aren't you?
Quote: I realize this may be too much to swallow, but let me draw a parallel to Hyperdunking.
Lord, here it comes. Even if I entertain your comparison of apples and oranges, it's still invalid.
Quote:
Now, going by a strict interpretation of the EULA, Hyperdunking is illegal, but no doubt you'll bend over backwards to defend it, being in CODE and all.
Please point out to me precisely where the EULA does not permit Hyperdunking.
Because CCP sure can't find it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
725
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 15:34:04 -
[4059] - Quote
From what I gathered with talking to the person (something CCP desperately needs to do), he is using a Logitech G600-type mouse to cycle his windows, which can be set up outside of the exefile.exe, which allows him to switch windows with one keypress, click on the "orbit" button with one mouseclick, and then switch again with another keypress. Alternatively, you can bind a key to cycle through videoFX windows in a given area, so that would work too. Of course, the "stored rapid keystrokes" clause is a strange addition because some players may interact with their client faster than others, and with a faulty-enough connection you can appear to have pressed F1-F8, for example, in a single second or less, so I do wonder how much stock CCP places in that clause. Additionally, he has since been informed of the "regroup" fleet function and he mentioned in a conversation that his fingers were feeling better now that he can just use "regroup" instead of cycling each window / videoFX.
He claimed Geckos give him better times than Sentries, something which I believe given the Gecko's very high stats and the Snake's drone bonus.
Something any veteran ISBoxer will tell you is that every time a player creates a new VideoFX setup, changes fleet composition, or changes fits, he suffers a penalty to his site times. As a player gets more comfortable with his composition/fleet/VideoFX, his site times improve, much the same way (for example) a new mission runner speeds up his times with repetition and familiarity with his setup.
The fastest VG boxer used HG Ascendancies and Warp Speed rigs. Versi is currently using tank rigs (I believe) and doesn't have Ascendancies currently, so he'll be slower. As he improves, he can drop the tank rigs and slap on T2 Hyper-rigs, and splurge for some HG implants, and he can get his site times down.
If CCP wanted to nerf the effectiveness of ISBoxers, we have handed them at least a dozen alternatives to the broadcast ban that would have a greater effect.
"That APM is not possible..."
Let me just stop you right here and direct your attention to the Grand Masters-league of Starcraft 2 players with APMs in the 600s and up. Ten or twelve years ago, you would have been laughed at had you claimed to have a 600 APM. New players don't have anywhere near the kind of APM that veteran players do, especially in solo frigate PVP for example. Constantly adjusting orbits and juggling overheating modules leads to some fancy finger-play.
As I said, a strict interpretation of the clause on CONCORD's retribution and the avoidance might ensnare Hyperdunking. I'm sure you're unaware, but a while back, you used to be able to avoid CONCORD's guns if you were quick and clever enough. I'm not 100% sure on the history of the clause, but I'm under the impression that it was added to stop those users from avoiding CONCORD. I'm not advocating banning Hyperdunking, as I agree with CCP's decision that you still lose a ship for your actions, and I'm saying that both as a ganker and as a freighter pilot who would be targeted by Hyperdunking. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 16:26:43 -
[4060] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:From what I gathered with talking to the person (something CCP desperately needs to do), he is using a Logitech G600-type mouse to cycle his windows, which can be set up outside of the exefile.exe, which allows him to switch windows with one keypress, click on the "orbit" button with one mouseclick, and then switch again with another keypress. Alternatively, you can bind a key to cycle through videoFX windows in a given area, so that would work too. Of course, the "stored rapid keystrokes" clause is a strange addition because some players may interact with their client faster than others, and with a faulty-enough connection you can appear to have pressed F1-F8, for example, in a single second or less, so I do wonder how much stock CCP places in that clause. Additionally, he has since been informed of the "regroup" fleet function and he mentioned in a conversation that his fingers were feeling better now that he can just use "regroup" instead of cycling each window / videoFX.
He claimed Geckos give him better times than Sentries, something which I believe given the Gecko's very high stats and the Snake's drone bonus.
Something any veteran ISBoxer will tell you is that every time a player creates a new VideoFX setup, changes fleet composition, or changes fits, he suffers a penalty to his site times. As a player gets more comfortable with his composition/fleet/VideoFX, his site times improve, much the same way (for example) a new mission runner speeds up his times with repetition and familiarity with his setup.
The fastest VG boxer used HG Ascendancies and Warp Speed rigs. Versi is currently using tank rigs (I believe) and doesn't have Ascendancies currently, so he'll be slower. As he improves, he can drop the tank rigs and slap on T2 Hyper-rigs, and splurge for some HG implants, and he can get his site times down.
If CCP wanted to nerf the effectiveness of ISBoxers, we have handed them at least a dozen alternatives to the broadcast ban that would have a greater effect.
"That APM is not possible..."
Let me just stop you right here and direct your attention to the Grand Masters-league of Starcraft 2 players with APMs in the 600s and up. Ten or twelve years ago, you would have been laughed at had you claimed to have a 600 APM. New players don't have anywhere near the kind of APM that veteran players do, especially in solo frigate PVP for example. Constantly adjusting orbits and juggling overheating modules leads to some fancy finger-play.
As I said, a strict interpretation of the clause on CONCORD's retribution and the avoidance might ensnare Hyperdunking. I'm sure you're unaware, but a while back, you used to be able to avoid CONCORD's guns if you were quick and clever enough. I'm not 100% sure on the history of the clause, but I'm under the impression that it was added to stop those users from avoiding CONCORD. I'm not advocating banning Hyperdunking, as I agree with CCP's decision that you still lose a ship for your actions, and I'm saying that both as a ganker and as a freighter pilot who would be targeted by Hyperdunking.
Right, so his keypresses:
a) Sends command 'a' to the client AND redefines the bind to command 'b'
b) Sends command 'b' to the client AND redefines the bind to command 'c'
c) Sends command 'c' to the client AND redefines the bind to command 'a'
That is a macro. That is why he was banned - having read dual-boxing's forums he probably also had a counter in there as a third function which meant it didn't loop around beyond n=20, which again is even more of a macro. The only way I can think of that round-robin *could* be used legitimately would be to use two completely separate keys and press them alternately the required number of times, no rebinding, no simultaneous commands (inside or outside of the client) and no counter. Which probably would have added just a handful of seconds onto the process but which he tried to shortcut and screwed up on.
APM of 600 versus 2x20 clicks in 2 seconds = APM of 1200. So he's twice as efficient as a professional Starcraft player? Wow.
His fleet setup and efficiency doesn't matter unless he can return to the same efficiency he had before the rule change. Therefore the rule change had one of it's desired effects in curbing the efficiency without eliminating multiboxing entirely. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
725
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 16:42:03 -
[4061] - Quote
Except no, that's not what I said.
Keypress 1 > Orbit
Keypress 2 > Switch clients, or switch VideoFX window / layout.
Keypress 3 > Orbit.
Counters are not macros. I fail to see how telling a program to stop doing a certain commands after X presses can be considered a macro. And a macro that doesn't interact with the client at that!
He was able to (for lack of a better term) burst-fire his APM up to 800 (40/3*60 according to my math and timing) because he was doing a very repetitive action in a very confined section of his window. Starcraft 2 players have to cover the entire width and breadth of their screen for that 600 APM (or higher. I'm not a professional SC2 player, i just obtained 600 from a quick google search, and I'll readily admit I'm **** at SC2 and my APM is probably near 100, 200 on a good day).
This player was just one example, however, one fo the WH players told me he has obtained the same efficiency (or as close as you can get in WH space with the randomness of blue loot and nanoribbons) as before.
Now your turn: Show me proof that ISBoxer is a "I win" button. Show me how it violates 6A3 as it has been interpreted as a per-person basis forever, or show me how ISBoxer violates 6A3 but regular multiboxing (not using ISBoxer) doesn't. And finally, show me how ISBoxer violates 6A3 while programs like EVEMon, Pyfa, EFT, Fuzzworks, and whatever that new market program/website don't violate 6A3. I await your response, and wish you the best in EVE. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 16:44:41 -
[4062] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Except no, that's not what I said.
Keypress 1 > Orbit
Keypress 2 > Switch clients, or switch VideoFX window / layout.
Keypress 3 > Orbit.
Keypress 1 > Orbit AND REDEFINE THE KEY TO FUNCTION B
Keypress 2 > Switch clients, or switch VideoFX window / layout. AND REDEFINE THE KEY TO FUNCTION A
FTFY.
Still a macro. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
725
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 16:50:15 -
[4063] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Except no, that's not what I said.
Keypress 1 > Orbit
Keypress 2 > Switch clients, or switch VideoFX window / layout.
Keypress 3 > Orbit. Keypress 1 > Orbit AND REDEFINE THE KEY TO FUNCTION BKeypress 2 > Switch clients, or switch VideoFX window / layout. AND REDEFINE THE KEY TO FUNCTION AFTFY. Still a macro.
Perhaps i should have been more clear:
Mouse button "1" - click orbit button
Keyboard button "x" - switch videofx layout, or cycle client (again, can be done without storing keystrokes)
Mouse button "1" - click orbit button
Please don't attempt to argue over something which you have no knowledge of. It's grasping at straws at this point, which only serves to underline your lack of substantial argument and knowledge on the matter.
e: Additionally, the OS function "focus window" is not a macro. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:02:25 -
[4064] - Quote
Right so he did that and managed to hammer each one 20x within 2 seconds with perfect alternation...remembering that this is double the APM of a professional starcraft player (since you decided to raise that as a point of expertise in these matters).
I call complete and utter BS on that and I'd say that even if CCP are just using APM as a way of measuring multiplexing that taking an upper boundary at double that capable of an esports professional seems pretty fair to me.
Oh and I just noticed another use of multiplexing - when he selects the beacon as the selected item, he only does it once at 27s. So how did the other 19 ships have that preselected as their object to orbit before he does this 1200APM?
The more I look at this video the more I see this supposedly smart multiboxer illustrating his EULA cockups in a publicly available video.
inb4 removed from Youtube ^^ |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
726
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:18:50 -
[4065] - Quote
2 things.
1) When I timed it it was closer to 3 seconds. Admittedly I was using an external timer, not youtube's timestamp, so his APM would be closer to 800, not 1200. Again, comparing burst APM to over-time APM is about as bad a comparison as comparing a marathon runner to a 100-yard-dash contestant. There's a very interesting video on the differences between the two. I recommend it as a quick bio break video.
2) I specifically said that the APM of a player may be higher, as that number was obtained from a cursory Google search because I don't know what keywords to look for. Additionally, playing a RTS where you are spread out over a map and taking someone spamming a mouse key and a keyboard key as fast as he can without worrying about moving them around a screen does not a good comparison make. I brought up SC2 players' APM as a way to say "Look, these people have a higher APM than noobs in the Copper League (or whatever it's called), but that doesn't mean they're cheating or have an unfair advantage. To paraphrase Day9: "High APM doesn't make anyone a better player, but better players have higher APM because they have much better game sense and awareness. Newer players get sucked into the "APM = skill" fallacy, and think that being good in StarCraft comes down to interaction speed. Then, if they are unable to achieve a high enough mouse speed they are turned off and stop playing, or complain."
3) He had pre-selected one ship with the other accounts beforehand. The selection you saw in the video was a single ship, most likely the ship that was pre-selected, and he started orbiting the beacon on the selected ship, and when he spammed the orbit button, the other ships were being told to orbit the pre-selected ships.
4) Your constant use of ad hominems again only serves to underline your lack of a substantial argument. And no, "he earns 1.2b isk / hour, nobody can make that" is not a substantial argument as you can earn 25b or so in an hours work of super scamming, northwards of 8b / hour if you find a lucky officer spawn in nullsec (or an ALOD gank in highsec), and that 6A3 was never interpreted to be on a per character basis, only on a per-human being basis. Even if it *was* on a per-toon basis, the previous examples would only further reinforce the very bad Risk vs Isk balance of ISBoxing. CCP didn't come out in support of raw ganking for nothing. They gave players the tools, and players are refusing to use said tools. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:40:51 -
[4066] - Quote
On the one hand "This is frustrating but not really effective"
On the other: Reduced efficiency from less efficient fleet comp, damage application and setup times versus multiplayer fleets or multiboxed fleets before the nerf.
Were CCP trying to ban multiboxing? Definitely not, multiple accounts is part of the game. Were they trying to constrain the scalability of it? Yes. Was this succesful at both intentions? Yes, at least in terms of incursion PvE which were illustrated in the video.
As for communication as per the exact line in the sand, it's absolutely no different from many other facets of eve where a certain grey area is left for a human element (the GMs) to decide on a case per case basis.
In this exact situation I'm sure there'd be differing decisions based upon whether a player suffers from disabilities and requires macros/external functions to play the game on an even playingfield with others - versus someone absolutely pushing the limits as far as possible to have an in-game advantage. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
726
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:57:43 -
[4067] - Quote
Again, the reduced income can be attributed to, as I mentioned, the new setup, the unfamiliarity with the fleet comp / new methods, and the non-optimized fits and implants. I never really broke 600m isk / hour in my fleets when I ran VGs, but that was because I had tank rigs, mediocre SP, an extra 1600 and EANM in my lowslots, a lack of Ascendancy implants, and an unfamiliarity with my setup. Did I complain and attempt to dictate to the others how they should play? No. I asked questions, looked at fits, optimized my layouts, tweaked my fits and EWAR, and practiced. I would have waited a few months before making a final say about the ISK optimization myself.
There has never been an instance, recorded or otherwise, where an ISBoxer incursion fleet out-earned a non-boxed incursion fleet of identical composition, fits, implants SP, and raw player experience. The people who complain about ISBoxed fleets compare a fleet with razor thin tanks, no margin of error, and a head full of 6-7%s and HG ascendancies to a less organized, less optimized fleet with LSEs and 1600s.
I would like to pause and thank you for not calling it "ISBotter" or "that botting program".
As for the "line in the sand" argument, I recommend reading James 315's essay on the subject of the bonus room bans and FighterJets. He covered the topic very well in my opinion as to why there needs to be clear lines.
Additionally, nobody here has yet brought an argument that ISBoxer provides an advantage over an identical fleet of expert players that has not been shot down or been riddled with more holes than a supercarrier being shot by an AutoMach fleet. I've brought up multiple programs and how they can give a player an in-game advantage, and nobody has attempted to argue against it. Everyone's too busy running around screaming "muh asteroids" or "muh effort". |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
913
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 18:15:02 -
[4068] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Right so he did that and managed to hammer each one 20x within 2 seconds with perfect alternation...remembering that this is double the APM of a professional starcraft player (since you decided to raise that as a point of expertise in these matters).
I call complete and utter BS on that and I'd say that even if CCP are just using APM as a way of measuring multiplexing that taking an upper boundary at double that capable of an esports professional seems pretty fair to me.
Oh and I just noticed another use of multiplexing - when he selects the beacon as the selected item, he only does it once at 27s. So how did the other 19 ships have that preselected as their object to orbit before he does this 1200APM?
The more I look at this video the more I see this supposedly smart multiboxer illustrating his EULA cockups in a publicly available video.
inb4 removed from Youtube ^^
The way you look at APM in SC and in Eve differs wildly, we're not able to do more than 60 APM by design due to how the server ticks work; you cannot activate and deactivate a gun at the same time. Now, you can send the same command (in this case, orbit) 10 times to the client within that 1 second server tick and it will only be applied once. You can spam the orbit button as fast as you can and then at a lower pace just swap between the windows, giving the illusion of being accurate when you in fact are just spamming one button and being more precise on the other. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 18:56:01 -
[4069] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:I would like to pause and thank you for not calling it "ISBotter" or "that botting program". I'm not anti-boxing but I do believe it was out of hand in terms of scalability and ease of use before. I do bare-bones boxing myself with two screens, no third party software and I actually appreciate watching the dedication of seeing someone's mouse dart all over the screen and managing a large fleet like in the video - that IS skillful although as I already pointed out, it probably does breach the EULA in certain methods he uses.
With regards to altering the UI as ISboxer allows, I'm really kind of torn; it's absolutely bastardising the game and making it pretty much unrecognisable and facilitates players by allowing setups with everything nicely grouped and positioned. In this respect it leaves a 'pure' multimonitor setup in the dust in terms of ease of use BUT it enables people to do this without having an expensive multimonitor setup or suffer the disadvantage of having to alt-tab manually and so in that respect it's for the good of the game.
In terms of the change CCP made, I absolutely back it one hundred percent.
If you multibox just for the enjoyment of managing multiple accounts then this pushes you away from the easy one-click-alpha-everything, broadcast-reps-and-rep-with-all-your-logi-with-just-2-clicks gameplay that preceeded it and into actually managing the multiple accounts individually. It's increased the challenge of actually running a fleet hasn't it? It's increased it so much that people now can't manage their guns AND logistics at the same time and so have to resort to drone assist for their DPS. It's increased the challenge so that it's no longer possible for one person to fly 50 NM's into HQ sites. Why are multiboxers crying about increased challenge again? I thought you enjoyed this for the challenge?
OK some people lost out in terms of invested isk and RL money - but that's really nothing new from Eve there - there's a bunch of threads of people demanding sub time/cash back from CCP because their carrier now gives them fatigue or they don't need XYZ SP anymore because their FOTM isktar was nerfed into oblivion - at the end of the day anything in-game can be traded, including the N number of characters you trained upto perfection for their specific role in your fleet AND you already made a killing in terms of income from them before the change. I've just finished training all my Caldari subs, and medium rails upto V on my two mains, "Oh well, time to finally train that Loki I've had my eye on" is my response to the upcoming Tengu nerf. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 19:06:24 -
[4070] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:The way you look at APM in SC and in Eve differs wildly, we're not able to do more than 60 APM by design due to how the server ticks work; you cannot activate and deactivate a gun at the same time. Now, you can send the same command (in this case, orbit) 10 times to the client within that 1 second server tick and it will only be applied once. You can spam the orbit button as fast as you can and then at a lower pace just swap between the windows, giving the illusion of being accurate when you in fact are just spamming one button and being more precise on the other.
SC2 still has game ticks, the length of them is determined by the player with the highest lag due to it's P2P nature - the player is still able to input the same APM in real time no matter which game engine we're looking at, it's the player inputs per real time second that are being measured, not the actual activations in-game per game tick. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
726
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 20:28:51 -
[4071] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:I'm not anti-boxing but I do believe it was out of hand in terms of scalability and ease of use before. I do bare-bones boxing myself with two screens, no third party software and I actually appreciate watching the dedication of seeing someone's mouse dart all over the screen and managing a large fleet like in the video - that IS skillful although as I already pointed out, it probably does breach the EULA in certain methods he uses.
With regards to altering the UI as ISboxer allows, I'm really kind of torn; it's absolutely bastardising the game and making it pretty much unrecognisable and facilitates players by allowing setups with everything nicely grouped and positioned. In this respect it leaves a 'pure' multimonitor setup in the dust in terms of ease of use BUT it enables people to do this without having an expensive multimonitor setup or suffer the disadvantage of having to alt-tab manually and so in that respect it's for the good of the game.
In terms of the change CCP made, I absolutely back it one hundred percent. If you multibox just for the enjoyment of managing multiple accounts then this pushes you away from the easy one-click-alpha-everything, broadcast-reps-and-rep-with-all-your-logi-with-just-2-clicks gameplay that preceeded it and into actually managing the multiple accounts individually. It's increased the challenge of actually running a fleet hasn't it? It's increased it so much that people now can't manage their guns AND logistics at the same time and so have to resort to drone assist for their DPS. It's increased the challenge so that it's no longer possible for one person to fly 50 NM's into HQ sites. Why are multiboxers crying about increased challenge again? I thought you enjoyed this for the challenge?
OK some people lost out in terms of invested isk and RL money - but that's really nothing new from Eve there - there's a bunch of threads of people demanding sub time/cash back from CCP because their carrier now gives them fatigue or they don't need XYZ SP anymore because their FOTM isktar was nerfed into oblivion - at the end of the day anything in-game can be traded, including the N number of characters you trained upto perfection for their specific role in your fleet AND you already made a killing in terms of income from them before the change. I've just finished training all my Caldari subs, and medium rails upto V on my two mains, "Oh well, time to finally train that Loki I've had my eye on" is my response to the upcoming Tengu nerf.
What do you mean by scalability and ease of use? ISBoxer is not "plug and play" software, as any one of us can tell you. It takes time and effort to make it work smoothly like you saw in the video. ISBoxer is no paradigm of ease-of-use. There's a lot of boolean-type logic behind the GUI, and the GIGO Theory is hard at work there.
Unfortunately, you demonstrate a lack of understanding when you start to talk about running fleets and alpha ships. First, I've only met one person who uses alpha ships in PVP (1400 Nados, rail nagas, stuff like that, not overwhelming DPS). Everyone else has to brick-tank their ships for PVP as they cannot respond to reps as fast as human logi can adapt to an FC switching primaries. This sluggish response becomes a massive ***** in the "armor" as soon as you add EWAR into the pot. That's a fairly exploitable weakness, and would, to a reasonable person, be a sufficient penalty to counteract a perceived advantage, real or otherwise. Alpha-doctrines are used in normal PVP because of the reactiveness of real logi. The ability to take a ship off the field before it can catch reps is powerful, but not used in ISBoxer PVP fleets.
We are "crying", as you say, because there is no logic behind this ban, no evidence, no facts, no reasoning, nothing at all to explain this change other than the self-admitted whining and ranting of a CSM member.
We are getting banned for following the new interpretation of the EULA. One of the people who was instrumental in creating the new setups was banned for his use of the new setup, and he had all his ISK drained out of his account by CCP even though there is no such clause or mention of removal of ISK in the new EULA language / interpretation.
We were promised that CCP would be able to detect the difference between someone using Round Robin (which is, by CCP's own definition, allowed, but is currently being persecuted) and straight broadcasting.
We were promised BY FALCON that we would get a chance to sit down with CCP and discuss the issues at hand.
We attempted to make contact with CCP to find a reasonable compromise or solution to this change, but were ignored.
We were told that this program breaks 6A3 in a non-specific, non-measurable, and vague way, which has always been interpreted to us by GMs and DEVs alike to be on a per-toon basis, not a per-human-being basis, while at the same time we see programs such as EVEMon, EFT, PYFA, Fuzzworks, and now this new market tool, give solid, measurable advantages that can be quantified, tallied, and tossed in a graph, and we're told these are alright.
We were being banned for rapid use of VideoFX, while at the same time a CCP Dev is working on a program that duplicates the functionality of VideoFX and ISBoxer's window arrangement feature.
We were told CCP does not endorse third party programs, while this CCP Dev is working on such a program.
I really do not understand what you are trying to say when you talk about your Tengu skills, as you can still run Tengus in missions and anoms, while we're getting banned and removed from the game. If CCP removed the Tengu completely from the game and didn't reimburse the SP, you might have a case, albeit a thin one. You'll notice, in the thread about fighters, that there is a killmail of a Skynet Supercarrier. Not exactly risk-free. |
ashley Eoner
453
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 21:02:54 -
[4072] - Quote
Adding one dps to your setup would easily mean having to toss everything and starting from scratch. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
188
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 21:36:00 -
[4073] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:The way you look at APM in SC and in Eve differs wildly, we're not able to do more than 60 APM by design due to how the server ticks work; you cannot activate and deactivate a gun at the same time. Now, you can send the same command (in this case, orbit) 10 times to the client within that 1 second server tick and it will only be applied once. You can spam the orbit button as fast as you can and then at a lower pace just swap between the windows, giving the illusion of being accurate when you in fact are just spamming one button and being more precise on the other. SC2 still has game ticks, the length of them is determined by the player with the highest lag due to it's P2P nature - the player is still able to input the same APM in real time no matter which game engine we're looking at, it's the player inputs per real time second that are being measured, not the actual activations in-game per game tick.
you sir, are just dumb, or stupid. not sure what it is.
i am using a Special designed Piece of Hardware with 120 keys which i can Setup to what ever i want.
i am Setting ONE command per key per box.
i am easily up to 500 apm if i have to with that using my 10 fingers i have from mother nature.
first row from left to right activates F1 on each box
second row from left to right activates shift F1 on each box
so tell me. am i cheating? macro using? broadcasting?
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 21:45:20 -
[4074] - Quote
Eve-o-preview does nothing like as much as ISboxer's cut and paste of parts of windows where you need them - afaik all it offers is a miniaturised window of an alt that you can hotswap with your main screen though I only played with it briefly when I first heard of it. I already said I kind of grudgingly agree with videoFX anyways as it allows people with fewer hardware displays to engage with the higher levels of multiboxing complexity.
No idea why you're talking about tanking and alpha in PvP fleets, I've been talking about the incursion video. The only advantageous uses of multiboxing in pvp are capitals and bombers, neither really have that sudden requirement for you to broadcast for reps on a second by second basis due to warping off and cloaking or the general pace of capital fights (tidi included) although both are fairly important when talking about alpha now that you mention it, a few dread alts all in perfect sync really could test out the opponent's logi.
I really don't care for how long it takes to adjust and setup ISboxer, I once coded a synthesiser from scratch as a hobby, I'm not asking for that time back, I enjoyed the challenge. Did you do it for the challenge or to seek an in-game isk making advantage?
My Tengu comparison was supposed to illustrate that the game changes, adapt or die. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
188
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 22:00:12 -
[4075] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: Did you do it for the challenge or to seek an in-game isk making advantage?
as i stated before, i am flying 10 boxes. not cause i cant fly more. my Hardware is as potent to fly single hq incursion with 40 pilots.
i just dont feel the Need to do so,
10 boxes are the Maximum i can fly concentrated while fcing the rest of the fleet
1 box is just not enough for me, i fall asleep during that.
so for me it is the challenge to fly 10 boxes without making mistakes. keeping up a good Performance.
and again. i could fly a lot more. i just dont want to.
and isk. well. scamming, Station trading makes much more iskies than multiboxing with isboxer in incursions. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 22:01:09 -
[4076] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:you sir, are just dumb, or stupid. not sure what it is.
i am using a Special designed Piece of Hardware with 120 keys which i can Setup to what ever i want.
i am Setting ONE command per key per box.
i am easily up to 500 apm if i have to with that using my 10 fingers i have from mother nature.
first row from left to right activates F1 on each box
second row from left to right activates shift F1 on each box
so tell me. am i cheating? macro using? broadcasting?
Aside from the unnecessary adhominems we were talking about someone doing this with just 2 keys and pressing each one 20 times alternately within a couple of seconds. Your setup sounds great though, how do you use it with the overview to select a target? It's beyond my expertise but I was of the impression you needed a mouse input for that part of the game.
I mean it's all very well using your ten digits to activate 10 sets of modules simultaneously but it does seem somewhat pointless if you don't have anything to activate them on... |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
726
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 22:14:26 -
[4077] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Eve-o-preview does nothing like as much as ISboxer's cut and paste of parts of windows where you need them - afaik all it offers is a miniaturised window of an alt that you can hotswap with your main screen though I only played with it briefly when I first heard of it. I already said I kind of grudgingly agree with videoFX anyways as it allows people with fewer hardware displays to engage with the higher levels of multiboxing complexity.
No idea why you're talking about tanking and alpha in PvP fleets, I've been talking about the incursion video. The only advantageous uses of multiboxing in pvp are capitals and bombers, neither really have that sudden requirement for you to broadcast for reps on a second by second basis due to warping off and cloaking or the general pace of capital fights (tidi included) although both are fairly important when talking about alpha now that you mention it, a few dread alts all in perfect sync really could test out the opponent's logi.
I really don't care for how long it takes to adjust and setup ISboxer, I once coded a synthesiser from scratch as a hobby, I'm not asking for that time back, I enjoyed the challenge. Did you do it for the challenge or to seek an in-game isk making advantage?
My Tengu comparison was supposed to illustrate that the game changes, adapt or die.
You can setup ISBoxer to do that as well. What you forgot to mention is that the current iteration of EVE-O-Preview does not allow cut-paste. I didn't look at it too hard, so I don't know if it uses Aero. If it does, it's no large leap to have it do the same cut-paste that VideoFX does.
You brought up alpha fleets first, which inherently brings up tanking at the same time. I ask you to re-read what I wrote as it is still valid. As for capitals, I don't know of a single ISBoxer who boxes a PVP capital fleet, so that doesn't count. Pantheon pilots still have to broadcast for reps when they need it. I'm certain that, had the Omega fleet doctrine (alpha naglfars) taken hold, we'd see some interesting stuff come out of that.
Your Tengu comparison was flawed as CCP wasn't removing Tengus from the game, their railgun sub, or alternatively their missile sub. My comparison was closer to being accurate. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 22:17:04 -
[4078] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Your Tengu comparison was flawed as CCP wasn't removing Tengus from the game, their railgun sub, or alternatively their missile sub. My comparison was closer to being accurate.
They nerfed tengus, they nerfed multiboxing.
People are still multiboxing haven't you heard? |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
188
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 22:17:34 -
[4079] - Quote
you dont have to Switch that much of a target when you shoot a Tower.
but thats why god invented mouse sync
i put my mouse over the target i want to lock
hit my 10 keys and each box is using mouse sync to Position the mouse over my real mouse Position.
after that i shift left click with 10 keys and that target will be locked.
takes a bit of time ofc. but it is working
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
726
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 22:24:54 -
[4080] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Your Tengu comparison was flawed as CCP wasn't removing Tengus from the game, their railgun sub, or alternatively their missile sub. My comparison was closer to being accurate. They nerfed tengus, they nerfed multiboxing. People are still multiboxing haven't you heard?
CCP tapped Tengus with a nerfbat.
They doomsdayed multiboxing with a nerftitan.
Nice straw man though. You did cost me 50m on a wager as to how long you lasted. |
|
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 22:27:13 -
[4081] - Quote
So whilst the changes were ineffective, they were actually hugely effective. No wonder this thread is so long if even the hardcore multiboxers themselves can't decide whether this was effective or not. |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 22:27:15 -
[4082] - Quote
CCP: We're gonna refer you the EULA as it clearly defines the rules (even though it has more grey areas than accurately defined rules). They don't care. It's been 3 months. We won't get anything better. Get over it.
ISBoxers: The change is fair / the change is not fair ... we can live with it though so plz don't ban us.
"ISBoxer is cheating": You have the right to your opinion, and we have our limitations as set forth in the 'Clearly Defined' EULA. You need to get over it the same as we do.
Anyone who uses the term ISBotter: You're a moron. Biomassing would be your greatest contribution to the community.
We need to kill this thread. All opinions and beliefs have been covered and this has become a 185 page pissing match with no direction or purpose.
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 22:28:04 -
[4083] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:So whilst the changes were ineffective, they were actually hugely effective. No wonder this thread is so long if even the hardcore multiboxers themselves can't decide whether this was effective or not.
Aren't you quoting the guy that got banned? Seems super effective to me.
I haven't been able to run the last week so I haven't been banned yet for using windowed mode. I imagine it's coming though.
When it does I'll probably move on to one of the many free or nearly free options that exist today. PLaying eve with one account only is far too boring. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
726
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 22:33:21 -
[4084] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:So whilst the changes were ineffective, they were actually hugely effective. No wonder this thread is so long if even the hardcore multiboxers themselves can't decide whether this was effective or not.
It was ineffective at stopping multiboxers who were following the new EULA until they started cracking down on rollovers, round robins, and simply playing fast. It's rather effective at generating negative news and having people reconsider life choices to play this game, and it's VERY effective at exposing the hypocrisy in CCP and the GM corp.
But I commend you on the faulty causality fallacy. It's been a while since I heard that one. You also participated in an "ignore the question" fallacy, and it's corollary, the "ignore the evidence" fallacy. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 22:40:41 -
[4085] - Quote
So a rollover, which produces a click from nothingness, is surprisingly against the new EULA preventing input duplications.
Round robins I agree can be done legitimately but I have yet to see footage of someone that was wrongly banned, which is why I chipped in to this thread again after a couple of months of absence. Please enlighten me with this evidence.
I have no idea what fallacies you're talking about. What evidence have you put forwards other than the one youtube video I picked apart? |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
727
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 22:53:52 -
[4086] - Quote
A rollover is nothing more than an on-screen keyboard whose keys are sensitive to "on mouse focus" or "on mouse boundary" OS triggers, not some magic voodoo conjured up by a corner magician. Just because you don't understand how it works does not mean it's a bot, a hack, a cheat, or a macro.
It's very hard to give you proof that people were banned when CCP has a thing against that sort of thing, however, if you hop onto our forums and ask, you'll no doubt receive.
I was referring to the parts where you ignored all my arguments about ISBoxer, third party programs, the EULA, and 6A3. You instead attacked me as a person instead of my arguments, and those arguments which you had no excuse or counter-argument, you ignored. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:02:35 -
[4087] - Quote
lol of course I understand how it works. Are you clicking or are you just moving the mouse? One click = One action has been a pretty clear message from the start, not 'one click, then move the mouse across each activation box' to send n actions.
As I already pointed out, someone with a 1080p monitor could have 1080 1 pixel high boxes along the edge of their screen and just swipe the mouse down through them and activate 1080 modules you'd have to be incredibly dumb if you think that kind of setup doesn't construe input multiplication through software. So yeah glad people are getting banned for being dumb and trying to game the system.
You're the one saying I'm disregarding evidence, show me some, the burden of proof is on your side of the argument not mine. I can't 'not show' you evidence of people not being wrongfully banned for my side of the argument or must I just accept your anecdotal pleas of 'This guy I knew totally got banned and he was totally legit' |
ashley Eoner
453
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:23:24 -
[4088] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:lol of course I understand how it works. Are you clicking or are you just moving the mouse? One click = One action has been a pretty clear message from the start, not 'one click, then move the mouse across each activation box' to send n actions.
As I already pointed out, someone with a 1080p monitor could have 1080 1 pixel high boxes along the edge of their screen and just swipe the mouse down through them and activate 1080 modules you'd have to be incredibly dumb if you think that kind of setup doesn't construe input multiplication through software. So yeah glad people are getting banned for being dumb and trying to game the system.
You're the one saying I'm disregarding evidence, show me some, the burden of proof is on your side of the argument not mine. I can't 'not show' you evidence of people not being wrongfully banned for my side of the argument or must I just accept your anecdotal pleas of 'This guy I knew totally got banned and he was totally legit'
edit: I just happened upon a thread in dual boxing which shows your 'wrongfully banned' person using input duplication at 17s in the video to change overviews across all clients as well... he didn't even make 20s without breaking the EULA.
le sigh
It says in this very thread in the first post that using the repeater to adjust windows and such is perfectly legal. Nothing illegal about changing the overview tab.. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
71
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:26:14 -
[4089] - Quote
OP wrote:Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇó EVE Online client settings
GÇó Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
Swing and a miss. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
78
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:29:30 -
[4090] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Eli Apol wrote:OP wrote:Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇó EVE Online client settings
GÇó Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment) Swing and a miss. Window positions and arrangements... arrangement.... arrangement....
I made it bold this time for you. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
727
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:30:01 -
[4091] - Quote
If someone has a supercomputer that can host as many EVE clients to fill 1080 modules, he should get a medal.
Sarcasm aside, the simple act of moving a mouse across the screen is registered. Mouse XY detection is nothing new nor is it copyrighted by ISBoxer. Same thing with "Mouse Focus Gain". It's quite easy to detect.
Actually no, the burden of proof is on you for claiming that ISBoxer is as bad as botting. I presented my arguments about why EFT/PYFA/EVEMon/Fuzzworks earlier in the thread (within the last 5 pages), not to mention my numerous other posts earlier in the thread.
If you'd link the video, we can get on the same page for that. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11961
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:30:17 -
[4092] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Eli Apol wrote:OP wrote:Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇó EVE Online client settings
GÇó Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment) Swing and a miss. Window positions and arrangements... arrangement.... arrangement....
CCP Falcon wrote:Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
Try again.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
ashley Eoner
453
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:30:58 -
[4093] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Eli Apol wrote:OP wrote:Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇó EVE Online client settings
GÇó Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment) Swing and a miss. Window positions and arrangements... arrangement.... arrangement.... I made it bold this time for you.
Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.
What consequence is there in game for changing over view tabs? When I change my overview tab can you tell by sitting next to me in space? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11961
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:32:19 -
[4094] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Actually no, the burden of proof is on you for claiming that ISBoxer is as bad as botting. I presented my arguments about why EFT/PYFA/EVEMon/Fuzzworks earlier in the thread (within the last 5 pages), not to mention my numerous other posts earlier in the thread.
Actually, the burden was on me to laugh at that comparison. And I did, with gusto.
Trying to justify actual cheating on the basis of freaking Fuzzworks is the flimsiest justification imaginable.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
78
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:32:47 -
[4095] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:i can use a Touchscreen with displayed keys and "rollover" my fingers over the Buttons
that would be a rollover in the most primitive way. and still allowed in the eula.
so rollover with a mouse activating ONE Action is NOT violating the eula.
I'm almost inclined to agree with you and I'd definitely agree this would potentially be a circumstance in which a differently able person that couldn't use a mouse might be allowed to play the game.
But c'mon you can see it staring you in the face, one swipe down the side of a screen for 1080 inputs...you know that's wrong. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
78
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:34:59 -
[4096] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Actually no, the burden of proof is on you for claiming that ISBoxer is as bad as botting. I presented my arguments about why EFT/PYFA/EVEMon/Fuzzworks earlier in the thread (within the last 5 pages), not to mention my numerous other posts earlier in the thread.
Actually, the burden was on me to laugh at that comparison. And I did, with gusto. Trying to justify actual cheating on the basis of freaking Fuzzworks is the flimsiest justification imaginable.
That's people NOT being banned for breaking the EULA
I wanted people being banned for NOT breaking the EULA.
Subtle difference. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
78
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:37:44 -
[4097] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:What consequence is there in game for changing over view tabs? When I change my overview tab can you tell by sitting next to me in space?
Well if you're able to change all your overviews across all those clients so fast, it means you've saved valuable seconds that someone manually doing it would have wasted....so it's like an in-game advantage or something isn't it? |
ashley Eoner
453
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:39:26 -
[4098] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:What consequence is there in game for changing over view tabs? When I change my overview tab can you tell by sitting next to me in space? Well if you're able to change all your overviews across all those clients so fast, it means you've saved valuable seconds that someone manually doing it would have wasted....so it's like an in-game advantage or something isn't it?
We're back to arguing about EFT then because the EXACT SAME THING could be said about using EFT to test fits over having to do it inside.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
78
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:40:30 -
[4099] - Quote
You can do anything from EFT with a calculator and a piece of paper, I can't swap my overviews like that.
EDIT: Which is also the difference between an in-game advantage and an out-of-game advantage... |
ashley Eoner
453
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:42:29 -
[4100] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:You can do anything from EFT with a calculator and a piece of paper, I can't swap my overviews like that.
EDIT: Which is also the difference between an in-game advantage and an out-of-game advantage... You can do it prior to running which he should of done. If we're going to ban people for a minor convenience then I can't wait to see what else they are going to ban people for.
Also I'm glad that CCP allows us the privilege of positioning windows as we please on our computers.
Anyway TS vent murmor all give in game advantages and even have client overlays in some cases. Should that be bannable too?
What if I'm too poor for paper? |
|
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
189
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:42:50 -
[4101] - Quote
but it Safes you time and Money? no paper for example?
edit dont start picking.
teamspeak is also creating in game Advantage over those who are not using it. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
727
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:47:35 -
[4102] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:You can do anything from EFT with a calculator and a piece of paper, I can't swap my overviews like that.
Yes, however, in doing so with paper and pencil,you lose valuable time you could have spent ratting and earning ISK.
Now do you see the conundrum? |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
79
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 00:06:22 -
[4103] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Yes, however, in doing so with paper and pencil,you lose valuable time you could have spent ratting and earning ISK.
Now do you see the conundrum? So me saving X minutes out of game means I get to play the game longer versus me saving time in-game allows me to have an unfair gameplay advantage whilst I'm playing. What conundrum?
Charadrass wrote:but it Safes you time and Money? no paper for example?
edit dont start picking.
teamspeak is also creating in game Advantage over those who are not using it.
Teamspeak doesn't interact with the client.
Teamspeak doesn't "facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play"
Teamspeak doesn't really offer an advantage over the in-game VOIP either last I checked except people can use it without logging in and have pretty badges next to their name to show how inspirational a leader they are or aren't.
Teamspeak doesn't offer any advantage over someone using some paper cups and bits of string and forming a community based around their geographic location and all sitting in the same room to play.
I mean really, we're digging this low now?
ashley Eoner wrote:Also I'm glad that CCP allows us the privilege of positioning windows as we please on our computers. It's surprisingly lax for a modern EULA, they need to learn from EA and tighten that up :D |
Marsha Mallow
1982
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 00:09:31 -
[4104] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:What if I'm too poor for paper?
Charadrass wrote:but it Safes you time and Money? no paper for example?
Nolak Ataru wrote:Yes, however, in doing so with paper and pencil,you lose valuable time you could have spent ratting and earning ISK.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any better
I still haven't had an answer as to why calling ISBoxer users ISBotters makes them so angry. It's almost like they think botting is bad in some way.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
727
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 00:15:50 -
[4105] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Yes, however, in doing so with paper and pencil,you lose valuable time you could have spent ratting and earning ISK.
Now do you see the conundrum? So me saving X minutes out of game means I get to play the game longer versus me saving time in-game allows me to have an unfair gameplay advantage whilst I'm playing. What conundrum?
The fact that you shaved upwards of an hour off your "downtime", means you gained an advantage of ISK earned in a day over someone who was stuck calculating it out by hand, but you would have known this had you read my earlier posts regarding each third party program. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 00:25:13 -
[4106] - Quote
And if I didn't use a fitting program but just fitted exactly the fits given to me by my great blue-blob superiors, no time wasted whatsoever, so how has someone that used a fitting program gained an advantage?
I mean they must have spent some time using the fitting program but I was just given a fit with absolutely zero time spent borrowing my family braincell to puzzle over it. Just fit, drop sentries, turn on prop mod and orbit, watch the wallet blinks.
Basically anyone who uses EFT is doing it wrong, the in-game advantage is from joining a null alliance and being told what to fly. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
727
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 00:34:59 -
[4107] - Quote
That's called a straw man and an appeal to the stone, and we can throw in an argument from ignorance for good measure. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 00:40:19 -
[4108] - Quote
Whereas a tangential argument about pieces of paper and how unrelated pieces of software do or don't fall within the EULA is really taking this thread somewhere.
And it's not a strawman; some people never use EFT; people that use EFT have very little if any advantage over those people; therefore EFT does not provide an advantage over something that can be attained in-game through fit sharing and linking.
Try to say the same about ISboxers multibroadcasting, rolling over, whatever you want to call your techniques for sending many more commands than would be otherwise possible. |
Marsha Mallow
1983
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 00:46:35 -
[4109] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:e: Most of us rejoiced when CODE was first formed, as their original intent was an anti-bot alliance. As I have mentioned before, and I shall no doubt do until I turn blue in the face, the difference between an ISBoxer and a botter is that while the ISBoxer's fleet is sitting there mining in the belt, the botter's fleet is sitting there mining in the belt, but he's down at the corner store buying a scratch off ticket.
You're right. An at keyboard botter who can see local spikes and hostiles landing on grid then warp out by clicking one button is a lot harder to kill than a bot program where the paramaters for running away may have been set incorrectly. You can fool a bot by repeatedly logging in and out but an actual player is likely to behave a bit differently.
Still doesn't answer why being called botters riles you all up. Definitions of botting look to describe ISBotter pretty well to me (they are also helpfully known as 'cheats' which I bet you didn't know) for example
Quote:Computer program run concurrently with an online game to give the player an unfair advantage. Bots may alter the game environment, boost the abilities of the player's character or hinder opponents. Writing bots requires a great deal of skill; using them almost none.
"So you're using an aimbot... and he's using an aimbot... if you're both going to cheat, why bother to play?"
"Just to show that I cheat better than him."
or this:
Quote:Definition - What does Bot mean?
A bot is a general term in gaming that is used to refer to a character controlled by a computer. In one sense, bots are all the non-player characters (NPCs) in a game, including those that fight alongside as well as against the gamer. However, the definition of bots has broadened to include gamers who employ third-party programs to control their characters.
Techopedia explains Bot
Bots are forbidden by most massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) and other competitive online games. This is because a gamer can use bots to continue to rack up experience and points when he or she is not at the computer.
That said, if we follow a more traditional definition of bots, they are actually essential to gaming. Having intelligent bots as competition or help in a game allows players to experience multi-player gameplay without being online. Some players prefer to play bots rather than real people, either to practice or because their connection and/or experience level doesnGÇÖt allow them to compete online.
That last bit really made me laugh, sorry, ahem.
Neither of those definitions stipulate that the player is at keyboard or not in order for the software to be classed as a bot or cheat. In fact if you broaden the search to 'cheat' you get a lot more hits for active bots used during gameplay.
So which is it? Is botting legitimate or not? You keep dodging this question, but the spirit of your arguments suggests you think cheats are valid. You also seem to be suggesting that EFT, Teamspeak, Fuzzworks also constitute cheats. By this logic cheats are legitimate because everyone else is doing it. All you have to do is stop making dishonest arguments and contradicting yourself and declare yourself a proud botter and cheat user. Then you can take it to the next level and talk about how you think cheats can be integrated into EvE Online and how the EULA can be adjusted to accomodate the playstyle.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
730
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 01:34:04 -
[4110] - Quote
I am in total agreement with CCP that bots should be banned. Pretty sure I've said this before, but I forgive you for not reading the thread. This includes chat bots and spammers in Jita, but I'm a little alone in this aspect.
However, by any definition of the word "bot", ISBoxer does not fall into it, as it does not alter the game environment, it does not boost the abilities of the player, nor reduce his opponents. ISBoxer does not allow a player to continue to rack up experience and points (ISK / modules) when he or she is not at the computer.
You just linked two websites which actually undermine your argument.
Anyone can fleet warp his fleet out of danger. Just look at Slippery Petes; they take "escaping danger" to a whole new level with their bubble immunity.
And your pathetic attempt to say that cheats are legitimate because everyone is using it is a argumentum ad populum fallacy. In English, it's the old "jump off a cliff" argument your mother brings up to you whenever you beg to get a piercing or tattoo at 13. I have no problem whatsoever if CCP wants to modify their EULA to narrow the scope of 6A3 and thus make PYFA, EFT, etc safe from being banned so long as they unban ISBoxer and all it's functionality when they narrow said scope. |
|
|
BrundleMeth
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
385
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 11:30:35 -
[4111] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:I am in total agreement with CCP that bots should be banned.
Me too. Maybe some day they will start to ban them...
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
82
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 11:40:39 -
[4112] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:so long as they unban ISBoxer and all it's functionality when they narrow said scope.
Why? What reason is there for the ISboxing nerf to be repealed? Other than "I want it."
You've been very good at falsely pointing out others fallacious arguments and not actually put anything forward yourself for your own side of the argument - except some discredited evidence of someone getting wrongfully banned and a wide variety taken from your personal area of expertise: fallacies. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11964
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 13:12:09 -
[4113] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: I have no problem whatsoever if CCP wants to modify their EULA to narrow the scope of 6A3 and thus make PYFA, EFT, etc safe from being banned so long as they unban ISBoxer and all it's functionality when they narrow said scope.
The answer is no.
EFT and Pyfa are already safe. ISBoxer is justly banned.
The end.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
730
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 13:35:43 -
[4114] - Quote
I have already explained at great lengths, in great detail, and without anyone offering up a counterargument other than "no it doesnt", the specific advantages of the aforementioned programs, why if ISBoxer is to be banned so should they, and why if CCP narrows 6A3 to disclude these aforementioned programs then they should unban ISBoxer's functions.
To Eli:
#1: There is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. The fastest VG Boxer did not magically skyrocket his ISK potential to 1b / hour / client when he installed ISBoxer. The largest mining fleet did not gain the ability to instantly mine out a belt in ten seconds, nor are they protected when CODE comes callling to system. The bomberboxers did not magically gain an invulnerability to defensive bubbles when they run ISBoxer. And finally, ISBoxer is not some Turing-tested AI that makes no mistakes, responds to ever-changing grid warfare instantly, and it sure as hell can't be compared to some script kiddy running an aimbot in COD4.
#2. What you just did, focusing on the fallacy and dismissing everything else, is called an argument from fallacy. I stand by what I said that, and I would like to reiterate that you are currently grasping at straws here in an attempt to convince yourself and anyone within earshot that I'm as bad as T20, or Somer Blink despite offering no evidence that ISBoxer gives someone an advantage while PYFA and EFT do not.
#3. I have been arguing that all third party tools should adhere to the third party policy. I have also been arguing that, since CCP seems intent on quoting 6A3 to us in regards to ISBoxer, in other words, that they have been enforcing 6A3 for one program, that they need to enforce it for all the programs. When Somer was told to knock off the possible RMT aspect of Somer Blink, CCP didn't say "Only Somer Blink is being disallowed to participate in such an action". It went into effect universally for all the various sites. |
Dustpuppy
New Eden Ferengi
83
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 13:37:36 -
[4115] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:I
However, by any definition of the word "bot", ISBoxer does not fall into it, ......
Oh boy, you have too much time for this. is the writer of ISboxer your personal boyfriend and you share the bed together?
Get over it and accept the reality.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11964
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 13:40:24 -
[4116] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:I have already explained at great lengths, in great detail, and without anyone offering up a counterargument other than "no it doesnt", the specific advantages of the aforementioned programs, why if ISBoxer is to be banned so should they, and why if CCP narrows 6A3 to disclude these aforementioned programs then they should unban ISBoxer's functions.
If I go outside right now, stand on a street corner and yell "The Moon is made of cheese!", the only refutation required is "no, it's not."
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
82
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 13:46:07 -
[4117] - Quote
Avoided the question.
Give me ONE reason why the functionality of ISboxer should be reinstated, without talking about unrelated programs or bullshit fallacies.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
737
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 14:47:45 -
[4118] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Avoided the question. Give me ONE reason why the functionality of ISboxer should be reinstated, without talking about unrelated programs or bullshit fallacies.
Oh the irony of saying I avoided the question when you've done nothing but. But I will acquiesce.
The functionality of ISBoxer should be reinstated across the board because it offers ISBoxed fleet "X" no measurable advantage over an identical fleet with identical SP, identical fits, identical implants, identical experience, and identical fleet composition. I would even go so far to say it hinders a player's choice in ships, modules, and implants because of the inability to manually control each ship to use them to their fullest potential. Additionally, the ability of a non-boxed fleet in regards to applying and avoiding DPS because of their ability to manually pilot each ship in their fleet gives them an advantage because they optimize their transversal vs an opponents guns, they can mitigate their opponents transversal vs their own guns, they can burn out of range if the incoming DPS is too high, they can quickly switch DPS upon an FC's command, they can make snap judgements and decisions when the grid changes, and if one person accidentally trips on the router cable and pulls it out, they're only down one man instead of an entire fleet, to name a few. Furthermore, an ISBoxer is very susceptible to EWAR and capacitor warfare. If a regular person gets sensor damped, he can approach the target to reacquire a lock, while the ISBoxer cannot do such a thing as he can get distracted and wind up with a toon burning off grid and out of rep range, so he much accept the reduced DPS. If a player gets neuted, it's no major difficulty for him to ask for cap from the logis, while an ISBoxer cannot easily give cap to one of his characters because he has to keep the chain going. If a player gets jammed, he can alert his fleet and wait for the next cycle to miss to lock up the target, while an ISBoxer may not realize he's been jammed and will thus lose DPS.
As for the bomber boxers, corebloodbrother's incessant complaints about them stem from the time he took his battleship fleet to a planet, gave them a bio break, and then got bombed. Bombing a stationary target with at least half the fleet AFK, with no defensive bubbles up, and with no anti-bomber support, is an easy task for any bomber wing, including BRAVE's. At least two multibox bomber "FCs", for lack of a better term, have gone on the record stating that if they see defensive bubbles around a fleet, and enough ships that may be fit for anti-bomber duty, they will postpone or cancel their planned bombing run.
For those who wish to quote 6A3, I would like to say that just about every ISBoxer you talk to will give you his income / hour as a human being, not his income / toon / hour, which is what 6A3 has always been interpreted to mean by CCP developers and people in charge of such things. We have seen no evidence or statement from CCP that 6A3 is now being judged on a per-human basis. Even if it was, the earned income from a single officer spawn in nullsec, or ganking a freighter in highsec, or ganking a deadspace Golem, or the income of running C6 complete capital escalations on a good day, or even the income of those who "buy" 9-and-10/10s from players and run them would be much higher than an ISBoxer's possible earned income.
Now I ask you: Give me one reason why ISBoxer should have it's functionalities curtailed without resorting to fallacies of your own, especially not an appeal to authority ("CCP said so, so it is so"). |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
311
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:12:04 -
[4119] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote: I have no problem whatsoever if CCP wants to modify their EULA to narrow the scope of 6A3 and thus make PYFA, EFT, etc safe from being banned so long as they unban ISBoxer and all it's functionality when they narrow said scope. The answer is no. EFT and Pyfa are already safe. ISBoxer is justly banned. The end.
Almost 200 pages and you still haven't worked out that ISBOXER IS *NOT* BANNED. Ask your own corp and alliance mates. Saw them using it in the weekend.
Oh and out. Someone ping me if anything offical is ever said.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
85
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:12:50 -
[4120] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:The functionality of ISBoxer should be reinstated across the board because it offers ISBoxed fleet "X" no measurable advantage over an identical fleet with identical SP, identical fits, identical implants, identical experience, and identical fleet composition
Immediate fallacy number 1, I asked for no BS fallacies please: Comparing a prenerf ISboxed fleet to a non ISboxed fleet.
The exact same sentence rings true for the current status quo:
Postnerfed ISBoxed fleet "X" has no measurable advantage over an identical fleet with identical SP, identical fits, identical implants, identical experience, and identical fleet composition.
So what's the point in typing this. None. In fact it's a very questionable claim in the first place once you add in the human interaction part of the equation.
Let me rephrase this:
WHY WOULD YOU PREFER A PRENERF ISBOXED FLEET TO A POSTNERF ISBOXED FLEET? |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
739
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:18:49 -
[4121] - Quote
Except Post-nerf ISBox fleet X *does* have a measurable disadvantage over an identical fleet with identical etc, etc, etc, as the ISBoxer now spends spends f(N)=Z amount of time activating his guns while the non-boxed fleet only spends N amount of time, giving the non-boxed fleet an advantage in alpha-strikes and DPS/time-on-target, where Z increases exponentially as members in fleet approaches 255 (or whatever a fleet's capped at).
I prefer a pre-nerf ISBox fleet as it puts me closer to equal ground to a non-boxed fleet because the disparity in module activation is much closer to equal than if I have to spend f(N)=Z time trying to activate my guns or reps or perform an action.
e: Also, if you'd continue reading instead of participating in an argument from fallacy fallacy, I compared both pre-and-post nerf ISBox fleet to a non boxxed fleet. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
778
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:41:02 -
[4122] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Except Post-nerf ISBox fleet X *does* have a measurable disadvantage over an identical fleet with identical etc, etc, etc, as the ISBoxer now spends spends f(N)=Z amount of time activating his guns.
And so he should, he's operating multiple ships. Comparing a ISBoxed fleet to a fleet of multiple players is a false comparison, as the second fleet requires multiple players. Compare your "measurably disadvantaged" post-nerf ISBox fleet to an alt-tab multiboxing fleet, running no "support" software and you still have a massive advantage which you shouldn't have.
|
Marsha Mallow
1983
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:47:59 -
[4123] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:However, by any definition of the word "bot", ISBoxer does not fall into it, as it does not alter the game environment, it does not boost the abilities of the player, nor reduce his opponents. ISBoxer does not allow a player to continue to rack up experience and points (ISK / modules) when he or she is not at the computer.
You just linked two websites which actually undermine your argument.
Using ISBotter to position your windows for convenience is not classed as an exploit under this ruling. Using macros to duplicate keystrokes which are made in the client and are actions 'commonly refered to as botting' is prohibited. I'll link this for you again, since you are having trouble understanding it. Pages of this thread are dedicated to the botters whining about all of the variations of windowed client settings that can be used (which isn't prohibited) along with smillions of words rambling on about all of the macroing tools available outside ISBotter (which is prohibited). Then you all collectively gasp in outrage when someone is caught and rightfully banned for using an alternate form of macro. Seriously, how stupid can you be?
CCP Falcon wrote: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 Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing
Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game.
Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy.
Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters
Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇóEVE Online client settings
GÇóWindow positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
GÇóThe login process
Nolak Ataru wrote:Anyone can fleet warp his fleet out of danger. Just look at Slippery Petes; they take "escaping danger" to a whole new level with their bubble immunity.
BULLSHIT. If 'anyone' could warp their fleet out of danger consistently (or even just their single pilot) nobody would ever die. Actual players hesitate, panic, freeze up and take time to gtfo. Bots react at inhuman speeds and cannot be beaten by a player fleet using ingame warping because the individual pilots have to respond to align orders.
Nolak Ataru wrote:And your pathetic attempt to say that cheats are legitimate because everyone is using it is a argumentum ad populum fallacy. In English, it's the old "jump off a cliff" argument your mother brings up to you whenever you beg to get a piercing or tattoo at 13. I have no problem whatsoever if CCP wants to modify their EULA to narrow the scope of 6A3 and thus make PYFA, EFT, etc safe from being banned so long as they unban ISBoxer and all it's functionality when they narrow said scope.
Thank you for helpfully confirming that this argument is ridiculous. For a moment there it looked as though you, Chand and ashley were about to argue that paper should also be banned as providing an unfair advantage. It's your own argument you're calling pathetic there btw. Whinging about 6A3 in an attempt to shift the focus of the dialogue is not a very deft sidestep.
Nolak Ataru wrote:I have already explained at great lengths, in great detail, and without anyone offering up a counterargument other than "no it doesnt", the specific advantages of the aforementioned programs, why if ISBoxer is to be banned so should they, and why if CCP narrows 6A3 to disclude these aforementioned programs then they should unban ISBoxer's functions.
ISBotter has not been banned. The macroing functionality which it offers has
Don't reply to this, I need to read through the rest of this bilge you keep pumping out and see if there's anything worth laughing at. After I've read the sovblog. Sit tight.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
85
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:48:06 -
[4124] - Quote
When you spout bullshit in your second line I can't be bothered to read the rest of your 'argument' but just to humour your question I have several reasons which can be summarised in nice little bullet points:
- ISboxed fleets prenerf had an advantage in synchronisation that cannot be replicated by many individual players due to human error as well as network latencies. This synchronisation is on a input by input basis as well as in forming fleets to partake in activities without delay in waiting for other players.
- ISboxed fleets both post AND prenerf have the advantage of condensed layouts enabling easier UI setups than a manual multiboxer using multiple hardware displays and window tiling.
- ISboxed fleets remove an M from MMO. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
739
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:49:47 -
[4125] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Except Post-nerf ISBox fleet X *does* have a measurable disadvantage over an identical fleet with identical etc, etc, etc, as the ISBoxer now spends spends f(N)=Z amount of time activating his guns. And so he should, he's operating multiple ships. Comparing a ISBoxed fleet to a fleet of multiple players is a false comparison, as the second fleet requires multiple players. Compare your "measurably disadvantaged" post-nerf ISBox fleet to an alt-tab multiboxing fleet, running no "support" software and you still have a massive advantage which you shouldn't have.
What "massive advantage"? Slow to respond, slow to activate modules, and slow to turn on reps, made even slower by alt-tabbing does not an advantage make. Additionally, while the second fleet does require multiple players, not everyone is as charismatic as Boat or Elo, and not everyone can make friends as fast as you see in the movies. Additionally, timezones are a pain to coordinate at times. And finally, the facts still stand that, if a pre-nerf ISBoxer makes a mistake, that mistake is replicated to every other character in his fleet, while if a single player makes a mistake, it's only one character. Also, if a ISBoxer disconnects, he stands a fair chance of losing his entire fleet instead of a single ship.
e: Marsh, I don't know if you know this or not, but ISBoxer does not fleet warp you out of danger if a catalyst shows up on grid, nor does it actually perform any actions that you do not explicitly tell it to perform. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
85
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:17:31 -
[4126] - Quote
I am not comparing a fleet of inept players to a perfect ISboxer - network latency between players can AND will mean that some players will not have their actions performed within the same server tick as each other.
Whether this comes from waiting for a voice command to tell them to undock or take a gate or align. None of this is synchronised as perfectly by a fleet of individuals. Likewise when arriving on grid there's a delay whilst a tagger/target broadcaster sets the initial targets and they update on the overviews of the other players which then has human error in being a perfect fleet member and actually locking the correct target instantly as soon as it's broadcast and then cycling their guns on it. Whilst an ISboxer has all his clients all sending commands pretty much instantaneously and all running through the same internet connection and so will have pretty much perfect synchronisation when they reach the server.
Even a fleet of perfect fleetmates with perfect discipline will be less synchronised than a prenerf ISboxed fleet...in an identical fleet, identical SP, etc etc... |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
740
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:51:31 -
[4127] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:I am not comparing a fleet of inept players to a perfect ISboxer - network latency between players can AND will mean that some players will not have their actions performed within the same server tick as each other.
Whether this comes from waiting for a voice command to tell them to undock or take a gate or align. None of this is synchronised as perfectly by a fleet of individuals. Likewise when arriving on grid there's a delay whilst a tagger/target broadcaster sets the initial targets and they update on the overviews of the other players which then has human error in being a perfect fleet member and actually locking the correct target instantly as soon as it's broadcast and then cycling their guns on it. Whilst an ISboxer has all his clients all sending commands pretty much instantaneously and all running through the same internet connection and so will have pretty much perfect synchronisation when they reach the server.
Even a fleet of perfect fleetmates with perfect discipline will be less synchronised than a prenerf ISboxed fleet...in an identical fleet, identical SP, etc etc...
If you have a fleet of competent players, they can F1 at the same time. This was the defining feature of the alpha maelstroms and TFIs; their ability to F1 at the same time to make sure that the Guardians and Triage Archons couldn't rep the NApocs. Additionally, the disparity in differences in F1 clicks for a PVP alpha fleet and an ISBoxer who manually activates the guns on each separate screen renders your argument moot at best.
Comparing a fleet of 255 people who can have so many extenuating circumstances explaining why they didn't all hit "undock" at the exact same time to a 10-man wing of bombers or hardcore PVPers is not a good comparison. I used to live in a WH, and we made damn sure we were synchronized as closely as possible to prevent mistakes. All you have to do is find a group of competent players to make perfect synchs.
In my experience in higher-end incursion fleets, tags aren't used as often as "low to mid" level fleets as everyone there knows what to shoot when, and knows how to hold their shots (macharials) and wait for armor hits. There's a reason ISN, for example, shies away from fitting tank rigs and LSEs in favor of Burst rigs, Tracking computers, Sensor Boosters, and Webs. Additionally, one trick you can use to force your overview to update is to left click on a blank piece of space, and tap the CTRL button, which forces the tab to update.
I'm glad you brought up the internet connection, because as I mentioned before, if an ISBoxer disconnects mid VG site, he's guaranteed to have lost at least one ship if not more, depending on the number of scrams on grid. If a single player in a VG fleet disconnects, the logis can lock him up and save him. If the one who dropped *was* a logi, well, there's a reason most VG fleet fits have reppers in the spare highslots.
And no, a fleet of "perfect fleetmates" with perfect discipline will not be less synchronised than a prenerf ISBoxed fleet. Additionally, as I expanded on earlier, they will be less susceptible to EWAR and more able to maneuver to apply their DPS more effectively / mitigate incoming DPS. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:54:37 -
[4128] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:
- ISboxed fleets prenerf had an advantage in synchronisation that cannot be replicated by many individual players due to human error as well as network latencies. This synchronisation is on a input by input basis as well as in forming fleets to partake in activities without delay in waiting for other players.
Bullshit detected, i can hit with 10 fingers 10 different orders in 10 different boxes without even using isboxer.
Eli Apol wrote:
- ISboxed fleets both post AND prenerf have the advantage of condensed layouts enabling easier UI setups than a manual multiboxer using multiple hardware displays and window tiling.
dont blame the Porsche Driver cause he is faster than you in your crap vw polo. or do you blame the guy who is able to buy a better ship in eve than you and crushes you with it? no i dont think so.
Eli Apol wrote:
- ISboxed fleets remove an M from MMO.
MMO. Massively Multiplayer Online..
what M exactly got removed?
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:57:52 -
[4129] - Quote
adding to my previous posting.
if you manage to kill in pvp one box of an isboxer it usually creates a smaller or bigger Problem depending on what ship you just killed.
if you killed his anchor you probably killed his ability to move.
an isboxer driven pvp fleet has a big disadvantage in fights
you normally can only Focus one target. you cant split your fleet up properly, you cant kite properly etc.
i get the feelin about the isboxer haters that they never even played against an isboxer.
otherwise they should have known those Facts.
edit: killed typ0s |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
86
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:46:15 -
[4130] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:Bullshit detected, i can hit with 10 fingers 10 different orders in 10 different boxes without even using isboxer. Yes you can also instantly form a fleet without waiting for any other people. Also if I remember rightly you have 120 keys available on your custom interface...so you can only perform 12 different actions across all clients simultaneously and only ones which have hotkeys enabled. Point still stands.
Charadrass wrote:MMO. Massively Multiplayer Online..
what M exactly got removed?
Multiplayer....want a dictionary?
NETWORK LATENCY AND HUMAN INTERFACE DELAYS FFS. THEY WILL NOT BE AS SYNCHRONISED AS ONE COMPUTER SENDING N COMMANDS SIMULTANEOUSLY THROUGH THE SAME DATA CONNECTION.
Wow it takes a wall of text for you to completely miss the point. |
|
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
353
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:54:47 -
[4131] - Quote
Eli -
While I respect your opinion (assuming I have it correct) that you don't like people doing things in an MMO using alts, your point doesnt hold water for a number of reasons
- EVE Online pales in comparison to the subscribers of other MMO's who have many more players. WOW being a perfect example which allows endless multiboxing, UI customization, Macro's that would certainly get you in trouble in EVE etc.
Why is it WOW can build a successful 11 million playerbase and allow unlimited multiboxing but EVE cannot get past 40k actively logged in users in the past year and thinks limiting multiboxing is going to somehow help the game?
- CCP has spent years, perhaps a decade, pushing people to get alts. There are many game mechanic reasons and also social reasons. They pushed PLEX's, Power of 2 promotions, added mechanics in game where N+1 makes you more likely to win or earn a better income. Also you dont have to trust someone else to rob you blind if you rely more on alts then people. That's the system they put in place WHILE adding alts as an alternative to avoid those issues.
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
86
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:56:56 -
[4132] - Quote
I use alts Shadow but I don't need or see any need to simultaneously control them with duplicated inputs.
WoW is a completely different kettle of fish EvE is niche for reasons beyond multiboxing otherwise why didn't it have 11 million players before the nerf when it effectively DID have unlimited multiboxing? |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:11:15 -
[4133] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:I use alts Shadow but I don't need or see any need to simultaneously control them with duplicated inputs.
WoW is a completely different kettle of fish EvE is niche for reasons beyond multiboxing otherwise why didn't it have 11 million players before the nerf when it effectively DID have unlimited multiboxing?
great News for you, you dont have to, just let the Players do it who want it.
Eli Apol wrote:Yes you can also instantly form a fleet without waiting for any other people. Also if I remember rightly you have 120 keys available on your custom interface...so you can only perform 12 different actions across all clients simultaneously and only ones which have hotkeys enabled. Point still stands.
Since i only 10 box i dont see the Problem with your posting?
i perform 10 Actions on 10 different boxes simultaniously. triggert ALONE by 10 fingers.
So every command is been sent from 1 finger to 1 box. no broadcasting no nothing.
now tell me. do i violate the eula? |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
353
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:21:11 -
[4134] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:
Since i only 10 box i dont see the Problem with your posting?
i perform 10 Actions on 10 different boxes simultaniously. triggert ALONE by 10 fingers.
So every command is been sent from 1 finger to 1 box. no broadcasting no nothing.
now tell me. do i violate the eula?
Yes, technically you have an advantage over another player (if we want to get very technical on the EULA wording).
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
87
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:21:35 -
[4135] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:great News for you, you dont have to, just let the Players do it who want it.
But WHY do they want it? What reason do they require this ability? Why aren't people that want to multibox happy with the change?
My guess is that everyone who's an avid multiboxer is tippytoeing around this answer because it reveals the truth: It gives them an advantage over having to manually do it. It's easier for them to control more alts without having to multiply their own actions physically for each additional alt.
No your setup doesn't breach the EULA if you're actually pressing ten buttons at the same time to provide ten different actions to ten different clients - or even if you do it to send ten commands to the same client for that matter.
Carry on. I hope you don't need to quickly grab your mouse and provide a mouse input whilst you're moving your hands onto your keyboard.
But if you wanted to turn your ten presses into one hundred actions? That would be a breach of the EULA. |
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
77
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:23:36 -
[4136] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:I use alts Shadow but I don't need or see any need to simultaneously control them with duplicated inputs.
WoW is a completely different kettle of fish EvE is niche for reasons beyond multiboxing otherwise why didn't it have 11 million players before the nerf when it effectively DID have unlimited multiboxing?
I see Your in pro synergy, so just to add something,
Launche mtu, launche salvage drones. click f (have nothing targeted) Vola
I can run 3 accounts in that way, each off them on diffrent sites. lol
(without paying pretty mutch anyn attention. and you can do that without isb boxer, or anything. so Yeah. X.x :P
(i did not say what you do or did not do)
idk what else to say, lol. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
89
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:58:13 -
[4137] - Quote
Eh I just joined them cuz I had a boring day with my other alts otherwise indisposed so did some salvaging on the side, I've spend a total of 4 hours salvaging with my noctis alt for them lol.
My usual boxing setup is scout + main, very passive although I can also just about dual box logi if required (if I'm not watching anything on my other monitor) |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
742
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:02:24 -
[4138] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:NETWORK LATENCY AND HUMAN INTERFACE DELAYS FFS. THEY WILL NOT BE AS SYNCHRONISED AS ONE COMPUTER SENDING N COMMANDS SIMULTANEOUSLY THROUGH THE SAME DATA CONNECTION.
Swing and a miss. You just undermined your own argument. Network latency, since we're talking about a group of players all hitting F1 at the same time thereby removing human interface delays, would cause a smaller fleet (the ISBoxer fleet) to be disadvantaged because of the DPS or alpha that he is missing, assuming a post-nerf fleet. For a pre-nerf fleet, again, stop comparing BRAVE pilots to PL. Just because you cannot find ten random people who can F1 at the same time does not mean that they don't exist.
I'm suddenly reminded of a friend who compared ISBoxer to AGDQ/SRA and the Halo Segmented Speedruns. When they were doing their runs, they had to synchronize the weapons, ammo, grenades, and health from segment to segment to maintain continuity. The idea behind the segments was that it was (if I remember correctly) to run a game in the fastest way possible if nothing goes wrong / lucky with spawns / very skilled player. While ISBoxer and Segmented Speedruns share some common themes, the major difference between the two is that if you mess up in EVE with ISBoxer by, say, warping your logi off grid prematurely, you can't "do it over" with no penalty. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
98
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:31:43 -
[4139] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Swing and a miss. You just undermined your own argument. Network latency, since we're talking about a group of players all hitting F1 at the same time thereby removing human interface delays, would cause a smaller fleet (the ISBoxer fleet) to be disadvantaged because of the DPS or alpha that he is missing, assuming a post-nerf fleet. For a pre-nerf fleet, again, stop comparing BRAVE pilots to PL. Just because you cannot find ten random people who can F1 at the same time does not mean that they don't exist.
Yes in a perfect fleet they all press F1 at exactly the same time
- as they hear the command or as their PC receives the broadcasted target = network latency number 1
- and this command is then sent back to the eve server = network latency number 2
Then of course you have the actual reaction time of a human being, which is always >0ms (usually >200ms iirc)
And of course we have the fact that TS for example has it's own server locations and independent pings from the client/tranquility interface and the speed of actually saying commands and the whole CNS interactions required to go from a thought to a vocalisation.
Can you now understand why even with perfect fleet members there is inherently more lag for a fleet consisting of members strewn all around this globe we call home than there is for one person using locally based software to broadcast the same action to multiple clients which then simultaneously send them down the same bit of copper (or glass) tubing to another computer?
Swing and a smash right out the park I'm afraid. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
746
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:53:59 -
[4140] - Quote
You keep going back to comparing an ISBoxer fleet to a pub fleet, and you need to stop.
ISBoxer does not instantaneously broadcast F1 from client 1 to clients 2-10. Most if not all of the VG boxers have made comments regarding the fact that the F1 that's sent to 2-10 seemed at times to be upwards of half a second delayed, and we aren't even going into hiccups in the clients or their connection, or, as I mentioned and you steadfastly ignored, the destruction that occurs when an ISBoxer disconnects.
What I don't understand is why you don't understand why some people like to play the game differently than you do. Some people like to "level their Raven", some like to PVP all day, and others prefer the solitude of a nice quiet null system, to name but a few. We prefer to take our reflexes, know-how, EFT-warrioring, and hardware to a new level. |
|
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
101
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:01:31 -
[4141] - Quote
Fine I'll compare it to 'standard multiboxing using a multimonitor setup'
Which is easier = the one where you can send the same command to each client with one keypress and arrange all the clients into a manipulated UI across one screen.
So it's easier than it's hardware counterpart as well
Or I can compare it to the current allowed use of multiboxing...oh wait, easier again....
So why do you want this? Oh right, it's easier. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
751
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:20:27 -
[4142] - Quote
When you go back to comparing a highly skilled and trained PVP fleet or VG fleet to an ISBox fleet, then we can talk. I already went into great detail as to why manually switching to each window and pressing a button puts the ISBoxer at a disadvantage when compared to an identical fleet, and I'm growing seriously tired of your circular arguing. However, your seemingly willful ignorance of my posts and the number of logical fallacies you participate in is disheartening for the future of this game if this is all it takes to get something removed. Maybe I should start stamping my feet and demand CCP remove all titans; they just might do it. |
ashley Eoner
456
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:22:08 -
[4143] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:adding to my previous posting.
if you manage to kill in pvp one box of an isboxer it usually creates a smaller or bigger Problem depending on what ship you just killed.
if you killed his anchor you probably killed his ability to move.
an isboxer driven pvp fleet has a big disadvantage in fights
you normally can only Focus one target. you cant split your fleet up properly, you cant kite properly etc.
i get the feelin about the isboxer haters that they never even played against an isboxer.
otherwise they should have known those Facts.
edit: killed typ0s
I'm pretty sure you're right as they don't seem to realize even the most basic methods of countering a boxed fleet. If they have fought a boxer then they clearly haven't put any thought into how to defeat the boxer beyond "THAT"S UNFAIR THEY NEED BANNED!!!!"..
Eli Apol wrote:Multiplayer....want a dictionary? The level of fail on this comment is spectacular. So merely loading up isboxer removes everyone else from the game now...
Eli Apol wrote:
NETWORK LATENCY AND HUMAN INTERFACE DELAYS FFS. THEY WILL NOT BE AS SYNCHRONISED AS ONE COMPUTER SENDING N COMMANDS SIMULTANEOUSLY THROUGH THE SAME DATA CONNECTION.
Wow it takes a wall of text for you to completely miss the point.
Which with eves huge ticks doesn't matter much. On the flip side that lag spike the boxer just felt left his entire fleet dead in the water for 10 seconds where as the player fleet only had a couple ships lag for 10 seconds.. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
195
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:34:38 -
[4144] - Quote
Eli,
the big Problem is: isboxer user adapted to the new Change, and they made Setups without broadcasts and Input Multiplexing and still got banned. that is the big Problem we have here.
dont get me wrong, we dont want to violate the eula. we just wanna Play. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
102
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:47:05 -
[4145] - Quote
As for circular arguments, you keep raising points and I keep discrediting them.
The latest one was regarding synchronicity: That ONE player pushing ONE button on ONE keyboard and having multiple commands sent through ONE data connection to a server for some reason will have LESS synchronicity than MANY people pushing MANY buttons on MANY keyboards sending multiple commands through MANY data connections to the server.
Which is absolutely illogical, inconceivable and many other rude words that I'm not gonna bother typing.
And yet you think this is the case.
You then FALSELY claim that I was comparing your ISboxed fleet to a pub fleet lols
Nolak Ataru wrote:You keep going back to comparing an ISBoxer fleet to a pub fleet, and you need to stop.
Just to recap, I compared it to a fleet of mythical perfect pilots with instantaneous reactions and impeccable discipline just to show that even in this impossible scenario, ISboxer is still more synchronised...that is NOT a pub fleet.
FWIW: a pub fleet has one person getting henpecked by his significant other, one who's got a baby on his lap and a three year old poking a raccoon with a stick in the garden, one that doesn't speak English, one that's just sandbagging for free isk, multiple people dualboxing their alts in nullsec, several that have drunk a few quarts of whisky and are singing different songs in different keys and some that are just plain ********. The majority have most of their SP in mining and industry and started flying combat toons last week and have a meta 4 fit.
If you want me to use that comparison instead of the mythical perfect fleet then by all means I'll go ahead.
Hint: It's a lot worse synchronisation than the mythical one.
So yeah circular arguments, fallacies, all out lies, ad hominems, whatever you want to claim of me are just symptoms of yourself.
Nolak Ataru wrote:Maybe I should start stamping my feet and demand CCP remove all titans; they just might do it. After 3 months of doing it in this thread I don't see any reason they'd pay attention to you doing it about Titans either - unless of course you can think of a reason that isn't completely self-serving. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:57:36 -
[4146] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:The latest one was regarding synchronicity: That ONE player pushing ONE button on ONE keyboard and having multiple commands sent through ONE data connection to a server for some reason will have LESS synchronicity than MANY people pushing MANY buttons on MANY keyboards sending multiple commands through MANY data connections to the server.
Which is absolutely illogical, inconceivable and many other rude words that I'm not gonna bother typing.
you are wrong.
a cpu no matter how many cores it has will always work one command at a time per cpu core.
hence 10 boxes running on a quad core cpu will cause the boxes to delayed Actions. even if triggered at the same time.
cause the cpu has to manage 10 eve Clients over 4 or 8 cores.
if we Forget about Overhead for a Minute you might get synchronized Clients within 6 or 7 Clients on a 8 core cpu.
but even that is not synchronized cause Windows takes cpu, and every other running Programm.
when youre on lan for example, and youre sending voice synchronized Action commands to one Server over one Connection but from different Computers, they are better synchronized than a multiboxer on one Computer. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
753
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:24:59 -
[4147] - Quote
Unless the definition of "disprove" was changed in the last six months to "ignore, insult, Kafkatrap, and outright lie", then no you didn't disprove anything I've said. You have not disproved my arguments regarding EWAR or capacitor warfare, you haven't even touched the notion that the ISBoxer risks his entire fleet when the server dies / his net DCs as opposed to the solo player, you plain ignored me when I dared you to show me any way an ISBoxer fleet would out-perform a non-boxed fleet, and you've outright lied just now when you claimed that the ISBoxer fleet still out-performs the PVP fleet because you ignored everything I said about EWAR, DPS, tank, and Logistics. And finally, you projected every single thing you do (fallacies, insults, etc) onto me. Check the last 20 pages, and you'll find more insults, ad hominems, strawmen, True Scotsman, circular arguing, and other general fallacies being used by you than practically everyone else in this thread. If you are the future of debates on the forums, god help us all. |
Marsha Mallow
1989
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:56:06 -
[4148] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: If you are the future of debates on the forums, god help us all.
Karma is a biatch, eh.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
355
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 05:25:30 -
[4149] - Quote
Verisimili, one of the best multiboxers in the game has apparently been banned
He's the one who created this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFdYO9h0H3Y
Showing how to multibox in EVE without using input duplication and using what we thought were allowed usages.
We dont know they aren't allowed, but in CCP's extremely vague definition he was banned per his words. All his isk was confiscated as well.
He had a ticket into CCP asking if there was any issues with what he was doing, their response? Banned without any answer.
Wanna know the WORST part about this?
CCP Falcon stated on 2 podcast's that the best solution was to send in a petition to start a dialogue with CCP. He stated their would be no repercussions and made comments that CCP is looking to help, not ban, its players.
Listen for yourself
http://t.co/Tzs4NYanpu @ 1:14
and
http://show.gamingradio.net/podpress_trac/web/181/0/GRNShow250115.mp3 @ 2:07
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
|
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
77
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:33:18 -
[4150] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Verisimili, one of the best multiboxers in the game has apparently been banned He's the one who created this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFdYO9h0H3Y Showing how to multibox in EVE without using input duplication and using what we thought were allowed usages. We dont know they aren't allowed, but in CCP's extremely vague definition he was banned per his words. All his isk was confiscated as well. He had a ticket into CCP asking if there was any issues with what he was doing, their response? Banned without any answer. Wanna know the WORST part about this? CCP Falcon stated on 2 podcast's that the best solution was to send in a petition to start a dialogue with CCP. He stated their would be no repercussions and made comments that CCP is looking to help, not ban, its players. Listen for yourself http://t.co/Tzs4NYanpu @ 1:14 and http://show.gamingradio.net/podpress_trac/web/181/0/GRNShow250115.mp3 @ 2:07
WHAT, Did he get banned?!?!? he's one off the nicest People i know in eve, And he really enjoys the game... Something is so wrong if he got banned, so wrong. He play's legit in my eyes. And he's paying from him own wallet last time I checked. So this is not fun, its not fair. That's ccp/gm's. over/screwing an loyal customer. Like, if he get banned. Anyone can get banned. Then ccp is at risk banning me too then. (or maby an gm) But this is wrong. It's so wrong.
(idk what to more to say) |
|
|
Dustpuppy
New Eden Ferengi
83
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:37:09 -
[4151] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:
Something is so wrong if he got banned, so wrong. He play's legit in my eyes.
(idk what to more to say)
What more to say? Just check out the linked video about the incursion and then tell me how the program he used there didn't help him to get an advantage over other players which e.g, multibox by using multiple monitors or manually alt-tab through the clients. Just look at the speed he is able to activate/deactivate modules, engage targets etc - no one can do this manually without such a program.
If he really paid for all his 20 accounts with real money then he should visit a doctor because he might be ill or he is really rich. Exchanging isk on the market for in game trading cards/plex doesn't count as paying because he didn't spend real money on it. He just exchanges something he gets for playing the game (isk from multiboxing) for something to keep the accounts active (plex). |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
200
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:15:26 -
[4152] - Quote
you know that he is not faster than a regular fleet, even slower.
so where is an Advantage?
but go on. he was boxing within the rules of the eula and still got banned. |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3943
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:59:53 -
[4153] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post and the one quoting it.
The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
756
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:16:26 -
[4154] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:As for circular arguments, you keep raising points and I keep discrediting them.
The latest one was regarding synchronicity: That ONE player pushing ONE button on ONE keyboard and having multiple commands sent through ONE data connection to a server for some reason will have LESS synchronicity than MANY people pushing MANY buttons on MANY keyboards sending multiple commands through MANY data connections to the server.
You kept bringing up stuff like "reaction times", something that a fleet that's on their toes would not be affected by any more than the ISBoxer. Additionally, the ISBoxer may be some poor guy in Australia, which has some of the slowest, lowest quality internet connections in the world. As for hardware, a single boxer in a fleet has the near-total power of his CPU, RAM (assuming he isn't using Google Chrome with it's atrocious RAM usage) and video card at his disposal to ensure that his single client does not "hiccup" and cause a delay or even loss of commands issued. I used to run 11 clients on an i7 quad core 3.0 ghz cpu with only 8gb of ram. For the record, it is recommended to have 1gb of ram + 1 CPU core / client when running ISBoxer in order to minimize hiccups. I had to upgrade to an AMD 8350 8 core 4.0 ghz CPU and acquire 16gb in extra RAM in order to smooth my boxing out due to a relatively out-dated video card. Additionally, it is recommended to EVE Boxers to turn every graphics option off or to the lowest setting available, which prevents someone from following incoming lasers and locking up the victim beforehand.
Quote:You then FALSELY claim that I was comparing your ISboxed fleet to a pub fleet lols Nolak Ataru wrote:You keep going back to comparing an ISBoxer fleet to a pub fleet, and you need to stop. Just to recap, I compared it to a fleet of mythical perfect pilots with instantaneous reactions and impeccable discipline just to show that even in this impossible scenario, ISboxer is still more synchronised...that is NOT a pub fleet.
You compared it to said perfect fleet but then talked about things such as reaction times, something that a well-disciplined and well trained fleet would not be affected by. I do apologize if I missed a comparison later on where you did not talk about reaction times.
Quote:After 3 months of doing it in this thread I don't see any reason they'd pay attention to you doing it about Titans either - unless of course you can think of a reason that isn't completely self-serving.
Oh look, another personal attack coupled with a Kafkatrap. How quaint. You assume that I only ever come out to talk about ISBoxer issues, when in reality I've been a fairly active member in Missions and Complexes, Ships and Modules, Sell Orders, Want Orders and Trades, General Discussion, and Wormholes. Additionally, if you go went up to any ISBoxer in the game, and ask him for advice, questions, etc. regarding his fleet, his fits, or whatever, 99 times out of 100 he'll be happy to sit down and have a chat. Hell, that's how I first got into multiboxing. I managed to chat with one of the "grandfathers" of VG boxing when I was very new. I was a staunch anti-boxer at the time, though I don't really have a way to prove that without a time machine, and I was initially hostile to the person. However, after sitting down and actually talking to him, he convinced me that ISBoxer was not botting, and that it didn't break the EULA, especially 6A3, as he earned no more ISK than some of the top-level dedicated VG communities.
That being said, I was a supporter and donated ISK to CODE when they first came out because I supported their stance against actual, down-at-the-corner-store-while-program-ran, bots. |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
180
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:35:50 -
[4155] - Quote
Why are people still discussing this when it is done and sorted ? |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
200
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:53:40 -
[4156] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:Why are people still discussing this when it is done and sorted ?
it is not done and sorted? |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
169
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:59:25 -
[4157] - Quote
Uses input duplication at 17s to swap overviews. Uses input duplication when rolling over activation squares to activate his launchers.
Rollovers turn one click + a mouse swipe into N clicks which means it's not one click = one action. This could theoretically be scaled upto having 1 pixel wide squares along the whole top/side of your screen and activating N = screen resolution modules with one click.
Banned for good reason. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
756
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:03:24 -
[4158] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:Why are people still discussing this when it is done and sorted ?
I can think of a few reasons.
1) There is no logic nor reasoning behind this change. Any argument put forward by the CSM or the others in this thread have been soundly thrashed, and nobody can give a reason as to why ISBoxer should be banned whilst other programs which offer tangible advantages are allowed.
2) There have been players banned who have followed the new interpretation of the EULA.
3) CCP Falcon promised, though a CSM member, a sit-down to occur soon after Jan1, and it has not happened and has been denied by CCP ever since.
4) We were told to open tickets to GMs to ask questions regarding our setups, only to be referred to this thread.
5) Upon receiving instructions to ask here, we post our questions here with additional comments regarding how the GM told us to post here.
6) CCP Falcon was just on a podcast telling people to open tickets, even though we just get redirected to the thread.
To name but a few.... |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
169
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:04:48 -
[4159] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:2) There have been players banned who have followed the new interpretation of the EULA.
This is still completely anecdotal, been waiting for your evidence of this for some pages now.
|
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
77
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:10:29 -
[4160] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:2) There have been players banned who have followed the new interpretation of the EULA.
This is still completely anecdotal, been waiting for your evidence of this for some pages now.
It is really so hard to belive? (I got 3 friends who got banned for rmt) they all got unbanned, its like. Ban first, ask questions later.
Edit: -.- |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
756
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:10:49 -
[4161] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:2) There have been players banned who have followed the new interpretation of the EULA.
This is still completely anecdotal, been waiting for your evidence of this for some pages now.
Tell you what. You get CCP to remove the restrictions on posting information in tickets and private GM conversations, and we'll post our proof.
Also, all of your arguments have been purely anecdotal themselves as you've provided no proof that ISBoxer violates the EULA, especially 6A3, and you completely ignored my discussion of hardware in regards to ISBoxer. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6550
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:31:56 -
[4162] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:3) CCP Falcon promised, though a CSM member, a sit-down to occur soon after Jan1, and it has not happened and has been denied by CCP ever since.
Ahh, through a CSM member.
Seems like someone got bait-and-switched.
Or more like bait and "eh did something happen?? *silence*"ed
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Dustpuppy
New Eden Ferengi
83
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:57:34 -
[4163] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:you know that he is not faster than a regular fleet, even slower.
so where is an Advantage?
Don't try to compare the possibilities of a single player using a third party helper program with a fleet operated by multiple real people. Compare it with the possibilities of a player running the same amount of clients on his machine but without this third party program. Then you will see (what I doubt because you don't like the outcome) that the program gives an advantage.
|
Jeanette Leon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:53:19 -
[4164] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:Charadrass wrote:you know that he is not faster than a regular fleet, even slower.
so where is an Advantage? Don't try to compare the possibilities of a single player using a third party helper program with a fleet operated by multiple real people. Compare it with the possibilities of a player running the same amount of clients on his machine but without this third party program. Then you will see (what I doubt because you don't like the outcome) that the program gives an advantage.
why would that be a better to compare? Advantages are on account basis. Don't you like that outcome? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:58:20 -
[4165] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Tell you what. You get CCP to remove the restrictions on posting information in tickets and private GM conversations, and we'll post our proof.
That's never happening and you know it, so you're basically admitting that you have none.
Quote:
Also, all of your arguments have been purely anecdotal themselves as you've provided no proof that ISBoxer violates the EULA, especially 6A3, and you completely ignored my discussion of hardware in regards to ISBoxer.
The opening post of this thread is proof of that. They've explicitly come out and said so. Any interpretation you have contrary to that is automatically invalid.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
756
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:29:56 -
[4166] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Tell you what. You get CCP to remove the restrictions on posting information in tickets and private GM conversations, and we'll post our proof.
That's never happening and you know it, so you're basically admitting that you have none.
That's a "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence" fallacy. If enough people pressure them to rescind this preposterous rule, you'd be flooded with so much evidence you'd believe you were in Japan during the tsunami.
Quote:Also, all of your arguments have been purely anecdotal themselves as you've provided no proof that ISBoxer violates the EULA, especially 6A3, and you completely ignored my discussion of hardware in regards to ISBoxer.
The opening post of this thread is proof of that. They've explicitly come out and said so. Any interpretation you have contrary to that is automatically invalid.[/quote]
Except for a few things:
1) They made no argument or statement attesting or supporting the (false) notion that ISBoxer breaks 6A3
2) That was an appeal to authority fallacy. Basically an example of an appeal to authority is "Because the government said the sky is green, it is green", although in this case it's CCP talking about a program which they have no knowledge or experience with other than they were told it was "pure ebil!" by one corebloodbrothers.
3) Just because CCP said something does not automatically make it true.
4) You *still* haven't given us any argument that ISBoxer breaks 6A3 as interpreted by CCP on a per-character basis, and I now owe my friend $20 from a bet on how long you would go before another fallacy.
5) INB4 "muh reaction times / muh pings": I already countered that argument up before, and you have yet to respond to my argument that the ISBoxer is put at a disadvantage due to the hardware limitations for ISBoxer causing moments of non-responsiveness. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:48:14 -
[4167] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:[
That's a "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence" fallacy.
Nope.
What it is is you claiming to have evidence. But refusing to release said evidence unless under a condition that you know will never, under any circumstance be met.
You're basically demanding that we take it on faith, based solely on your absurd conditions.
And I say no. In fact, I'll happily go so far as to say that I believe you are outright lying.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
756
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:20:06 -
[4168] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:[
That's a "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence" fallacy. Nope. What it is is you claiming to have evidence. But refusing to release said evidence unless under a condition that you know will never, under any circumstance be met. You're basically demanding that we take it on faith, based solely on your absurd conditions. And I say no. In fact, I'll happily go so far as to say that I believe you are outright lying.
I have a massive obelisk of stone. Unfortunately, I cannot bring it to where you are, due to restrictions of the building you are in currently, so you must either come to where I am or find some way to help me bring it to you. Taking pictures of the obelisk is allowed, but you have a security guard standing in front of your building that stops anyone from bringing these pictures in.
I'd love to know what "absurd conditions" you are referring to.
If anyone's demanding people take something on faith, it's you telling us to "Listen and Believe" when you try your best to argue that ISBoxer is BadGäó. You keep dodging my arguments with the agility of a squirrel and you avoid any argument where you have no counterargument or logic to keep your ship afloat like a wino running away from an AA meeting, and you straw-man hard enough to make Dorothy ask you how to get back to Kansas. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11992
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:45:30 -
[4169] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
I'd love to know what "absurd conditions" you are referring to.
You already know, you said them yourself. You know full well that CCP will never, ever lift their prohibition on the posting of GM correspondence.
And since you've decided that your "evidence" is contingent on that, I maintain that you do so solely to avoid having to present it in the first place. And the reason for doing this would be because it does not exist.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
756
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:53:53 -
[4170] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:I'd love to know what "absurd conditions" you are referring to. You already know, you said them yourself. You know full well that CCP will never, ever lift their prohibition on the posting of GM correspondence.
The only reason I can see them continuing to disallow the posting of these tickets and conversations would be 1) to hide the fact that their GMs aren't on the same page as their Devs, and 2) so we can't hold them accountable for changes. Nice job cherry-picking my post though.
I was referring to the "absurd conditions" on the fleet comparisons, and you know it. Nice context fallacy.
Quote:And since you've decided that your "evidence" is contingent on that, I maintain that you do so solely to avoid having to present it in the first place. And the reason for doing this would be because it does not exist.
Come over to the dual-boxing forum, post a thread asking for evidence, and await the replies or PMs. There is no force in the world preventing you from hopping over and saying "hi". I can just about guarantee you that you won't get banned for posting under a different name and asking for information. If we can get a CSM member over there, I don't see why you can't come over either. Heck, you may even learn something. |
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11995
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:59:13 -
[4171] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
The only reason I can see them continuing to disallow the posting of these tickets and conversations would be 1) to hide the fact that their GMs aren't on the same page as their Devs, and 2) so we can't hold them accountable for changes.
Yep. It's entirely to hide the fact that the GM staff is literally making it up as they go. This is most evident in the "You can be perma banned for impersonating yourself" fiasco from a while back.
Doesn't mean they'll ever get rid of it though. Because if they did, they'd have to hire GM staff who actually play the game.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
759
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:17:07 -
[4172] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
The only reason I can see them continuing to disallow the posting of these tickets and conversations would be 1) to hide the fact that their GMs aren't on the same page as their Devs, and 2) so we can't hold them accountable for changes.
Yep. It's entirely to hide the fact that the GM staff is literally making it up as they go. This is most evident in the "You can be perma-banned for impersonating yourself" fiasco from a while back. Doesn't mean they'll ever get rid of it though. Because if they did, they'd have to hire GM staff who actually play the game.
I'd like to take "I didn't read the thread" for 500, Alex!
In case you didn't read the thread, allow me to reiterate:
We were told by CCP to submit tickets asking about ISBoxer.
We submit these tickets.
GMs tell us to ask our questions in this thread.
We post in this thread.
CCP doesn't respond.
If CCP has a lack of GMs (or Devs) who play the game, I'd be more than happy to start working for them. I think it'd be a wonderful experience |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
187
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:12:23 -
[4173] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
The only reason I can see them continuing to disallow the posting of these tickets and conversations would be 1) to hide the fact that their GMs aren't on the same page as their Devs, and 2) so we can't hold them accountable for changes.
Yep. It's entirely to hide the fact that the GM staff is literally making it up as they go. This is most evident in the "You can be perma-banned for impersonating yourself" fiasco from a while back. Doesn't mean they'll ever get rid of it though. Because if they did, they'd have to hire GM staff who actually play the game. I'd like to take "I didn't read the thread" for 500, Alex! In case you didn't read the thread, allow me to reiterate: We were told by CCP to submit tickets asking about ISBoxer. We submit these tickets. GMs tell us to ask our questions in this thread. We post in this thread. CCP doesn't respond. If CCP has a lack of GMs (or Devs) who play the game, I'd be more than happy to start working for them. I think it'd be a wonderful experience
they responded. Just not in a manner you find satisfactory. they leave this thread open to cut down on new one being created. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
759
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:31:19 -
[4174] - Quote
If your boss posts an announcement regarding an office change, and tells you to go to HR with questions, you kinda expect HR to be able to answer the questions, not to tell you to go bother your boss. But when you *do* go back to your boss to ask him, his office is empty, the door is locked, the lights are off, and his car is gone. And he doesn't show up for five months.
e: Forgot to add that he promised to come into work after one month + a few days, but so far he hasn't shown up. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
200
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:45:19 -
[4175] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: But when you *do* go back to your boss to ask him, his office is empty, the door is locked, the lights are off, and his car is gone. And he doesn't show up for five months.
sounds exactly like ccp... |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6558
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:05:43 -
[4176] - Quote
Basically you got ganked by CCP's top skill: "never actually answer hard questions"
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
759
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:05:08 -
[4177] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Basically you got ganked by CCP's top skill: "never actually answer hard questions"
ccp plz nerf ccp |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:35:25 -
[4178] - Quote
ccp plz nerf ccp
Second this motion. |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
83
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 17:09:16 -
[4179] - Quote
Finally this thread is moving in a progressive direction. |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 04:50:26 -
[4180] - Quote
Sooooo, bout that response CCP.... [and to the petition i have in, other than a gm asking me if i know how to play eve, thanks] |
|
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
200
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 10:14:21 -
[4181] - Quote
still waitin... |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6574
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 07:36:16 -
[4182] - Quote
Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:Sooooo, bout that response CCP.... [and to the petition i have in, other than a gm asking me if i know how to play eve, thanks]
Well, do you know how to play eve?
A bit odd of a question...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
361
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 07:43:10 -
[4183] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Basically you got ganked by CCP's top skill: "never actually answer hard questions"
Whats the training multiplier for that one? I hope it is at least 12X
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
|
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 20:50:31 -
[4184] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:Sooooo, bout that response CCP.... [and to the petition i have in, other than a gm asking me if i know how to play eve, thanks] Well, do you know how to play eve? A bit odd of a question...
Yea. I'm from 07 with my main. I've done ~almost~ everything conceivable in eve [except pilot or build titans/supers, out of lack of interest] |
Wolf Kruol
Hikaru's Dozen
73
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 03:44:22 -
[4185] - Quote
I like these changes.. I think this will add alot new value to the game that gives every joe capsuleer a chance to cause mayhem and destruction.. or change and creation, depending on which side your on..
I also see goons scared.... wow full goonie propaganda machine working hard to spam chats... I assure you goonies I'll be deep in your system camping it waiting patiently to break your comfort zone.. :) Good times coming.
GÇ£If you're very very stupid? How can you possibly realize you're very very stupid?
You have to be relatively intelligent to realize how stupid you really are!GÇ¥
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
365
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 06:30:41 -
[4186] - Quote
Wolf Kruol wrote:I like these changes.. I think this will add alot new value to the game that gives every joe capsuleer a chance to cause mayhem and destruction.. or change and creation, depending on which side your on.. I also see goons scared.... wow full goonie propaganda machine working hard to spam chats... I assure you goonies I'll be deep in your system camping it waiting patiently to break your comfort zone.. :) Good times coming.
1st, I think you posted in the wrong thread.
2nd, Goons and the other large groups in Nulsec are going to benefit so much from coming changes it simply boggles the mind.
They have already planned out the best way to "break" the new sov mechanics, so no need for tears there.
** I'm not a Goon or affiliated with any of the large coalitions who's "comfort zone" your patiently waiting to break and i wish you the best of luck in your efforts. Just be sure to have plenty of isk in the bank to replace the ships you will lose to Goon harpy fleets. I imagine you will be a nice distraction for a few of them, until you give up and go back to mission running.
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
|
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 06:33:06 -
[4187] - Quote
Lol wrong thread guy. And lol at oodle causing drama still hate to say we told u so but...... We told u so. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:40:06 -
[4188] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:I'm still playing and multiboxing VGs.
I also know of at least one other fellow who uses isboxer but he only uses videoFX (like me) and he isn't banned either.
Please be sure to give an email address to one of your ingame friends because if CCP decide you are breaking the rules (as suggested by CCP Pelligro) and ban you, your friend can come to this thread to let us know. Do keep in mind though, the new rules rely heavily on "Player Policing" . Maybe you and the other person you know just haven't been reported yet so hadn't come to CCP's attention. You did just remove the need for player policing though by advertising your breach of the rules (as per CCP Pelligro) on the forums. Just out of curiosity in what forum post does it say using VideoFX is now a bannable offense? Can you link it? The original post containing the full message was removed by ISD but This Post has the part about video fx and round robin. The account that posted the supposed statement from a GM has no post history outside of trolling boxers in this thread. That very same account considers it cheating to multibox at all. I would take anything said by that account with less than a grain of salt. There has been at least two boxers who use videoFX who posted in this thread with videos and they are still playing. The assault guy is pushing the videofx farther though.
Yes you are correct, I only use this account for the posts I posted because I don't really use it for anything else and I'd rather not use my main, or an alt I use often. Fact is I posted what I was sent, period. So what's your point? |
Trakow
Beta Switch
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:42:17 -
[4189] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:I suspect it's bullshit. The guy said what was told to him via a support ticket. If that really happened they would have at least locked the thread and/or removed his post.
I have a ticket open. Hopefully it doesn't take forever to get answers.
They DID remove my post, or at least edited it : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5463343#post5463343 |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 02:52:42 -
[4190] - Quote
CCP; i don't know how else to get a response from you thats real and no copy pasta gms except filing suite.... Don't make me. |
|
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
200
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 09:25:11 -
[4191] - Quote
still waiting for an official answer... |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 10:41:52 -
[4192] - Quote
I honestly don't think we'll get one chara. CCP is too busy listening to the majority and catering...
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j6eH0jEy_UzKAsk792kYQcf-XBOxDau_pgF-mJFLJ1o/edit
Yep.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
776
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 12:27:23 -
[4193] - Quote
Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:I honestly don't think we'll get one chara. CCP is too busy listening to the vocal minority and catering...
FTFY |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
201
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 10:57:42 -
[4194] - Quote
i dont have numbers about who is minority and who is majority but that doesnt matter either. ccp has to answer to even one Person asking a question.
and that is not Happening
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
776
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 17:48:13 -
[4195] - Quote
Just wrote a small essay on ISBoxing. |
dave fromheadoffice
Grumpy Old Farts
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 21:09:42 -
[4196] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:If your boss posts an announcement regarding an office change, and tells you to go to HR with questions, you kinda expect HR to be able to answer the questions, not to tell you to go bother your boss. But when you *do* go back to your boss to ask him, his office is empty, the door is locked, the lights are off, and his car is gone. And he doesn't show up for five months.
e: Forgot to add that he promised to come into work after one month + a few days, but so far he hasn't shown up.
e2: And any attempt to take HR's statements and orders to talk to your boss anywhere means you might get fired.
Except, we're all playing a game, we're not employee's, they are the game masters, they don't have to justify reasons for banning someone, if you were on say a counterstrike server for instance an administration could ban you and wouldn't have to justify the reason
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
205
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 22:09:40 -
[4197] - Quote
dave fromheadoffice wrote:
Except, we're all playing a game, we're not employee's, they are the game masters, they don't have to justify reasons for banning someone, if you were on say a counterstrike server for instance an administration could ban you and wouldn't have to justify the reason
Even worse, we are paying them to work FOR us. and they are declining our requests to answer questions atm.
Edith says: since when do counterstrike Servers costs you Money if youre playing on public and getting banned? |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
777
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 01:53:00 -
[4198] - Quote
dave fromheadoffice wrote:Except, we're all playing a game, we're not employee's, they are the game masters, they don't have to justify reasons for banning someone, if you were on say a counterstrike server for instance an administration could ban you and wouldn't have to justify the reason
For one thing, I don't pay to play on his CS server.
But alright, let's work with the "customer" analogy, even though I really do hate it after working 3 years in retail.
I'm a customer of a company. They offer a membership with clearly outlined rules and regulations as well as incentives that can be earned if you go to company activities (picnics, paintball games, kayak races, etc). There are no penalties if you sign up your friends and families, indeed you are given rewards for signing them up and playing with them. You can alternatively spend incentives to penalize or set back others, much in the same way as The Amazing Race. I make sure I follow all their rules and regulations to the letter, I pay my dues, and the company generally acts in a logical manner. They write up long explanations explaining the reasoning behind their actions, and (used to) listen to players when they talked about changes to the rules and regulations. Now, all of a sudden, they make an irrational and illogical change after a select few individuals complain that I play with my friends and family too much, or that I am able to choose the right people to penalize.
Not the best comparison, I'll admit, but it was the only thing I could think of in such a short time. |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 12:04:44 -
[4199] - Quote
Yeah. Pretty sure that I'm paying for a service; as such, a company ~SHOULD~ be able to answer my "customers" questions [or the ones other "customers" asked]. Ignoring said customers is going to be a thing of the past if CCP wants long-term survivability.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j6eH0jEy_UzKAsk792kYQcf-XBOxDau_pgF-mJFLJ1o/edit
Yep.
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
206
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 12:09:06 -
[4200] - Quote
Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:Yeah. Pretty sure that I'm paying for a service; as such, a company ~SHOULD~ be able to answer my "customers" questions [or the ones other "customers" asked]. Ignoring said customers is going to be a thing of the past if CCP wants long-term survivability.
CCPs Long lone walk towards star citizen and elite dangerous compatibility.
i cant explain it otherwise why they are trying to achieve those changes. |
|
|
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 12:27:15 -
[4201] - Quote
@ Chara; if CCP is indeed walking towards their playstyles, they'll fail miserably. Not only will they no longer be unique, they'll fail at being better at the same playstyle. Just look at how dust turned out.... or... ;)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j6eH0jEy_UzKAsk792kYQcf-XBOxDau_pgF-mJFLJ1o/edit
Yep.
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
206
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 16:23:36 -
[4202] - Quote
Universum like No Man's Sky.
Elite Dangerous for PvP.
Microtransactions like in StarCitizen.
CCP must be really desperate.
Plus i am pretty sure that they don't care about their old memberbase. they think they can fill up with new Players instead of keeping the old ones. that is why all those changes are around the Corner. |
Marsha Mallow
2031
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 17:25:49 -
[4203] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:But alright, let's work with the "customer" analogy, even though I really do hate it after working 3 years in retail.
Customer analogy in practice.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Relax, it is only a game and elections work on popularity, not competence.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 17:55:46 -
[4204] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:But alright, let's work with the "customer" analogy, even though I really do hate it after working 3 years in retail. Customer analogy in practice.
Like I said, it wasn't the best comparison. However, that comic strikes me as odd for multiple reasons.
1) As far as we can tell, the only reason he's being booted is for drinking too much, if such a thing can be possible. He hasn't damaged property, or caused other people to leave, as far as we can tell.
2) Bars make money on people who drink alcohol.
3) If a bar has a reputation for tossing out anyone for anything, they will indeed go out of business.
4) For repeat customers, or "regulars" of an establishment, arbitrary rule changes may cause them to leave, or at the very least, reduce their consumption / shopping at aforementioned establishment.
If I know a customer, and know that he stops by every day for a coffee and a pack of smokes at 9:30 AM, and he's a nice fellow, I'm going to try to have fresh coffee in the pot and his smokes on the counter ready to be rung up when he walks in the door. |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 18:19:56 -
[4205] - Quote
Nolak, We're talking about how business was done pre-21st century, it isnt CCP's fault da bidness place is just scammin and schemein to "cash cow" it up. Except instead of having the coffee ready and a pack on the table, its the societal norm to change out the good coffee for the offbrand grit, and the fav pack to a overpriced cigar.
/sarc because most people can't identify /sarc
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j6eH0jEy_UzKAsk792kYQcf-XBOxDau_pgF-mJFLJ1o/edit
Yep.
|
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 19:52:24 -
[4206] - Quote
CCP; i'd like to reiterate my mentors long-old question about micro transactions; Can we have a option to buy isk-destroying ammo? thanks.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j6eH0jEy_UzKAsk792kYQcf-XBOxDau_pgF-mJFLJ1o/edit
Yep.
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4068
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 22:38:01 -
[4207] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them.
The Rules:
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Marsha Mallow
2033
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 22:49:58 -
[4208] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:The irony if you telling me to put more effort is simply astounding. Please come back when you have something to say on the ISBoxer issue that isn't a fallacy or a Kafkatrap.
If you missed everything in that image it's possible you are immune to irony. Although it's very much a British phrase.
I was going to comment that your three years in retail delivering papers, flipping burgers, working in the school tuckshop and/or giving out favours behind the bikeshed might not count as relevant experience but it seemed a bit bitchy. Having said that I didn't write a 2740 word 'essay' justifying botting on an MMO as a spotty virginal teen, spaz out on 7 forums, utter phrases like 'kafkaeque falllacy' and join Goonswarm - because at the time I was too busy misbehaving IRL. Starting to wonder if I've missed out on some real debauchery here.
I noticed there's a spot [21st March 16.00] at the HairBearConvention dedicated to RMT, Botting... and you
Are any of you planning to attend? Will you be dressing up - and if so, what as?
*squints at Ezwal*
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Relax, it is only a game and elections work on popularity, not competence.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 23:57:44 -
[4209] - Quote
I counted 5 personal attacks and insults in your opening paragraph.
The phrase I used was "Kafkatrap", not "kafkaesque fallacy". Please re-read what I said.
I joined Goonswarm because I wanted to try my hand at FCing fleets in nullsec and helping new players who wanted to PVP, not to constantly insult players on the forums using the intelligence a five year old had outgrown.
And finally, my studies keep me away from the convention so you may rest easy knowing I won't be there. Studying aside, I have not the money to travel to Iceland on a whim because I used that money for my latest Lamborghini. /sarcasm
Have a nice day, and I hope you can one day articulate the reasons why you believe ISBoxer to be akin to botting instead of resorting to the sort of ****-slinging that we usually see from apes in a zoo. |
Marsha Mallow
2033
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 00:05:21 -
[4210] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:I counted 5 personal attacks and insults in your opening paragraph.
The phrase I used was "Kafkatrap", not "kafkaesque fallacy". Please re-read what I said.
I joined Goonswarm because I wanted to try my hand at FCing fleets in nullsec and helping new players who wanted to PVP, not to constantly insult players on the forums using the intelligence a five year old had outgrown.
And finally, my studies keep me away from the convention so you may rest easy knowing I won't be there. Studying aside, I have not the money to travel to Iceland on a whim because I used that money for my latest Lamborghini. /sarcasm
Have a nice day, and I hope you can one day articulate the reasons why you believe ISBoxer to be akin to botting instead of resorting to the sort of ****-slinging that we usually see from apes in a zoo.
I accept your gracious surrender
o7
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Relax, it is only a game and elections work on popularity, not competence.
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 00:11:52 -
[4211] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:I counted 5 personal attacks and insults in your opening paragraph.
The phrase I used was "Kafkatrap", not "kafkaesque fallacy". Please re-read what I said.
I joined Goonswarm because I wanted to try my hand at FCing fleets in nullsec and helping new players who wanted to PVP, not to constantly insult players on the forums using the intelligence a five year old had outgrown.
And finally, my studies keep me away from the convention so you may rest easy knowing I won't be there. Studying aside, I have not the money to travel to Iceland on a whim because I used that money for my latest Lamborghini. /sarcasm
Have a nice day, and I hope you can one day articulate the reasons why you believe ISBoxer to be akin to botting instead of resorting to the sort of ****-slinging that we usually see from apes in a zoo. I accept your gracious surrendero7 ps. there were 13 insults
I was lumping a few of them together, and I accept the fact that you have no argument to present against ISBoxer as your surrender. |
Marsha Mallow
2034
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 00:14:21 -
[4212] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: I accept the fact that you have no argument to present against ISBoxer as your surrender.
Nope, no mercy
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Relax, it is only a game and elections work on popularity, not competence.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 00:53:40 -
[4213] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote: I accept the fact that you have no argument to present against ISBoxer as your surrender. Nope, no mercy
Yes really. |
Marsha Mallow
2035
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 01:11:47 -
[4214] - Quote
'BrainyQuote' eh
Stop trying so hard
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Relax, it is only a game and elections work on popularity, not competence.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 01:27:05 -
[4215] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:'BrainyQuote' eh Stop trying so hard
Uh huh. |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 09:34:34 -
[4216] - Quote
Anyone got valid counter-arguement without throwing around insults? I'm all for civilized discussion.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4071
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 09:47:47 -
[4217] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.
The Rules:
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
Edit: Marsha Mallow wrote:Are any of you planning to attend? Will you be dressing up - and if so, what as? Yes. And as always I will be dressed as my usual. Which is probably deviating from the general norm slightly.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Bobbyd
Kenshin.
DARKNESS.
75
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 10:49:56 -
[4218] - Quote
well written, can the devs and other players read this and understand what ISBoxer is and does, not a hack/ mod or automation just a tool that makes eve fun,
|
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 18:02:55 -
[4219] - Quote
Ezwal; Instead of moderating this thread into oblivion, why not, i donno, call CCP and tell them to talk to its customers?
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
206
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 09:38:05 -
[4220] - Quote
then he might loses his "job"...
funny huh? he doesnt even get paid and is "working"
ccp is getting paid and i dont see them working. |
|
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
719
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 11:23:58 -
[4221] - Quote
Keep up the good work CCP.
Please continue to ban all the people who feel they have a right to cheat when playing a computer game, whether they use Isboxer or any other means to do so. Kick them out of the game for good. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
784
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 12:30:42 -
[4222] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Keep up the good work CCP. Please continue to ban all the people who feel they have a right to cheat when playing a computer game, whether they use Isboxer or any other means to do so. Kick them out of the game for good.
Quote: ISboxer = cheating
[Citation Needed] |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
721
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 12:41:31 -
[4223] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Keep up the good work CCP. Please continue to ban all the people who feel they have a right to cheat when playing a computer game, whether they use Isboxer or any other means to do so. Kick them out of the game for good. Nolak Ataru wrote: ISboxer = cheating [Citation Needed]
Isboxer does not equal cheating if you think that then you have no clue as to what Isboxer actually is.
Can Isboxer be used to cheat? Yes it can and its those people who need banning. The same should also apply to all people who cheat no matter what they use to accomplish said cheating.
I mentioned Isboxer by name as this thread is about multiboxing and input automation and Isboxer happens to be the most well known program that can be used for that purpose.
Yes it can also be used without the cheating aspects so you are wrong Isboxer does not equal cheating.
So, once again good job CCP ban all the cheats and make Eve a better place. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
784
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 13:42:33 -
[4224] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Keep up the good work CCP. Please continue to ban all the people who feel they have a right to cheat when playing a computer game, whether they use Isboxer or any other means to do so. Kick them out of the game for good. Nolak Ataru wrote: ISboxer = cheating [Citation Needed] Isboxer does not equal cheating if you think that then you have no clue as to what Isboxer actually is. Can Isboxer be used to cheat? Yes it can and its those people who need banning. The same should also apply to all people who cheat no matter what they use to accomplish said cheating. I mentioned Isboxer by name as this thread is about multiboxing and input automation and Isboxer happens to be the most well known program that can be used for that purpose. Yes it can also be used without the cheating aspects so you are wrong Isboxer does not equal cheating. So, once again good job CCP ban all the cheats and make Eve a better place.
You misinterpreted my statement and proved you didn't read the last 20 pages of this thread. I was saying you needed citations / evidence for your claim that ISBoxer = cheating.
While yes, you can theoretically use ISBoxer, you must have an advanced knowledge of Python and the underlying code of Inner Space in order to make it possibly work. But then you go into the "guilty before proven innocent" line of thinking that we're told again and again in Criminal Justice classes to avoid. Person X is driving through a seedy part of town on her way home. She may indeed be a drug dealer, but we can't pull her over unless we see something or have proof or probable cause. Just because a person may be walking down Clay Street doesn't mean he's guilty of a crime.
But let's move this to a separate setting. Let's talk about tax fraud for a moment. I use TurboTax to defraud the IRS for $2 million. I get caught, and tossed in jail. Is TurboTax (the company or the programmers) culpable? No. |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 14:39:44 -
[4225] - Quote
Archi; Are you a CCP shill?
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
ashley Eoner
459
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 23:41:10 -
[4226] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Keep up the good work CCP. Please continue to ban all the people who feel they have a right to cheat when playing a computer game, whether they use Isboxer or any other means to do so. Kick them out of the game for good. Nolak Ataru wrote: ISboxer = cheating [Citation Needed] Isboxer does not equal cheating if you think that then you have no clue as to what Isboxer actually is. Can Isboxer be used to cheat? Yes it can and its those people who need banning. The same should also apply to all people who cheat no matter what they use to accomplish said cheating. I mentioned Isboxer by name as this thread is about multiboxing and input automation and Isboxer happens to be the most well known program that can be used for that purpose. Yes it can also be used without the cheating aspects so you are wrong Isboxer does not equal cheating. So, once again good job CCP ban all the cheats and make Eve a better place.
Your operating system can be used to cheat.. Christ almighty smarter trolls please.
Isboxer doesn't automated input without severe high level coding type modifications. You'd be better off using one of the readily available bot programs if you wanted to do that.
CCP didn't ban anything outside of being "too good" at the game.. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
721
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 01:18:48 -
[4227] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
You misinterpreted my statement and proved you didn't read the last 20 pages of this thread. I was saying you needed citations / evidence for your claim that ISBoxer = cheating.
I have never claimed that Isboxer = cheating. I think you'll find I clearly said the opposite, so I'm going to have to insist you stop lying about what I've written.
I haven't read the last 20 pages. I read the first 20(ish) pages and decided to show my support for CCP's actions in banning those people that cheat (as in break the EULA/TOS). For some reason you decided to pick an argument with me.
I don't know which part of CCP banning the cheats and me thinking Eve is a better game without them you disagree with? If you are happy for CCP not to enforce the EULA/TOS and think Eve is better with the cheats still around, then that is fine. You are entitled to your own opinion.
Nolak Ataru wrote:While yes, you can theoretically use ISBoxer, you must have an advanced knowledge of Python and the underlying code of Inner Space in order to make it possibly work.
You're thinking of an out and out botting program there. Isboxer is not a botting program.
As for the rest of your post, I would like to add water is wet. Innocent until proven guilty and the dangers of assuming guilt by association are such basic concepts I have to wonder why you felt the need to state the bleedin' obvious. Just because you need telling 'again and again in Criminal Justice class' doesn't mean any one else needs to have the basic principles of law and order explained to them.
It did however make me go back and read the later parts of the thread to see why you are so defensive about cheats being banned from the game. I came up with 2 conclusions. The first being you don't think CCP banning Input Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing was the correct action to take. In which case I would lobby CCP to change it, a CSM might be a good person to do this.
Secondly, I get the impression you think CCP is not only banning people who use Isboxer to cheat, but is also just banning people who use Isboxer. (If this is not the case, let me know and I'll stike this part through)
The first thing to say is [Citation needed] you can't go around throwing that phrase at people and not provide your own.
Now I'm going to do a bit of stating the bleedin' obvious myself. When people get caught doing something they shouldn't be doing, they lie in an attempt to avoid the punishment. If your Criminal Justice class hasn't already covered this I'm sure they will. One of the ways they do this is by the half truth.
eg; A player gets caught using Input Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing (via Isboxer) and is banned by CCP. This player doesn't want his account banned so he claims he was using Isboxer but only using the parts of the program that are allowed in an attempt to garner support and cloud the issue enough for CCP to bow to public pressure and let the infraction slide.
CCP has far more information on whether a player is breaking the EULA/TOS then we ever will. So when you are looking for your proof that CCP is banning anyone who is using Isboxer, that proof is not just a player claiming they were just using the parts of Isboxer that are allowed. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
721
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 01:27:35 -
[4228] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:
Your operating system can be used to cheat.. Christ almighty smarter trolls please.
Yes and guess what. CCP don't ban people for using their operating system and they don't ban people for using Isboxer(or other multi-boxing software).
They do ban people for using Isboxer to cheat(as in break the EULA/TOS) and I would expect them also to ban people if they use any other means to cheat.
ashley Eoner wrote:Isboxer doesn't automated input without severe high level coding type modifications. You'd be better off using one of the readily available bot programs if you wanted to do that.
CCP didn't ban anything outside of being "too good" at the game..
Once again, I only came here to post my support for CCP banning the cheats and to state I think Eve is better without them. If you disagree with that, then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
Being ok with playing the game with cheats, does not give you the right to start name calling. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
785
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 02:53:52 -
[4229] - Quote
What part of input broadcasting do you consider to be a cheat? CCP has always had an anti-bot policy which has been enforced regularly which makes your statements strange regarding this change. I wrote a 7 page essay on the subject and the only sentient thing I've gotten in reply was worded in such a way as to curl the hair on your grandmother's head. I've received so much harassment over this thing that my spam folder is envious of my hate folder. So you'll please excuse me if I search far and wide for someone, ANYONE, who can give me a legitimate reason why input broadcasting breaks the EULA, and ask anyone who mentions it to explain.
As for my citation, I've given links to the dual-boxing threads, but I cannot provide actual proof on the EVE-O forums unless CCP removes their ban on GM / Dev correspondences. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
721
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 08:37:09 -
[4230] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:What part of input broadcasting do you consider to be a cheat?
I consider the input broadcasting part of input broadcasting to be cheating. In the same way that I consider a player who rugby tackles in a game of football a cheat. Eve is a game, it has rules and the people who won't play by those rules need to be banned so the other players can enjoy playing the game without them.
Nolak Ataru wrote: CCP has always had an anti-bot policy which has been enforced regularly which makes your statements strange regarding this change.
Stop lying about I've said.
Nolak Ataru wrote: I wrote a 7 page essay on the subject and the only sentient thing I've gotten in reply was worded in such a way as to curl the hair on your grandmother's head. I've received so much harassment over this thing that my spam folder is envious of my hate folder. So you'll please excuse me if I search far and wide for someone, ANYONE, who can give me a legitimate reason why input broadcasting breaks the EULA, and ask anyone who mentions it to explain.
I imagine you get negative responses because you lie about what other people say. That has a habit of rubbing people up the wrong way.
As for why input broadcasting breaks the EULA. Its simple, CCP says it does and they have a lot more information about the subject than either of us. If you disagree lobby CCP to change their minds. Picking arguments and lying on their forums is not going to help.
Nolak Ataru wrote:As for my citation, I've given links to the dual-boxing threads, but I cannot provide actual proof on the EVE-O forums unless CCP removes their ban on GM / Dev correspondences.
So you have no proof. Rumor mongering on the forums is against the rules by the way,.
I used to afk camp multi-boxer in nullsec whilst I went to work. I still have some of them on my contacts lists and most of them are still active. The only one that replied to my enquiry confirmed he still uses Isboxer. So CCP does not just ban people if they use Isboxer. They only ban people who use Isboxer to cheat.
Now I'm going to go right back to my original post.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Keep up the good work CCP. Please continue to ban all the people who feel they have a right to cheat when playing a computer game, whether they use Isboxer or any other means to do so. Kick them out of the game for good.
I'm genuinely curious why you picked an argument with me over this.
Don't you think people who break the EULA/TOS should be banned?
Don't you think Eve is better without the cheats?
The same applies to any game. If you play a sport, would you prefer to play against people who cheat or would you want he games authorities to remove them from the game so the majority that don't cheat can play together.
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
785
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 12:37:52 -
[4231] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:I consider the input broadcasting part of input broadcasting to be cheating. In the same way that I consider a player who rugby tackles in a game of football a cheat. Eve is a game, it has rules and the people who won't play by those rules need to be banned so the other players can enjoy playing the game without them.
I do hope you realize that input broadcasting was only recently ruled a cheat, and only because CSM corebloodbrother pestered CCP long enough to get them to change it. And you still haven't told me *why* input broadcasting is cheating other than an appeal to authority fallacy. Additionally, from a simple video of "rugby tackle" they appear to be legal in football, or at least the ones demonstrated in the video I watched.
Quote:I imagine you get negative responses because you lie about what other people say. That has a habit of rubbing people up the wrong way.
[Citation Needed]. Please tell me where I "lied".
As for why input broadcasting breaks the EULA. Its simple, CCP says it does and they have a lot more information about the subject than either of us. If you disagree lobby CCP to change their minds. Picking arguments and lying on their forums is not going to help.
Quote:So you have no proof. Rumor mongering on the forums is against the rules by the way
Absence of evidence on these forums does not equal evidence of absence, especially with CCP's ban on posting tickets, GM correspondences, and other such information.
Quote:I used to afk camp multi-boxer in nullsec whilst I went to work. I still have some of them on my contacts lists and most of them are still active. The only one that replied to my enquiry confirmed he still uses Isboxer. So CCP does not just ban people if they use Isboxer. They only ban people who use Isboxer to cheat.
Actually they just banned a 5-boxer who uses ISBoxer to swap windows and limit framerates while he was mining in a belt.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Keep up the good work CCP. Please continue to ban all the people who feel they have a right to cheat when playing a computer game, whether they use Isboxer or any other means to do so. Kick them out of the game for good.
I'm genuinely curious why you picked an argument with me over this.
Don't you think people who break the EULA/TOS should be banned?
Don't you think Eve is better without the cheats?
The same applies to any game. If you play a sport, would you prefer to play against people who cheat or would you want he games authorities to remove them from the game so the majority that don't cheat can play together.
[/quote]
I "picked an argument", as you say, because I grew up in a system where if you didn't defend your beliefs, or couldn't articulate why you believe a certain way, then they held no value and could be dismissed. Is it so wrong to ask someone to justify or back up why they think a certain thing is "cheating"? As much as I hate it, you sound awfully like those who hate on fleet boosters in PVP because they consider it "cheating".
I do think EVE is better without bots, and without hacks or market-updaters that operate in seconds. One reason I used to run my own FPS servers is because of the ability to remove hackers who evaded the detection programs. I however do not believe that ISBoxer's input broadcasting function is any of these, nor that it violates the EULA. I do not believe that it can be considered anything other than a tool to mimic multiple players in a fleet, with all of the downsides and very little of the advantages. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12173
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 02:00:58 -
[4232] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Additionally, even by a strict interpretation of the EULA, rollovers and round robin aren't in violation of the EULA, yet we keep getting banned for it.
Then stop doing it already. Clearly CCP disagrees with your self deluded interpretation of the EULA, and theirs is the only opinion that matters.
Why are you lot so stubbornly dead set on cheating?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
725
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 08:12:09 -
[4233] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: [Citation Needed]. Please tell me where I "lied".
Post 3826. You claimed I said Isboxer = cheating
You lied.
Post 3831. You claimed I made a strange statement regarding a change in CCP's anti-bot policy.
You lied.
You do realise that every time you go [citation needed] and then continue to be either unwilling or unable to provide any yourself you become a hypocrite. That's 2 not particularly pleasant personality traits you are displaying.
Nolak Ataru wrote: I however do not believe that ISBoxer's input broadcasting function is any of these, nor that it violates the EULA.
What you believe doesn't matter. Eve is a game and like all games it has rules. CCP decides those rules. CCP interprets those rules. CCP judges whether someone is breaking those rules. You don't have to like it but if you want to play the game you need to play within the rules.
Nolak Ataru wrote:I do hope you realize that input broadcasting was only recently ruled a cheat, and only because CSM corebloodbrother pestered CCP long enough to get them to change it.
[Citation neede] Actually don't bother as it makes no difference if you are still lying.
If you believe a CSM has enough influence over CCP to change the rules of the game, then you are in a good position. Goonswarm typically gets a couple of good representatives onto the CSM each time. If your argument for allowing Isboxer is as strong as you think it is, then you should have no problem getting a CSM member to back you. You might want to stop the lying and hypocrisy if you contact them as no-one likes that sort of behavior.
Nolak Ataru wrote:I do think EVE is better without bots, and without hacks or market-updaters that operate in seconds. One reason I used to run my own FPS servers is because of the ability to remove hackers who evaded the detection programs.
I agree with you here. I too think Eve is a better place without the cheats. Although in a FPS game you can use your own server to remove the cheats you can't do that in Eve. The only way to remove cheats in Eve is for CCP to do it. So if you also think Eve is better without the cheats and that CCP is right to ban the cheats (You can not think one without the other due to the nature of Eve's single server model). Then why on earth did you start an argument over my first post?
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Keep up the good work CCP.
Please continue to ban all the people who feel they have a right to cheat when playing a computer game, whether they use Isboxer or any other means to do so. Kick them out of the game for good. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
206
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 09:20:11 -
[4234] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Additionally, even by a strict interpretation of the EULA, rollovers and round robin aren't in violation of the EULA, yet we keep getting banned for it. Then stop doing it already. Clearly CCP disagrees with your self deluded interpretation of the EULA, and theirs is the only opinion that matters. Why are you lot so stubbornly dead set on cheating?
Are you dumb or just blind?
We are using Isboxer without input broadcasting and / or multiplexing. So there is currently NO banable offense using isboxer without those features.
there is also no scope for interpretation as they clearly stated that only these functions are considered a banable offense.
what we are trying to achieve here is: a statement why isboxer pilots getting banned without using these functions.
if ccp comes up with a statement like: isboxer in total is a banable offense, than we have a clear answer.
for some reason they refuse to do that.
you are saying that ccp is clearly considering isboxer in total a banable offense. then tell me why aren't they writing that down here? clearly to read for everyone?
why do they let this thread become a mutation without a single answer? |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
725
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 11:36:20 -
[4235] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Actually they just banned a 5-boxer who uses ISBoxer to swap windows and limit framerates while he was mining in a belt. If you joined the forums and asked, you'd get evidence / proof that is unable to be presented here. Additionally, even by a strict interpretation of the EULA, rollovers and round robin aren't in violation of the EULA, yet we keep getting banned for it.
I'm replying to this in another post because it has absolutely nothing to do with my first post you took exception to.
I decided to take you up on your suggestion to look into the matter myself and have spent the morning going through posts on multi-boxing forums that claim they were banned and I think I may be able to help you understand why these people are falling foul of the EULA.
EULA 6-2 wrote:You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
Link and emphasis is mine.
Now, when I was looking for the evidence you say is out there I watched numerous video clips of people using Isboxer (and other similar software) and they all had one thing in common. They used the videofx (type of program) to modify the way the game is displayed in the eve client.
CCP Falcon wrote:Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇó EVE Online client settings
GÇó Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
GÇó The login process
emphasis mine again.
I take what CCP Falcon says above to mean I can use those videofx programs to move the eve online client around my desk top. So instead of having say 4 monitors each with its own client, I can use one big monitor and have all 4 clients displayed next to each other.
It would seem a lot of the Isboxers have taken what CCP Falcon has said to mean they can use videofx to cut out different parts of the client and overlay them onto a 'main' client. Which is falling foul of the EULA 6-2 about modifying content appearing within the game.
Now this is just my interpretation of the EULA and my understanding of what CCP Falcon has said. Which of course carries no more weight than your own, so I have no intention of arguing with you about it. I just thought it was worth mentioning. |
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
408
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 12:13:40 -
[4236] - Quote
I have removed one troll post.
Quote:5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
ISD Decoy
Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
206
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 12:51:03 -
[4237] - Quote
You can't read correctly right?
and i was thinking i am bad with english...
you are allowed to use broadcast function of isboxer to
login
move windows in eve around.
you are just not allowed to interact with broadcasts with the universe.
what you can do
is using video fx to get a better overview
and btw: isboxer is not modifying eve. its just an overlay. like aero desktop from windows 7. it is like taking a webcam and displaying the result on another part of the screen.
btw: nice skipping of my post. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
790
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 13:20:48 -
[4238] - Quote
Archibald: It seems I misinterpreted your statement regarding ISBoxer as a base, not it's features, and I apologize.
We *were* playing within the rules as defined by one of CCP's Devs when we were using Round Robin Broadcasting, after he handed out a handy infographic gif that all-but-stated that RR was allowed. However, we've been banned for RR, so right now we're not exactly happy. I believe I tried to avoid that in the essay, as well as the incident with CCP Falcon, in order to make it more streamlined.
As for corebloodbrother pestering CCP, here's your citation: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/csm-9-review/. Just CTRL+F and search for "ISBoxer". Archived version: https://archive.today/Gy1t2
And again, I do believe CCP should ban all the StealthMiners and auto-carrier-anom bots in the world. However I do not believe, and any dictionary currently published will support this, that ISBoxer does not fall under the definition of "cheat", "macro", "hack", or even "bot". If you use ISBoxer and write a script to auto-afk-run some clients, then yes, that is a bot. However, as with the tax analogy, not everyone who uses ISBoxer is botting, and that is called "guilty until proven innocent",something which was all-but-abolished somewhere around the 1800s or so.
As for 6A2, ISBoxer interacts with the client only so far as to define parts of the window to "capture", much like a webcam or Fraps, or it's more powerful counterparts. It then projects these "captures" onto Windows Aero, not the EVE client. 6A2 would not come into effect unless you want to interpret it in such a way as to ban Operational Security fields (those black boxes in videos) to hide system names, chats, and fleet window, or to ban any sort of overlay such as we see in the likes of Mad Ani's streams. Additionally, such an interpretation would ban Pirates Little Helper, or this new *third party tool* that is being worked on (and by extension, endorsed) by a CCP Developer.
I am still waiting eagerly to hear why you believe ISBoxer's input broadcasting, round robin, and rollover tools to be considered a "cheat". |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
726
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 13:25:24 -
[4239] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:You can't read correctly right?
Correct.
Charadrass wrote:and i was thinking i am bad with english...
Correct.
Charadrass wrote:you are allowed to use broadcast function of isboxer to
login
move windows in eve around.
you are just not allowed to interact with broadcasts with the universe..
Correct.
Charadrass wrote:what you can do
is using video fx to get a better overview.
CCP Falcon disagrees. He says you can use it to move the Eve online client around within your desktop.
Charadrass wrote:and btw: isboxer is not modifying eve. its just an overlay. like aero desktop from windows 7. it is like taking a webcam and displaying the result on another part of the screen..
Correct
I skipped your post because it had no value and wasn't directed towards me.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
790
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 13:28:17 -
[4240] - Quote
Just an FYI, Charadrass is a German national, and English isn't his first language. |
|
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
727
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 13:45:35 -
[4241] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
I am still waiting eagerly to hear why you believe ISBoxer's input broadcasting, round robin, and rollover tools to be considered a "cheat".
I've answered that already, but since you apologised for lying I will tell you again.
CCP says its cheating (as in breaks the EULA/TOS) source
You may not agree with them but it makes no difference. You seem to like comparing a game to the real world, so maybe this will help you understand.
Why do I think a motorist on a British motorway travelling at 80mph is speeding?
Simply because the speed limit on British motorways is 70mph (or lower). It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree. I can either travel at 70mph (or lower) or travel faster and risk a driving ban.
As I said. I have no intention in arguing over whose interpretation of the EULA is correct, as its CCP's that actually matters. I just found it interesting that CCP Falcon specifically mentions using Isboxer in regards to "Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)". You notice he clarifies Eve online client within the desktop. The videos I've seen have all had bits of the client cut out and overlayed on top of another client within the desktop. Subtle difference but that's EULAs for you.
Nolak Ataru wrote:Just an FYI, Charadrass is a German national, and English isn't his first language.
So am I. It doesn't give him the right to be rude. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
790
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 14:02:22 -
[4242] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:CCP says its cheating (as in breaks the EULA/TOS) sourceYou may not agree with them but it makes no difference. You seem to like comparing a game to the real world, so maybe this will help you understand. Why do I think a motorist on a British motorway travelling at 80mph is speeding? Simply because the speed limit on British motorways is 70mph (or lower). It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree. I can either travel at 70mph (or lower) or travel faster and risk a driving ban. As I said. I have no intention in arguing over whose interpretation of the EULA is correct, as its CCP's that actually matters. I just found it interesting that CCP Falcon specifically mentions using Isboxer in regards to "Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)". You notice he clarifies Eve online client within the desktop. The videos I've seen have all had bits of the client cut out and overlayed on top of another client within the desktop. Subtle difference but that's EULAs for you.
Actually there have been numerous studies put out that have affirmed that speed limits have a detrimental affect on preventing accidents. Something to do with what speeds you feel most comfortable with, if I remember correctly.
In this instance, however, a more accurate analogy would be having years of studies, research, and raw evidence telling us the world is round, and CCP comes along and tells us the world is really flat, and they jail anyone who tries to prove that the world is indeed round.
Appeal to authority fallacy, basically. Just because the government says something is so doesn't make it so. Additionally, your science teacher must be weeping for you if you refuse to think critically of whatever is said to you, and always "Listen and Believe" whatever people say.
And finally, you skipped the whole "Windows Aero" bit which told you that VideoFX does not actually overlay stuff over the EVE client but onto Aero. Simple VideoFX has not been banned, and there's no real way to ban it as 1) It does not inject anything into the EVE client and 2) you cannot distinguish it from a player using multiple monitors, or from a player who resizes his windows in a single monitor. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
727
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 15:03:03 -
[4243] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Actually there have been numerous studies put out that have affirmed that speed limits have a detrimental affect on preventing accidents. Something to do with what speeds you feel most comfortable with, if I remember correctly.
In this instance, however, a more accurate analogy would be having years of studies, research, and raw evidence telling us the world is round, and CCP comes along and tells us the world is really flat, and they jail anyone who tries to prove that the world is indeed round.
Yes, you are right which is one of the reasons why German Autobahn doesn't (typically) have an upper speed limit. In fact you are more likely to get stopped by the police for going to slow if you are in the overtaking lane.
But that doesn't change the fact in Britain you would be speeding and you risk a ban.
Nolak Ataru wrote:Appeal to authority fallacy, basically. Just because the government says something is so doesn't make it so.
Quite correct. In most countries the government and the court system are usually separated. A criminal saying I don't believe I committed a crime is not an excuse to commit said crime. Judges decide that sort of thing and in Eve CCP are the judges.
Nolak Ataru wrote: Additionally, your science teacher must be weeping for you if you refuse to think critically of whatever is said to you, and always "Listen and Believe" whatever people say.
And back to lying again.What makes you say I refuse to think critically of what is said to me. I'm very critical of what you are saying to me and I whilst I will always listen, I find you like lying so I choose not to believe you.
Nolak Ataru wrote:And finally, you skipped the whole "Windows Aero" bit which told you that VideoFX does not actually overlay stuff over the EVE client but onto Aero. Simple VideoFX has not been banned, and there's no real way to ban it as 1) It does not inject anything into the EVE client and 2) you cannot distinguish it from a player using multiple monitors, or from a player who resizes his windows in a single monitor.
Another lie, I didn't skip the 'windows aero bit' and you are right VideoFX has not been banned (just like Isboxer is not banned) but guess what? If CCP catches you using ANY program/hardware/kitchenware to cheat (ie;break the EULA/TOS) they will be within their rights to ban you. It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not.
1) So what.
2) Yes, but what are so many people doing. They are recording themselves.
Your whole tirade against my post of support for CCP (which it turns out you agree with) seems to stem from your belief that the recent rule changes that affect multi-boxers shouldn't of occurred. You say a CSM corebloodbrother used his influence to get CCP to make that rule change. The solution is right there in front of you. As I said before, Goonswarm the alliance you are part of typically gets a couple of good people onto the CSM. They also tend to have influence over other CSM simply because of the size of player base that belongs to it. Take your proposal to one of those CSM members and see if CCP can be persuaded to change their ruling back.
Picking arguments with people who make comments you actually agree with is not the way to garner support.
Lying about what other people have written is not the way to garner support.
Being hypocritical by asking everyone to prove every last statement they make (Citation needed etc) whilst being unable or unwilling to prove your own, is not the way to garner support.
Now I'm going to re-post my message of support for CCP and then I'm going to leave this thread in your incapable hands.
Keep up the good work CCP.
Please continue to ban all the people who feel they have a right to cheat when playing a computer game, whether they use Isboxer or any other means to do so. Kick them out of the game for good.
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
206
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 16:47:47 -
[4244] - Quote
can we just agree on the fact, that ccp needs to post a clear statement about the usage of isboxer regarding the newest eula statements?
we ( the isboxing community ) just asks for that.
we dont want to violate the eula. thats why we stopped broadcasting and multiplexing with january the first.
we are still flying with multiple boxes but without using the broadcast feature.
we just want clarification about the future of isboxing without getting the damocles ban sword hanging over each isboxing player.
if ccp states, that everything out of isboxer is considered violating the eula, than we stop doing that. but we need a clear statement.
come on ccp. get out of the grey area. please... |
ashley Eoner
459
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 17:55:50 -
[4245] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:
Your operating system can be used to cheat.. Christ almighty smarter trolls please.
Yes and guess what. CCP don't ban people for using their operating system and they don't ban people for using Isboxer(or other multi-boxing software). They do ban people for using Isboxer to cheat(as in break the EULA/TOS) and I would expect them also to ban people if they use any other means to cheat. ashley Eoner wrote:Isboxer doesn't automated input without severe high level coding type modifications. You'd be better off using one of the readily available bot programs if you wanted to do that.
CCP didn't ban anything outside of being "too good" at the game.. Once again, I only came here to post my support for CCP banning the cheats and to state I think Eve is better without them. If you disagree with that, then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Being ok with playing the game with cheats, does not give you the right to start name calling.
Except they are banning people if you're too efficient at using isboxer. Anything that gives "similar" results as a repeater is bannable now as per some of the GM responses. So if you're too quick with isboxer you're banned. At this point you might even get banned for being too quick in windowed mode.
So you've created this wonderful strawman to bat down but you haven't even responded to a thing I typed out.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Additionally, even by a strict interpretation of the EULA, rollovers and round robin aren't in violation of the EULA, yet we keep getting banned for it. Then stop doing it already. Clearly CCP disagrees with your self deluded interpretation of the EULA, and theirs is the only opinion that matters. Why are you lot so stubbornly dead set on cheating?
My issue is that GMs have straight said that if you're being too efficient it's bannable regardless of what you're using to multibox (windowed mode, isboxer, whatever). |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
355
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 20:21:32 -
[4246] - Quote
Team Security is giving a presentation on Saturday March 21st.
I posted a discussion thread on Dual-Boxing.com
http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/52086-Team-Security-EVE-Fanfest-presentation-1500-GMT-on-Saturday-March-21st?p=397290#post397290
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12176
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 23:04:00 -
[4247] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:
We are using Isboxer without input broadcasting and / or multiplexing.
You claim.
And personally, every single time I've asked for any proof of this supposed innocence, Nolak has spun so fast that he enters a different time zone.
Besides, if you're actually telling the truth and people are still getting banned... why haven't you knocked it off yet? Why are you so dead set on this?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
792
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 23:30:19 -
[4248] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Charadrass wrote:
We are using Isboxer without input broadcasting and / or multiplexing.
You claim. And personally, every single time I've asked for any proof of this supposed innocence, Nolak has spun so fast that he enters a different time zone. Besides, if you're actually telling the truth and people are still getting banned... why haven't you knocked it off yet? Why are you so dead set on this?
Create an account on the dual-boxing forum, and ask there. There's a few in the giant banned thread there who have posted proof. If anyone's spinning, it's you. You still haven't given us a solid reason why ISBoxer's broadcasting or roundrobin functions should be banned yet besides appeal to authority fallacies.
I'm sure that the British told the Indians and Ghandi "Why don't you knock it off?" before they finally left India. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12176
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 23:50:28 -
[4249] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Create an account on the dual-boxing forum, and ask there.
No.
If they have posted "proof" there, it's just as easy to post it here. If you literally have pictures of some guy streaming himself NOT using anything bannable, then nothing stops you posting them here. (although, the last video I saw linked in this thread showed a guy who was justifiably banned for macroing, by the way)
Quote:You still haven't given us a solid reason why ISBoxer's broadcasting or roundrobin functions should be banned yet besides appeal to authority fallacies.
Because it's cheating. It provides an unfair advantage for the player using it. CCP finally accepted that for themselves, despite years of being entrenched otherwise.
You can't just say "Nuh uh!" to CCP's decree on the matter. That's not how this works, and it's hardly a fallacy by the way, it's merely a fact that happens to be rather inconvenient for you.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Alternate Allegiance
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 00:01:21 -
[4250] - Quote
Re read everything. CCP actually has been quite clear on this matter I have learned. I mean some is still in the dark. ISBoxer hasn't been banned. No one has been banned for VideoFX usage. ONLY round robin and Input Broadcasting. Look Mogz he was banned yes. NOT for overlays. He was banned for the Round Robin use. The use of round robin to send a stored keystroke (not a stored keystroke from the client) to the clients. There views on Round Robin must be the same as Input Broadcasting.
Simple just dont use round robin. I mulit-box my accounts just fine without the use of Input broadcasting or Round Robin (never used this). Ive looked at past Twitch streams and videos and tons of people who run 2 accounts for pvp or incursions will use the overlay just so they can see the other account.
CCP is not Banning people for VideoFX. I did say that they are probably not banning people for sending commands to fast but i guess they are like in mogz case.
If you are running mulitple accounts and CCP is watching you or w/e they do. If they see a command to multiple accounts faster than someone can alt+tab then Ctrl+F1 or w/e you have your keybinds set to then yes they probably will look in to that. Like hey that guy just targeted and shot that guy with 4 accounts and he did all really fast. Round Robin does this. Mogz stated he was using it which is probably why ccp banned (this is not fact just what i think).
I will say CCP needs to state what they will allow from ISBoxer if anything at all.
I'm really sorry if this is hard to read. Tad tipsy.
I am a huge supporter of multiboxing and love it. But most people being banned are honestly probably using the Input Broadcasting every so often or abusing it still. OR even running round robin. Video FX I'd say you are safe (dont trust me on this personal opinion).
For proof of how i multibox ill look into getting some recording software and make a quick video never dont it before but will look into it. I run video fx and thats it no ticks or anything just standard alt tab. Video fx is there so i can see how long my cycles are and whos targeting what. I was running the clients in windowed mode but switched back to this as i feel like im safe. If CCP bans me they ban me.
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
792
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 00:08:43 -
[4251] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Create an account on the dual-boxing forum, and ask there.
No. If they have posted "proof" there, it's just as easy to post it here. If you literally have pictures of some guy streaming himself NOT using anything bannable, then nothing stops you posting them here. (although, the last video I saw linked in this thread showed a guy who was justifiably banned for macroing, by the way)
You mean besides CCP's ban on such information being shared on these forums? Then yes, I agree it's just as easy to post here.
Quote:Because it's cheating. It provides an unfair advantage for the player using it. CCP finally accepted that for themselves, despite years of being entrenched otherwise.
FINALLY we're getting somewhere. What sort of unfair advantage do you believe it gives to a player? Please be specific.
Quote:You can't just say "Nuh uh!" to CCP's decree on the matter. That's not how this works, and it's hardly a fallacy by the way, it's merely a fact that happens to be rather inconvenient for you.
Except I haven't been saying "nuh uh", you have been. I've written an essay on the topic and have tried to get a solid reason from anyone on this forum or in this thread as to why it should be banned without using a fallacy or an insult. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12176
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 00:14:18 -
[4252] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
You mean besides CCP's ban on such information being shared on these forums?
Untrue, spin harder.
Quote:
FINALLY we're getting somewhere. What sort of unfair advantage do you believe it gives to a player? Please be specific.
It permits a player to control far, far more clients with a degree of accuracy that would be functionally impossible for a player that does not use a third party program.
It's level of efficiency approaches that of outright botting, what's worse.
There are no circumstances where it being permitted is a good thing for the general health of the game. The sole justification to keeping this particular method of cheating is the claim that they pay for subs. Well, so do bots, and they get banned just the same. Flimsy reasoning at best, pathetic apologist tripe at worst.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Alternate Allegiance
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 00:16:33 -
[4253] - Quote
Input Broadcasting's Unfair Advantage:
Normal Fleet 20 people- FC" primary is 123 everyone target 123 primary 123." 20 people have to find 123 and target then point and attack. roughly 5 seconds maybe less or more for all 20 to target him.
Multi box fleet- Turn on input broadcast all target 123. All do this with in milliseconds from each other.
Huge gain in this as you can see you dont have to rely on others to target as you know that 90% of the time all 20 will target that guy.
Round Robin:
Round robin does send 1 command to 1 client but at will send that command as fast as you can click or activate that shortcut. So you can send 1 command to 20 accounts seperetly yes but with in milliseconds.
Huge gain as a normal fleet will some times take 1 to 5 seconds yet again to activate the modules.
Honestly if you used the Input Broadcasting and Round Robin features there should be no argument on why they banned it. The argument is for them to be more open about whats now allowed.
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 02:41:40 -
[4254] - Quote
Enough. Ccp doesn't want to communicate. Saturday is supposed to be some bullshit an I may be home to attend; irregardless I doubt it will involve any communication with us isboxers. I hope oodle keeps ******* you in the ass. As for me I will be lawyer hunting for the future; you cannot break laws ccp. Entrapment is one of them. All those banned please contact me or a few other isboxers; it'll get to me. I'll need signatures an witnesses. And I'm dead serious ccp; I've been sitting on this to see how you would communicate. And was even gracious enough to point out where you did such. Ask your legal team. See you in court. Hope you're ready to return money. Ps; I am not obligated to explain to the peon order nor nullsec ***** boys. The ones affected will know. Peace.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
378
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 02:47:27 -
[4255] - Quote
JGar Rooflestein wrote:Input Broadcasting's Unfair Advantage:
Normal Fleet 20 people- FC" primary is 123 everyone target 123 primary 123." 20 people have to find 123 and target then point and attack. roughly 5 seconds maybe less or more for all 20 to target him.
Multi box fleet- Turn on input broadcast all target 123. All do this with in milliseconds from each other.
Huge gain in this as you can see you dont have to rely on others to target as you know that 90% of the time all 20 will target that guy.
Round Robin:
Round robin does send 1 command to 1 client but at will send that command as fast as you can click or activate that shortcut. So you can send 1 command to 20 accounts seperetly yes but with in milliseconds.
Huge gain as a normal fleet will some times take 1 to 5 seconds yet again to activate the modules.
Honestly if you used the Input Broadcasting and Round Robin features there should be no argument on why they banned it. The argument is for them to be more open about whats now allowed.
You forgot the other side of the scenario that goes with your little justification.
Normal fleet, of 20 identifies FC of multibox fleet 5 seconds for the 20 to lock the opposing FC and shoot.
Multibox fleet is now stranded on grid with 20 individuals (controlled by an FC calling targets) shooting at multibox fleet which has no controlling FC and are essentially sitting ducks.
Yes input broadcasting = bad but there are 2 sides to your scenario and the other side does not favor the multiboxer.
Scenario 2; Gang of 10 Ishtars lands on grid vs a 20 man multibox fleet - Drones assigned, small gang FC primaries Multibox FC, ALL 10 Ishtars fire at once = End of multibox fleet (with no chance of them firing on any of the Ishtars). A 20 man Ishtar fleet is going to destroy the multiboxer even faster as 2 from that fleet can alpha strike separate targets.
Yes input broadcasting is bad but is only presented as doom and gloom because players only complain when they lose and never mention the amount of times the multiboxer loses.
Round Robin, when used without 3rd party software, is no less a legitimate play style than 10 players assigning drones to a squad commander. In fact those using assigned drones have a far greater advantage than the multiboxer using round robin.
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
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
792
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 04:49:03 -
[4256] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
You mean besides CCP's ban on such information being shared on these forums?
Untrue, spin harder.
EVE TOS:
18: You may not publish private communications from CCP, their agents or representatives or EVE Online volunteers without authorization.
Checkmate.
Quote:It permits a player to control far, far more clients with a degree of accuracy that would be functionally impossible for a player that does not use a third party program.
So anyone who runs multiple accounts is cheating? I used to dual-box a Basi and a Vindicator in incursion HQs with zero loss in efficiency before I found ISBoxer. Should I be banned for that? How about my friend who boxes 2x Ravens in separate L5 missions?
Quote:It's level of efficiency approaches that of outright botting, what's worse.
How does it's efficiency level approach botting?
JGar Rooflestein wrote:Input Broadcasting's Unfair Advantage:
Normal Fleet 20 people- FC" primary is 123 everyone target 123 primary 123." 20 people have to find 123 and target then point and attack. roughly 5 seconds maybe less or more for all 20 to target him.
Multi box fleet- Turn on input broadcast all target 123. All do this with in milliseconds from each other.
Except that people in a brawl that size who aren't BRAVE will sort by ship type, and they'll know where the person is on the list. They can lock him and apply DPS at the same time. The ISBoxer does the same thing, but he has to wait for each client to "update" his mouse position so he can click on the same person in each window. You're comparing people who aren't expecting targets to be called vs an ISBoxer who knows what he's doing, which is a fallacy of equivalencies. Additionally, if the ISBoxer derps and clicks the wrong person, or doesn't wait for his mouse to settle, he's got 50% targeting Person X and 50% targeting Person Y, which doesn't do him much good. Not to mention that ISBoxer has a built-in delay of anywhere up to 1 server second for each client after Client 1, so he can lose time himself with his targeting. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12186
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 05:09:52 -
[4257] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
EVE TOS:
18: You may not publish private communications from CCP, their agents or representatives or EVE Online volunteers without authorization.
Checkmate.
And you once more demonstrate your dedication to being obtuse.
You can post your "proof" on these forums, if you have what you've repeatedly claimed you have. Otherwise, you have nothing to begin with and you're just bitching about GM tickets telling you that, yes, you were breaking the rules.
Which everyone here already knew.
Quote:
So anyone who runs multiple accounts is cheating?
No, nor did I claim that in any way, shape or form. Blowing it up into an absurdity is not a good argument tactic, and it's patently obvious besides.
Alt tabbing is fine, as has been demonstrated numerous times in this thread. I alt tab all the time.
Cry more.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
208
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 07:10:34 -
[4258] - Quote
Pilots banned cannot post here.
they have to use third Party Forums.
posting logs or communication between ccp employees and the Pilot results in a ban. seen with somerset mahm for example.
so what do you want from us? beeing stupid and posting here?
or rely on the guys who suddenly dont Show up here anymore cause they are getting banned for not violating the eula but beeing efficient?
round Robin was or is allowed cause i cant find Any posting telling otherwise from ccp. do you? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12189
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 08:33:30 -
[4259] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:
or rely on the guys who suddenly dont Show up here anymore cause they are getting banned for not violating the eula but beeing efficient?
There it is, that's the part I absolutely do not believe. I've seen people claim that a few times since the year began, and all were using macros or other such.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
208
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 10:48:40 -
[4260] - Quote
I set up a few xml files to multibox in eve without using broadcast or multiplex.
and i gave them to a few pilots plus ccp so they can see how we multibox.
one pilot of those got banned using this setup.
the others dont got a ban.
now tell me on what basis is ccp banning?
note: the xml files save the setup isboxer uses. so you can copy that setup from one to another pc.
there are no macros or else. |
|
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
727
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 12:17:03 -
[4261] - Quote
I know I said I was leaving, but I like you Charadrass and I can see you really want to help the multi-box community to not break the EULA/TOS and not get banned.
So I'm going to explain why people are still getting caught and you are not going to agree, but I promise you this is the reason.
Its the 'Dashboard' type set ups. The ones where different parts of a clients UI are moved around so they can all be seen on the same screen at the same time. It doesn't matter how people do this it could be part of your operating system, it could be Isboxer, it could be a video editing program.
EULA 6-2 wrote:You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
Link and emphasis is mine.
CCP Falcon wrote:Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:
GÇó EVE Online client settings
GÇó Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)
GÇó The login process
emphasis mine again.
You notice CCP Falcon clarifies the second bullet point. He says 'EVE Online client' not parts of the client or windows position within the Eve Online client. He refers to the client in your desktop environment, the whole client.
How can CCP tell if people are doing this. Well they can monitor your computer for programs which allow these modifications but almost every computer will have some sort of program that can do it.
Some people foolishly post videos of there setup and if CCP see it they have their proof.
There is also the matter of people claiming they are being banned for being to efficient or good. What better way for CCP to detect 'dashboard' set ups. In a video of a multi-boxer I saw him activate the guns on 8 (may be 10) clients and the Remote Reps on his 2 logis all in the space of approx 3-4 secs. That is not possible unless you have a 'dashboard' set up. This would be fairly simple for CCP to monitor.
Now I know lots of people will disagree, I know Nolak Ataru will dissect every last word and try to create an argument.
You have to understand that CCP saying its ok to use program X, does not mean its ok to use program X to break the EULA/TOS.
You have to understand that CCP can choose not to enforce the EULA. They did this a few years ago when the head of CCPs security came on the forums and said cache scrapping broke the EULA/TOS.
So if they catch someone with a 'dashboard' set up they can ban them. If they then come across someone using the exact same program to obscure parts of the UI on their live stream, CCP can choose not to ban them.
Charadrass wrote:I set up a few xml files to multibox in eve without using broadcast or multiplex.
and i gave them to a few pilots plus ccp so they can see how we multibox.
one pilot of those got banned using this setup.
the others dont got a ban.
now tell me on what basis is ccp banning?
note: the xml files save the setup isboxer uses. so you can copy that setup from one to another pc.
there are no macros or else.
I see 2 possibilities straight away (I'm sure there are more)
1. They are getting round to banning the rest.
2. The one guy who got banned changed the set up or was also doing something else.
I'm more than happy to enter a discussion with anybody in an attempt to stop people being banned inadvertently but I have no interest in people who are only looking for an argument. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
208
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 13:00:39 -
[4262] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
How can CCP tell if people are doing this. Well they can monitor your computer for programs which allow these modifications but almost every computer will have some sort of program that can do it.
They can't monitor my programs. or do they use some strange backdoor to give user started processes admin rights on windows?
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
There is also the matter of people claiming they are being banned for being to efficient or good. What better way for CCP to detect 'dashboard' set ups. In a video of a multi-boxer I saw him activate the guns on 8 (may be 10) clients and the Remote Reps on his 2 logis all in the space of approx 3-4 secs. That is not possible unless you have a 'dashboard' set up. This would be fairly simple for CCP to monitor.
I have 10 boxes.
i have a 120 key keyboard. free programmable.
i have my first row setup to F1 each box individually.
For example. F1 is activating F1 on Box 1. F2 is activating F1 on Box 2. and so on.
this way i can fire within one second all boxes. without using broadcast. without using macros without automation. just using my ten fingers. tell me. do i violate the eula? |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 13:48:56 -
[4263] - Quote
Arch; as a player who had done it all and learned it all dealing with eve: you're a r-ôtard+¿d ccp shill. That being said ccp is banning anyone using efficiency. Also ccp sucks terribly and cannot track milliseconds due to how eve sends its data only seconds. Two: ccp has no legal control how I choose to view my accounts; dashboards are windows aero / projector screen equivilant. Three if ccp is indeed backdooring into our os then that's a severe breach of law where I live. Keep digging your hole ccp.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
792
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 14:04:44 -
[4264] - Quote
EULA 6-2 wrote:You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played. h the EVE client unless you want to interpret it in such a way as to ban Fraps and Twitch which will make many people unhappy.
Quote:There is also the matter of people claiming they are being banned for being to efficient or good. What better way for CCP to detect 'dashboard' set ups. In a video of a multi-boxer I saw him activate the guns on 8 (may be 10) clients and the Remote Reps on his 2 logis all in the space of approx 3-4 secs. That is not possible unless you have a 'dashboard' set up. This would be fairly simple for CCP to monitor.
Bzzzt, wrong. All you have to do is tile your windows, configure your OS to focus a window on mouse-over, and then slide your mouse across while spamming F1 or whatever your button is.
Quote:You have to understand that CCP saying its ok to use program X, does not mean its ok to use program X to break the EULA/TOS.
You have to understand that CCP can choose not to enforce the EULA. They did this a few years ago when the head of CCPs security came on the forums and said cache scrapping broke the EULA/TOS.
We understand that, and we have asked time and time again on twitter, in emails, and in tickets about aspects of ISBoxer directly, not to mention looking at that CCP Dev's gif, and we were informed that only Input Broadcasting / Multiplication was banned at the time. We were then banned for rollovers and Round Robin afterwards, and now any ticket we send in get's a copy/paste reply telling us to look at the thread, when CCP Falcon in the thread told us to submit a ticket.
I was there when they talked about cache scraping, and I remember CCP catching a lot of flak over it, and a lot of backpedaling on their part.
Quote:So if they catch someone with a 'dashboard' set up they can ban them. If they then come across someone using the exact same program to obscure parts of the UI on their live stream, CCP can choose not to ban them.
That's called "double standards", and it's the sort of thing that got CCP in trouble with Somer Blink and to a lesser degree T20.
Quote:I see 2 possibilities straight away (I'm sure there are more)
1. They are getting round to banning the rest.
2. The one guy who got banned changed the set up or was also doing something else.
I'm more than happy to enter a discussion with anybody in an attempt to stop people being banned inadvertently but I have no interest in people who are only looking for an argument.
3. CCP has admitted they have no method to detect input broadcasting from roundrobin and rollovers after repeated promises that they do, and are thus swinging the banhammer wildly.
Today I Learned: Asking someone to back up or support a statement they made is a Very Bad Thing. News at 11. |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 14:14:35 -
[4265] - Quote
Confirming that they do copy pasta any pettion to come here. With no f++cking communciation at either contact point.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
727
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 15:14:51 -
[4266] - Quote
Charadrassote wrote:
They can't monitor my programs. or do they use some strange backdoor to give user started processes admin rights on windows?
EULA 7-D You agree to let them monitor your game hardware. If they actually do or not is a different matter.
Charadrassote wrote:
I have 10 boxes.
i have a 120 key keyboard. free programmable.
i have my first row setup to F1 each box individually.
For example. F1 is activating F1 on Box 1. F2 is activating F1 on Box 2. and so on.
this way i can fire within one second all boxes. without using broadcast. without using macros without automation. just using my ten fingers. tell me. do i violate the eula?
Yes you are. Specifically the bit I quoted earlier.
6-2 wrote:You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played..
When I multibox I have to change the focus onto the client I want to control. If that is on 1 monitor then I alt-tab. If I'm using multiple monitors I have to click some where within the client to shift focus. Your method seems to bypass that.
[quote=Charadrassote]Edith says: all my boxes are visible. not in the background
and i am using videofx to display a few informations on my mainscreen.
Not really enough detail, but it sounds like its a type of 'dashboard' set up I mention in the previous post. So against the EULA.
I'm now going to share a setup for multiboxing which does not bteak the EULA.
I have 10 accounts. I'm going to run incursions with 7 Domi, 1 Loki(drone bunny) and 2 Guardians. (I don't care that this fleet set up is useless.)
I only have 1 big monitor so I'm going to run them all through that.
I use a third party multiboxing program (isboxer or a different one) to set up my screen.
On tab 1 I have a Guardian2 top left (TL) and 3 Domi top right (TR) bottom left (BL) and bottom right (BR).
On tab 2 I have 4 Domi (TL),(TR),(BL),(BR).
On tab 3 I have the Loki and a Guardian1 side by side.
(All the clients are intact with no over lays cutting out or what ever. They all look like a single client would on its own)
(I don't care that my tactics will most likely get all my ships blown up)
I start with tab 3 and fleet warp everyone in. Activate gate with the Loki select Guardian1 activate gate.
Alt-tab to tab 1
Activate gate with (TL)then with (TR),(BL),(BR)
Alt-tab to tab 2
Activate gate (TL),(TR),(BL),(BR)
Alt-tab to tab 3
Guardian1 locks Guardian2 for cap transfer and locks Loki.
Alt-tab to tab 1
Guardian2 locks Guardian1 for cap transfer and locks loki and any Domi taking damage (Activate RAR if needed)
Domi (TR) deploys drones and assigns to Loki, forms up on anchor. Domis (BL),(BR) do the same.
Alt-tab to tab 2.
Domis (TL),deploy drones assign them to Loki and form up on anchor. (TR),(BL),(BR) do the same.
Alt-tab to tab 3
Guardian1 locks Domis applies RAR as needed. Loki starts attacking NPCs.
Alt-tab to tab 1
Guardian2 activate/deactivate swap RAR onto ships as needed.
Alt-tab to 2
Alt-tab to 3
Switch between Loki and Guardian1 as needed, as well as alt-tab to tab 1 to update Guardian2.
The above is a EULA compliant way to multi-box using a third party program. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
727
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 15:24:02 -
[4267] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Today I Learned: Asking someone to back up or support a statement they made is a Very Bad Thing. News at 11.
This coming from someone who repeatedly refused to back up their own statements. Hypocrite.
I did do as you suggested though and looked through the Multibox forums and guess what I found
I guess we know why you wouldn't back up your own statements now. |
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 15:27:37 -
[4268] - Quote
JGar Rooflestein wrote:Input Broadcasting's Unfair Advantage:
Normal Fleet 20 people- FC" primary is 123 everyone target 123 primary 123." 20 people have to find 123 and target then point and attack. roughly 5 seconds maybe less or more for all 20 to target him.
Multi box fleet- Turn on input broadcast all target 123. All do this with in milliseconds from each other.
Huge gain in this as you can see you dont have to rely on others to target as you know that 90% of the time all 20 will target that guy.
Round Robin:
Round robin does send 1 command to 1 client but at will send that command as fast as you can click or activate that shortcut. So you can send 1 command to 20 accounts seperetly yes but with in milliseconds.
Huge gain as a normal fleet will some times take 1 to 5 seconds yet again to activate the modules.
Honestly if you used the Input Broadcasting and Round Robin features there should be no argument on why they banned it. The argument is for them to be more open about whats now allowed.
depends on players. and they don't have to find the person if the fc broadcast the target. they just have to click ctrl and click on the broadcasted target... (in the fleet window) (I going to post something) https://zkillboard.com/kill/39564164/ (when it still was allowed) Lol. Ewar screwed me up. and that I sucked playing that way screwed me up. (and I only killed some t1 stuff I think) and I lost in total 216 mil when that happened. (not included drones) -.- (not broadcasting targets made that happened to me I suppose) you know, click x on target. and then, but whatever. ewar.. yeah.. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
208
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 15:38:38 -
[4269] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Charadrassote wrote:
They can't monitor my programs. or do they use some strange backdoor to give user started processes admin rights on windows?
EULA 7-D You agree to let them monitor your game hardware. If they actually do or not is a different matter.
They CANT. Not possible in VM plus you dont gain admin rights.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Yes you are. Specifically the bit I quoted earlier.
If you might point out where i am using third party software for doing that?
i am using my ten fingers plus a keyboard with 1 command per keypress.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
[quote=6-2]You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played..
open your ******* eyes, we are not modifiying anything from eve.
You can with normal windows internal software make all boxes believe they are running activated. and you can send keypresses to them directly. without using third party software. what now? banning windows?
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
727
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 16:29:18 -
[4270] - Quote
Charadrass,I'm on my phone now so please forgive the formatting/spelling.
By agrreing to the eula you allow CCP to monitor your gaming hardware. Whether they actually do or not doesn't matter.
The third party program would be the program that lets you use F1 on client 1 whilst F2 goes to client 2. The eve client on its own doesn't allow you to do that.
A third party program is any program that is not part of the eve client. So your operating system would be classed as a third party program form the perspective of Eve's eula. That does not mean your operating system breaks the eula or that it should result in you being banned just for using it. It does not mean you are aloowed to use it to break the eula either though.
I'm trying to help, so please stop being rude. I've managed to get a look at some of the emails form the GM team and they all seem to be the same and very clear.
The people being banned are breaking the eula 6-2 that I have mentioned. I would like to help you multi-box without you getting banned but I'm not sure if that'a a lost cause or not. |
|
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
208
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 16:53:31 -
[4271] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
By agrreing to the eula you allow CCP to monitor your gaming hardware. Whether they actually do or not doesn't matter.
CCP CANT... it is not a matter of allowing. you cant scan something where windows dont gives you permissions to. get that into your skull.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
The third party program would be the program that lets you use F1 on client 1 whilst F2 goes to client 2. The eve client on its own doesn't allow you to do that.
Would be windows 7 in my case then.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
A third party program is any program that is not part of the eve client. So your operating system would be classed as a third party program form the perspective of Eve's eula. That does not mean your operating system breaks the eula or that it should result in you being banned just for using it. It does not mean you are aloowed to use it to break the eula either though.
pretty weird huh? windows can get you banned :)
We get the message from ccp, that input multiplexing and broadcasting is banable.
we multibox without and still might get banned <--- THAT is the problem
no we dont have interpreted the eula in another way. we just dont do that what falcon posted.
we dont broadcast, we dont use macros, we dont multiplex.
just one command. with one finger. to one box.
nothing more. that is not macroing, it is not broadcasting.
it is called typing. with 10 fingers.ffs
is ccp going to reglement the usage of fingers now?
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
424
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 18:54:43 -
[4272] - Quote
I have removed a ranting disrespectful post.
Quote:2. Be respectful toward others at all times.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.
3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.
ISD Decoy
Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Alternate Allegiance
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 19:39:32 -
[4273] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
By agrreing to the eula you allow CCP to monitor your gaming hardware. Whether they actually do or not doesn't matter.
CCP CANT... it is not a matter of allowing. you cant scan something where windows dont gives you permissions to. get that into your skull.
They can. You say they can't. Look at Blizzard. They use Warden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden_%28software%29
You down load the game you accept the EULA and they are now allowed to run what they need most likely installed during the initial install.
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
ashley Eoner
461
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 20:09:14 -
[4274] - Quote
JGar Rooflestein wrote:Charadrass wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
By agrreing to the eula you allow CCP to monitor your gaming hardware. Whether they actually do or not doesn't matter.
CCP CANT... it is not a matter of allowing. you cant scan something where windows dont gives you permissions to. get that into your skull. They can. You say they can't. Look at Blizzard. They use Warden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden_%28software%29
You down load the game you accept the EULA and they are now allowed to run what they need most likely installed during the initial install.
Indeed since you can easily opt out by not playing the game it's legal in the USA at least. |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 03:04:43 -
[4275] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:JGar Rooflestein wrote:Charadrass wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
By agrreing to the eula you allow CCP to monitor your gaming hardware. Whether they actually do or not doesn't matter.
CCP CANT... it is not a matter of allowing. you cant scan something where windows dont gives you permissions to. get that into your skull. They can. You say they can't. Look at Blizzard. They use Warden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden_%28software%29
You down load the game you accept the EULA and they are now allowed to run what they need most likely installed during the initial install. Indeed since you can easily opt out by not playing the game it's legal in the USA at least.
Sorry not true. See you can't break laws. No matter if I agree or not
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
ashley Eoner
462
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 05:38:00 -
[4276] - Quote
Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:JGar Rooflestein wrote:Charadrass wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
By agrreing to the eula you allow CCP to monitor your gaming hardware. Whether they actually do or not doesn't matter.
CCP CANT... it is not a matter of allowing. you cant scan something where windows dont gives you permissions to. get that into your skull. They can. You say they can't. Look at Blizzard. They use Warden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden_%28software%29
You down load the game you accept the EULA and they are now allowed to run what they need most likely installed during the initial install. Indeed since you can easily opt out by not playing the game it's legal in the USA at least. Sorry not true. See you can't break laws. No matter if I agree or not
warden gameguard punkbuster VAC and more all do that. Good luck with fighting that. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
189
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 08:07:04 -
[4277] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
By agrreing to the eula you allow CCP to monitor your gaming hardware. Whether they actually do or not doesn't matter.
CCP CANT... it is not a matter of allowing. you cant scan something where windows dont gives you permissions to. get that into your skull. Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
The third party program would be the program that lets you use F1 on client 1 whilst F2 goes to client 2. The eve client on its own doesn't allow you to do that.
Would be windows 7 in my case then. Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
A third party program is any program that is not part of the eve client. So your operating system would be classed as a third party program form the perspective of Eve's eula. That does not mean your operating system breaks the eula or that it should result in you being banned just for using it. It does not mean you are aloowed to use it to break the eula either though.
pretty weird huh? windows can get you banned :) We get the message from ccp, that input multiplexing and broadcasting is banable. we multibox without and still might get banned <--- THAT is the problem no we dont have interpreted the eula in another way. we just dont do that what falcon posted. we dont broadcast, we dont use macros, we dont multiplex. just one command. with one finger. to one box. nothing more. that is not macroing, it is not broadcasting. it is called typing. with 10 fingers.ffs is ccp going to reglement the usage of fingers now?
you havent been banned yet so what is the problem?
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1458
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:16:18 -
[4278] - Quote
You guys are EvE's cancer. You should all be banned.
The Tears Must Flow
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
209
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:18:20 -
[4279] - Quote
None of the Petitioned question is beeing answered on Team security on fan fest.
nice ccp. ignoring us again. |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
355
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:21:50 -
[4280] - Quote
Team Security said regarding VFX / Rollover and Round-Robin to "Read the EULA"
And that it would be too complicated to give an answer to everyone's questions (hopefully someone goes to the panel and asks directly)
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
|
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
209
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:43:24 -
[4281] - Quote
i dont use roll over or round Robin.
vfx is also not changing the eve Client as ccp random tried to tell us.
it is like pointing a Webcam to a specific part of your Monitor and displaying it on another. which is legal btw.
|
Sumeragy
Brianum Industries and Excavations
Gatekeepers Universe
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:45:38 -
[4282] - Quote
That others got doing the same, meaning "Some people are more equal than others". Clearify whats allowed and whats not, should be easy. As others says CCP knows what you are doing, at least they keep saying that, talk to us, give us a clear statement. |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1459
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:53:16 -
[4283] - Quote
Sumeragy wrote:That others got doing the same, meaning "Some people are more equal than others". Clearify whats allowed and whats not, should be easy. As others says CCP knows what you are doing, at least they keep saying that, talk to us, give us a clear statement.
Use a keyboard and a mouse, then look at you your screen and play the game. It's that simple, you don't need a manual.
The Tears Must Flow
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
793
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:59:14 -
[4284] - Quote
For the record: We did attempt to reach out to CCP and discuss this issue. CCP Falcon promised to sit down after Jan1, a promise which he broke. CCP has not shown any reason why ISBoxer is in violation of the EULA, and to say that ISBoxer violates 6A2 would mean banning TS3 / Overwolf and Mumble overlays as well, not to mention the headache associated with Steam's overlay.
And nobody has yet even come close to proving that ISBoxer violates 6A3 while ignoring EFT/Pyfa/Fuzzworks. |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
355
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:25:39 -
[4285] - Quote
I would like to point out that if your not allowed to use rollover buttons on the client because it violates the "client modification" rule, then you can just easily put it on a black dxnothing window instead.
That presentation was pretty useless.
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Darkblad
Hilf Dir selbst in EVE
811
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:58:44 -
[4286] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:None of the Petitioned question is beeing answered on Team security on fan fest.
nice ccp. ignoring us again. Posting this at 15:18 (the presentation was in its first 20 minutes by that time), while there's:
Schedule wrote:16:00 - CCP Security - Better Safe Than Sorry!
In the security roundtable you will have the chance to ask questions regarding the security presentation and about all things security in CCP and EVE Online. You did'nt jump to that opportunity?
EVE Infolinks GÇó Mining Handbuch GÇó Colortags/Timer
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
793
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:26:20 -
[4287] - Quote
Darkblad wrote:Charadrass wrote:None of the Petitioned question is beeing answered on Team security on fan fest.
nice ccp. ignoring us again. Posting this at 15:18 (the presentation was in its first 20 minutes by that time), while there's: Schedule wrote:16:00 - CCP Security - Better Safe Than Sorry!
In the security roundtable you will have the chance to ask questions regarding the security presentation and about all things security in CCP and EVE Online. You did'nt jump to that opportunity?
Not all of us have over 2 grand to drop on tickets + a flight to Iceland. If CCP's only going to listen to people who shuck out $2k and ask in person, I've got some bad news for this game... |
Darkblad
Hilf Dir selbst in EVE
811
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:36:55 -
[4288] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Not all of us have over 2 grand to drop on tickets + a flight to Iceland. If CCP's only going to listen to people who shuck out $2k and ask in person, I've got some bad news for this game... I'm also stuck @ home. But I don't complain when I don't have the chance to ask myself @ Fanfest, I ask those that are there to ask questions on my behalf. And it actually worked. Maybe C. should've tried that instead of complaining before the roundtable started.
EVE Infolinks GÇó Mining Handbuch GÇó Colortags/Timer
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
793
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:51:46 -
[4289] - Quote
Darkblad wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Not all of us have over 2 grand to drop on tickets + a flight to Iceland. If CCP's only going to listen to people who shuck out $2k and ask in person, I've got some bad news for this game... I'm also stuck @ home. But I don't complain when I don't have the chance to ask myself @ Fanfest, I ask those that are there to ask questions on my behalf. And it actually worked. Maybe C. should've tried that instead of complaining before the roundtable started.
We're doing that. However, his complaints were justified as CCP Falcon promised a sit-down after Jan1 with the ISBoxers and then lied about it later on in an interview. |
JGar Rooflestein
Red Phoenix Rising
Alternate Allegiance
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:32:11 -
[4290] - Quote
You do realize that CCP will not say if ISBoxer is allowed. No major MMO company will. They will always give a blanket result most likely that result is and has been read the EULA. If you read on InnerSpaces site they cover this part.
They say No Third Party software or Apps that modify or effect the gameplay. BUT they tend to look past certain ones if they are major problems or really causing harm. They came out and said hey you cant Input Broadcast anymore BUT we will allow you to use it to log in and use it for window management. So technically they said We will allow use of isboxer, without actually saying it. I see it and they probably see VideoFX as window management. When asking CCP if this is allowed you will just get there generic answer which is a copy of the EULA. If they haven't asked you to stop or banned you then you are fine (once again my opinion).
For those that were banned there is always a reason to why. More than likely they were still input broadcasting or abusing Round Robin which if done right can look like Input Broadcasting. But like 90% of people ever banned in games they did nothing wrong they were within the EULA 100%..
-JGar
"Great man once said nothing."
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5225
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:13:24 -
[4291] - Quote
Darkblad wrote:Charadrass wrote:None of the Petitioned question is beeing answered on Team security on fan fest.
nice ccp. ignoring us again. Posting this at 15:18 (the presentation was in its first 20 minutes by that time), while there's: Schedule wrote:16:00 - CCP Security - Better Safe Than Sorry!
In the security roundtable you will have the chance to ask questions regarding the security presentation and about all things security in CCP and EVE Online. You did'nt jump to that opportunity? I did, and they confirmed that the punishment for multiplexing falls under botting, not EULA violation (lose accounts and assets), that round robin and video fx are against the rules if used for an advantage (though how much of an advantage is an advantage is questionable) that they have no client side detection (and instead rely on data analysis over period of months) and that players can be under investigation for months before action is taken.
All in all I'm not at all satisfied that they don't hit too many false positives, banning manual multiboxers. What worse is that in the presentation they stated that they use banned players and confirmed false positives to build profiles to aid in detection, so when someone is falsely banned and they refuse to believe that the player was in fact not using tools, they are using data from incorrectly banned players to help build violation profiles.
To me it seems like a very nonchalant way of dealing with the issue. Of course most other players will simply dismiss it as "whining from isboxers" so there's really very little point arguing with it. At the end of the day, if you were a user of any tools to assist you in multiboxing, to CCP and the CSM, you and your opinions are irrelevant. That seems to be the general consensus.
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
5225
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:15:40 -
[4292] - Quote
JGar Rooflestein wrote:For those that were banned there is always a reason to why. More than likely they were still input broadcasting or abusing Round Robin which if done right can look like Input Broadcasting. But like 90% of people ever banned in games they did nothing wrong they were within the EULA 100%.. While many players will claim innocence regardless of whether or not they are innocent, that doesn't mean everyone is automatically lying. There's a fair percentage of convicted people in prison that will be found to be innocent too.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:21:18 -
[4293] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:JGar Rooflestein wrote:For those that were banned there is always a reason to why. More than likely they were still input broadcasting or abusing Round Robin which if done right can look like Input Broadcasting. But like 90% of people ever banned in games they did nothing wrong they were within the EULA 100%.. While many players will claim innocence regardless of whether or not they are innocent, that doesn't mean everyone is automatically lying. There's a fair percentage of convicted people in prison that will be found to be innocent too.
The number of people released from death row after DNA testing became reliable shows that. The numbers exist despite most counties/states fighting to prevent inmates from having access to those tests.
Having said that I'm still recording every time I run. I just need a 4 TB drive to keep all of it =/ |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
793
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:24:02 -
[4294] - Quote
Actually, unless I'm mistaken, Blizzard said ISBoxer was allowed as long as you don't turn it into a bot (where "bot" = "down at the corner store buying a pack of smokes while the program still does stuff"), but they enacted changes to prevent usage of ISBoxer in PVP battlegrounds.
CCP gave us their word that they could detect the difference between IB and RR, and then it turns out they can't. Furthermore, they also have failed to prove how ISBoxer breaks 6A3 while discluding PYFA, Fuzzworks, and that new market program. |
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:28:00 -
[4295] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Actually, unless I'm mistaken, Blizzard said ISBoxer was allowed as long as you don't turn it into a bot (where "bot" = "down at the corner store buying a pack of smokes while the program still does stuff"), but they enacted changes to prevent usage of ISBoxer in PVP battlegrounds.
CCP gave us their word that they could detect the difference between IB and RR, and then it turns out they can't. Furthermore, they also have failed to prove how ISBoxer breaks 6A3 while discluding PYFA, Fuzzworks, and that new market program.
Yes there are blue statements as such. Trion has said the same thing in the past.
http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1535574817?page=3#43
Here's blizzard telling their subscribers to HTFU about isboxer players.
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3053895611?page=1#15 |
Rosewalker
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
162
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:30:25 -
[4296] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I did, and they confirmed that the punishment for multiplexing falls under botting, not EULA violation (lose accounts and assets), that round robin and video fx are against the rules if used for an advantage (though how much of an advantage is an advantage is questionable) that they have no client side detection (and instead rely on data analysis over period of months) and that players can be under investigation for months before action is taken.
Lucas, it was nice to finally get to meet you in person
About the penalty. Botting is a EULA violation that violates sections 6A2 & 6A3 of the EULA. The penalties includes the following:
- 1st offense - 30 day ban, all accounts
- 2nd offense - permanent ban, all accounts
- Removal of all illicitly gained proceeds.
- The ability to trade characters off the account is disabled.
Don't concentrate on the wording of 6A3, which mentions "advantage". Stick with 6A2 and how the software changes the way the game is played. For the best analysis I've seen on what CCP intends, I would start reading Lord's Servant's posts in this Dual-Boxing.com thread starting with this post.
http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/51980-The-Banned-thread?p=397025&viewfull=1#post397025
I know that Nolak and Shadow have already dismissed Lord's writings, but I think they come closest to how CCP plans on enforcing the EULA.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
355
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:41:49 -
[4297] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:
I know that Nolak and Shadow have already dismissed Lord's writings, but I think they come closest to how CCP plans on enforcing the EULA.
Considering you were present for Team Security's non-clarification of Round-Robin / VFX / Rollover (and gave a presentation on RMT soon after, which was good, congratulations btw)
The ONE thing I can say they did state semi clearly is that VFX falls into client modification (in some twisted sense).
So Lord Servant would be incorrect in saying that VFX is fine to use.
Now, if your using VFX in a dxnothing window, that falls outside of any "modification of the game client" since dxnothing is not a game client in upon itself.
Same thing for using rollover. If putting the rollover buttons inside of a client window is now against the rules (is it? can CCP please clarify?) then I'll just put them in a small dxnothing window next to the client. Am I still breaking any rules? Anyone?
You didnt happen to attend the Team Security round table and get specific answers did you? Not like I expect them to give any, there is what appears to be direct policy from Team Security to not give any specifics to anything, other then "Read the EULA".
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
355
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:48:08 -
[4298] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: ...that round robin and video fx are against the rules if used for an advantage (though how much of an advantage is an advantage is questionable) that they have no client side detection (and instead rely on data analysis over period of months) and that players can be under investigation for months before action is taken.
did they offer any clarification on what constitutes an "advantage"? How fast or slow must I use my multiple clients to not be considered "cheating"?
That is really my main question, it seems to come down to some vague definition of an unfair advantage. So we need specifics, how fast am i allowed to click buttons on other clients before I am considered breaking some nondescript rule?
Did anyone ask about other 3rd party tools and why they are ok to give an in-game advantage (EVEMon, EVEHQ, EFT, Evernus, Dedaf's Spreadsheets are examples that provide tremendous market capabilities and analysis that the average person could never do)
but using tools to multibox now starts to put you into a territory of getting your accounts banned?
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Rosewalker
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
162
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:53:59 -
[4299] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Rosewalker wrote:
I know that Nolak and Shadow have already dismissed Lord's writings, but I think they come closest to how CCP plans on enforcing the EULA.
Considering you were present for Team Security's non-clarification of Round-Robin / VFX / Rollover (and gave a presentation on RMT soon after, which was good, congratulations btw) The ONE thing I can say they did state semi clearly is that VFX falls into client modification (in some twisted sense). So Lord Servant would be incorrect in saying that VFX is fine to use. Now, if your using VFX in a dxnothing window, that falls outside of any "modification of the game client" since dxnothing is not a game client in upon itself. Same thing for using rollover. If putting the rollover buttons inside of a client window is now against the rules (is it? can CCP please clarify?) then I'll just put them in a small dxnothing window next to the client. Am I still breaking any rules? Anyone? You didnt happen to attend the Team Security round table and get specific answers did you? Not like I expect them to give any, there is what appears to be direct policy from Team Security to not give any specifics to anything, other then "Read the EULA".
I thought that they were pretty clear. Let me get the presentation to watch and try to write a detailed blog post in the next week or so. But basically, everything you did in your demo video that used the MWD instead of launching bombs violates the EULA.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5226
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:11:06 -
[4300] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: ...that round robin and video fx are against the rules if used for an advantage (though how much of an advantage is an advantage is questionable) that they have no client side detection (and instead rely on data analysis over period of months) and that players can be under investigation for months before action is taken. did they offer any clarification on what constitutes an "advantage"? How fast or slow must I use my multiple clients to not be considered "cheating"? That is really my main question, it seems to come down to some vague definition of an unfair advantage. So we need specifics, how fast am i allowed to click buttons on other clients before I am considered breaking some nondescript rule?Did anyone ask about other 3rd party tools and why they are ok to give an in-game advantage (EVEMon, EVEHQ, EFT, Evernus, Dedaf's Spreadsheets are examples that provide tremendous market capabilities and analysis that the average person could never do) but using tools to multibox now starts to put you into a territory of getting your accounts banned? No, they didn't. There was a vague reference to 20% above the average but I believe that was just spitballing rather than a real figure. The other software all seems to be fine as its not inbound control, which is ludicrous considering the vast advantage I have over tool-less traders. And yes, any form of multibox tools, and in face muliboxing efficiently and frequently in the same way without tools will put you at risk. What it comes down to is how confident you are that ccp will both respond and believe you if you get banned in error. The room was a little too hostile to ho too much into nuances and it was literally me vs the room in afraid. Seems there's very little chance of clarification beyond what you already have, so make of it what you will.
Phone posting at party ftw.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
356
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:34:00 -
[4301] - Quote
It really incesses me that Team Security States in their opening statement on "input multiplexing" that they want to clarify what is or is not allowed then say "read the EULA".
These are incredibly simple questions.
If you dont want to name features directly then draw a line
" you cannot send more then x commands to your clients in x seconds."
Simple, easy to follow, no confusion.
Something like that would be completely feature agnostic.
This current vagueness is complete garbage.
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5226
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:39:34 -
[4302] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:It really incesses me that Team Security States in their opening statement on "input multiplexing" that they want to clarify what is or is not allowed then say "read the EULA".
These are incredibly simple questions.
If you dont want to name features directly then draw a line
" you cannot send more then x commands to your clients in x seconds."
Simple, easy to follow, no confusion.
Something like that would be completely feature agnostic.
This current vagueness is complete garbage. Honestly, I don't like how the whole thing has been handled, I don't like the lack of communication, and I don't like that manual players are at risk, but I don't think CCP are going to clarify it any further. My advice to you is to not use round robin, not use vfx, and preferably not use isboxer. Beyond that, at this point I think you're fighting a losing battle, and you need to just move on. Its not right, but it's reality.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 05:06:39 -
[4303] - Quote
It is possible to sue CCP currently under american law; [UCC, view; Deceit, Entrapment, False advertisement] So... if anyone is interested in a mass tort.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
356
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 05:13:32 -
[4304] - Quote
Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:It is possible to sue CCP currently under american law; [UCC, view; Deceit, Entrapment, False advertisement] So... if anyone is interested in a mass tort.
-100% not gonna happen. Who knows the mess of laws between an Icelandic company with holdings in the USA. Then you have to find a lawyer willing to take it on, show you have real damages (pretty hard barrier to get over in a video game). They can at any time refuse to serve customers and while the EULA / TOS provides some protection for the player, it is written specifically to protect CCP. Thats the reason its pretty damn vague.
- Now show they are operating under new rules (which they clearly state they are not since they refused to change the EULA, I am positive that was a legal maneuver having a lot of lawyer friends and being a casual observer into their legal cases) and how they somehow broke their contract with you without offering you to close out your account and receive any unused time back as credit to your credit card.
Its way too little to gain and way too much in legal fees to bother.
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 05:22:06 -
[4305] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:It is possible to sue CCP currently under american law; [UCC, view; Deceit, Entrapment, False advertisement] So... if anyone is interested in a mass tort. -100% not gonna happen. Who knows the mess of laws between an Icelandic company with holdings in the USA. Then you have to find a lawyer willing to take it on, show you have real damages (pretty hard barrier to get over in a video game). They can at any time refuse to serve customers and while the EULA / TOS provides some protection for the player, it is written specifically to protect CCP. Thats the reason its pretty damn vague. - Now show they are operating under new rules (which they clearly state they are not since they refused to change the EULA, I am positive that was a legal maneuver having a lot of lawyer friends and being a casual observer into their legal cases) and how they somehow broke their contract with you without offering you to close out your account and receive any unused time back as credit to your credit card. Its way too little to gain and way too much in legal fees to bother.
way i see it hundreds have been affected; my returns would be 15000$, 7500$ if we assumed lawyer got 50%. [10+yrs of advertising one way, then a complete 180; false advertisement]
Imagine what some of the older and bigger guys would get.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
ashley Eoner
463
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 05:42:22 -
[4306] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:It really incesses me that Team Security States in their opening statement on "input multiplexing" that they want to clarify what is or is not allowed then say "read the EULA".
These are incredibly simple questions.
If you dont want to name features directly then draw a line
" you cannot send more then x commands to your clients in x seconds."
Simple, easy to follow, no confusion.
Something like that would be completely feature agnostic.
This current vagueness is complete garbage. Honestly, I don't like how the whole thing has been handled, I don't like the lack of communication, and I don't like that manual players are at risk, but I don't think CCP are going to clarify it any further. My advice to you is to not use round robin, not use vfx, and preferably not use isboxer. Beyond that, at this point I think you're fighting a losing battle, and you need to just move on. Its not right, but it's reality.
CCP isn't going to win if they try to change eve into a SC or elite clone...
I say this because CCP has been slowly removing aspects of the game that made it unique. Now if you're a scammer it's okay but don't get too good or you'll get banned like a certain famous scammer. It's okay to multibox but if you get too good you'll get banned. The wording they used in the fanfest presentation seems to ban some features of windows including areo. |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1459
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 10:03:31 -
[4307] - Quote
Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:It is possible to sue CCP currently under american law; [UCC, view; Deceit, Entrapment, False advertisement] So... if anyone is interested in a mass tort. -100% not gonna happen. Who knows the mess of laws between an Icelandic company with holdings in the USA. Then you have to find a lawyer willing to take it on, show you have real damages (pretty hard barrier to get over in a video game). They can at any time refuse to serve customers and while the EULA / TOS provides some protection for the player, it is written specifically to protect CCP. Thats the reason its pretty damn vague. - Now show they are operating under new rules (which they clearly state they are not since they refused to change the EULA, I am positive that was a legal maneuver having a lot of lawyer friends and being a casual observer into their legal cases) and how they somehow broke their contract with you without offering you to close out your account and receive any unused time back as credit to your credit card. Its way too little to gain and way too much in legal fees to bother. way i see it hundreds have been affected; my returns would be 15000$, 7500$ if we assumed lawyer got 50%. [10+yrs of advertising one way, then a complete 180; false advertisement] Imagine what some of the older and bigger guys would get.
U mad bro?
The Tears Must Flow
|
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
1602
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 13:39:24 -
[4308] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:
CCP isn't going to win if they try to change eve into a SC or elite clone...
I say this because CCP has been slowly removing aspects of the game that made it unique. Now if you're a scammer it's okay but don't get too good or you'll get banned like a certain famous scammer. It's okay to multibox but if you get too good you'll get banned. The wording they used in the fanfest presentation seems to ban some features of windows including areo. It's madness at best with the worst case being a course set for oblivion.
It's obvious that CCP considers a certain section of players to be problematic and in their zeal to remove those players they are creating all kinds of vagueness and shiftiness in their wording that makes it incredibly difficult for those of us that want to continue boxing without being banned. I would prefer CCP just be honest and say what activities it is that they want boxers to stop doing so at least then we'd know where we stand.
I find it hilarious that it's Blizzard doing HTFU while CCP panders to the lazy.
Scammer being good is ok. Scammer being an online and in game psychopath deliberately physically hurting others is not ok.
Multibox is ok, multi box with 70 alts is not ok. Multibox in a way that you have an edge over others by automation is not ok.
Players are not the problem but the way they play CCP's game. It's their game. They decide whether or not they want certain things happening in THEIR game. As always they give you the tools. Iisboxer and other crap where never in the toolset they gave you. As always you have only right to access the game. If you don't like it, many other game out there for you to play "your way".
And I cannot believe this thread still isn't locked, as everything here has been chewed down to the bone marrow. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
209
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 14:08:21 -
[4309] - Quote
Darkblad wrote:Charadrass wrote:None of the Petitioned question is beeing answered on Team security on fan fest.
nice ccp. ignoring us again. Posting this at 15:18 (the presentation was in its first 20 minutes by that time), while there's: Schedule wrote:16:00 - CCP Security - Better Safe Than Sorry!
In the security roundtable you will have the chance to ask questions regarding the security presentation and about all things security in CCP and EVE Online. You did'nt jump to that opportunity?
Oh we tried. We have a few Guys in Island at the fanfest. They had prepared questions. and they got blocked. the werent allowed to ask those unwanted questions at the roundtable.
I dont like to just assume it's ok with how i multibox cause i am not banned.
i just want to talk with a guy from ccp who is not limited in his answers to predefined eula Responses.
Funny Thing too is, that the other overview program is explicit allowed by ccp. and videofx was too in that context. and now videofx suddenly becomes a modifying eve tool... i think they didnt even looked into videofx and what it can do.
but ok, were not using that one.
currently in my Setup:
F1 = F1 in Box1
F2 = F1 in Box2
F10 = F1 in Box10
X1 = Shift+F1 in Box1
X2 = Shift+F2 in Box2
etc.
As i am flying with 10 boxes max, i can all of them use at nearly the same time.
again my question, as it was blocked at the fanfest and didnt even made it to the presentation. am i violating the eula?
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
378
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 14:14:01 -
[4310] - Quote
Pak Narhoo wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:
CCP isn't going to win if they try to change eve into a SC or elite clone...
I say this because CCP has been slowly removing aspects of the game that made it unique. Now if you're a scammer it's okay but don't get too good or you'll get banned like a certain famous scammer. It's okay to multibox but if you get too good you'll get banned. The wording they used in the fanfest presentation seems to ban some features of windows including areo. It's madness at best with the worst case being a course set for oblivion.
It's obvious that CCP considers a certain section of players to be problematic and in their zeal to remove those players they are creating all kinds of vagueness and shiftiness in their wording that makes it incredibly difficult for those of us that want to continue boxing without being banned. I would prefer CCP just be honest and say what activities it is that they want boxers to stop doing so at least then we'd know where we stand.
I find it hilarious that it's Blizzard doing HTFU while CCP panders to the lazy.
Scammer being good is ok. Scammer being an online and in game psychopath deliberately physically hurting others is not ok. Multibox is ok, multi box with 70 alts is not ok. Multibox in a way that you have an edge over others by automation is not ok. Players are not the problem but the way they play CCP's game. It's their game. They decide whether or not they want certain things happening in THEIR game. As always they give you the tools. Iisboxer and other crap where never in the toolset they gave you. As always you have only right to access the game. If you don't like it, many other game out there for you to play "your way". And I cannot believe this thread still isn't locked, as everything here has been chewed down to the bone marrow.
What you say is very true but then CCP has for years actively encouraged multiboxing and because they were too short sighted to see it could create problems in the future or would be done in a way that some players thought was unfair are now banning those who took advantage and played the game, they pay to play, the way they wanted to.
CCP may own the name Eve but the game itself (up until recently anyway) belonged to those who play it. By changing this they will end up doing more harm to themselves as a company than any good that may come of it.
Unlike most other games available today Eve does not and will not ever attract millions of subscribers. Eve is a long term commitment that most of the gaming community isn't interested in. Many, many people will say Eve looks amazing, so why don't they play?
These days logging in and seeing 25k online is a big day, where 2 years ago (even a year ago for a while) that number was closer to 35k to 40k. What has changed that the amount of players actively playing the game has dropped off so much?
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
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
793
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 14:46:06 -
[4311] - Quote
Pak Narhoo wrote:Scammer being good is ok. Scammer being an online and in game psychopath deliberately physically hurting others is not ok.
Multibox is ok, multi box with 70 alts is not ok. Multibox in a way that you have an edge over others by automation is not ok.
Players are not the problem but the way they play CCP's game. It's their game. They decide whether or not they want certain things happening in THEIR game. As always they give you the tools. Iisboxer and other crap where never in the toolset they gave you. As always you have only right to access the game. If you don't like it, many other game out there for you to play "your way".
And I cannot believe this thread still isn't locked, as everything here has been chewed down to the bone marrow.
If you re-look at the second TMC article about the banned bonus room player, you'd realize he didn't go to the same lengths as Erotica 1 did. He claimed to keep it well before the line that Erotica 1 crossed, and James 315 made an excellent argument for having clear lines in the sand Additionally, players who were just idling in the channel were banned for guilt by association, something which any lawyer in the world would have a wet dream if he was assigned a criminal case where that was the case.
As for ISBoxer, yes, I agree we have already demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt that ISBoxer does not break 6A3, and if it's being banned for 6A2 then we must also ban Steam Overlay, TS3 Overlay, and Mumble Overlay. That's not even COUNTING the fact that ISBoxer does not display it's VideoFX ONTO ANOTHER CLIENT, but rather onto WINDOWS AERO. If we're banning it for it's FPS limiting factor, then there's a problem as that can be inserted into the properties window of the exe, as well as being a staple feature you can set on most games coming out on the market these days. If we're banning on 6A3 on per-client basis, no ISBoxer has yet been able to break the ISK of an identical fleet with identical setup/mods/implants/skills/exp. If we're banning on 6A3 on per-human basis, then we have a problem as 1) This was not mentioned anywhere by CCP and 2) Even a 5-box (loki + archon + moros + booster + cap escalator) C6 capital escalation fleet with an unlimited amount of C6 sites doesn't even come close to the amount of ISK earned by a supercap scammer, a market PVPer, or even a regular supercap builder. |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 15:08:05 -
[4312] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:[quote=Pak Narhoo][quote=ashley Eoner]
CCP isn't going to win if they try to change eve into a SC or elite clone...
"Multibox is ok, multi box with 70 alts is not ok."
They sell Power Of 2 just the same with no disclaimer saying otherwise ; Basis for a mass tort.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
209
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 16:07:42 -
[4313] - Quote
Funny you said that. I used power of two A LOT. |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 17:16:34 -
[4314] - Quote
Exactly my point chara on why i think if we cannot make CCP communicate maybe our only option is a mass legal filing against them. Just alittle reading of the UCC shows what they're doing is... less than respectable.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
357
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 18:13:43 -
[4315] - Quote
Can someone from CCP please clarify what Team Security presented during Fanfest?
VFX / Rollover Questions
They seem to say its "client modification" if you put VFX inside your client window. Then state to "read the EULA" and that these programs modify the client.
CCP's Example of a modified Client
That is of course false, since your just using built in Window DWM / AERO features (the same thing you see when you hold alt-tab). This is a built in windows feature that you could implement on your PC without using tools like ISBoxer, which just makes it easier.
In fact CCP is helping development one now.
If I use the CCP endorsed DWM tool, which modifies how the game client is presented, am I not in the same violation?
EVE-O preview - multi-client preview
That program is EASILY following the same pathway that ISBoxer uses to modify clients for easier window management, it could VERY QUICKLY turn into the same exact feature set (would that be falling into some kind of copyright infringement, CCP?)
However since they are seemingly intent on calling Windows Features "client modification", using VFX and Rollover OUTSIDE the client cant be considered client modification.
So if I use VFX, Clickbars, round-robin etc OUTSIDE the client window, I am not modifying the client in anyway, so therefor I am not in violation if I am using CCP's strict interperation of the rules.
This is an example of a dxnothing window that DOES NOT in anyway put anything inside the EVE Client Window. This MUST be within the EULA based on CCP's presentation. (Before anyone harps the "3rd party tool for an advantage to the average player" garbage, 1st defend the CCP endorsed EVE-O Preview tool, Evernus, Elinor, EVEHQ and many other 3rd party programs that give you an advantage over others).
Rollover / Keymapping Specific Question
Assuming that using Rollover buttons OUTSIDE of the client is ok, since im not "modifying the client", then what is the issue? Am I not allowed to send a "left mouse button click" when I move my mouse?
In Team Security's presentation they stated you CAN use Touch Screens. Ok, can I use a Touch Screen to activate a bunch of modules in a row (like all of my low slots)? Is using Touch Screens ok but using Rollover's not ok?
What about just re-mapping the keys from my clients onto my keyboard or another input device?
Are we allowed to make key remaps? Can I remap F1 on Client #2 to F2 instead?
If I get a Xkey 80 and assign each button, I could easily use bombers almost as effeicently as using Rollover or Input Duplication... Is this allowed? Its certainty not a macro, just a key remap? How would CCP know the difference though? I can hit 16 + buttons in a second using my fingers, what if i just took my fist and smashed all the keys?
There is a simple solution to all of this vagueness
If you dont want to name features directly then draw a line
" you cannot send more then x commands to your clients in x seconds."
Simple, easy to follow, no confusion. Something like that would be completely feature agnostic.
This current vagueness is complete garbage.
I and others have outlined questions and concerns at Dual-boxing.com
http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/52086-Team-Security-EVE-Fanfest-presentation-1500-GMT-on-Saturday-March-21st?p=397319&viewfull=1#post397319
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 19:56:31 -
[4316] - Quote
Start passing it along; Double standards don't work here.
"
Send an email to [email protected] telling them that EVE-O is in violation of their EULA, specifically 6A2. Additionally, it seems to be endorsed by CCP because a dev is working on it.
CCP wants people to report programs? Sure, let's do that.
Hello. I would like to report a program that is currently being developed and endorsed in part by CCP that is in violation of EULA 6A2, the client modification clause.
Details:
Forum thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=389086&find=unread
Download location: https://bitbucket.org/ulph/eve-o-preview-git/downloads
Source code: https://bitbucket.org/ulph/eve-o-preview-git
CCP endorsement: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5283579#post5283579
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5285893#post5285893 [Confirmation that CCP is a contributor / endorser]
Additional information: http://i.imgur.com/Y6Si8hg.png
Thanks."
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
Marsha Mallow
2056
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:35:23 -
[4317] - Quote
Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:Exactly my point chara on why i think if we cannot make CCP communicate maybe our only option is a mass legal filing against them. Just alittle reading of the UCC shows what they're doing is... less than respectable.
You should really consider this mass legal filing. If you agree to include charges for changing the Enyo lance into a toothpick I'm sure you'll get supporters.
Benny Ohu wrote:
fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
439
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 01:30:46 -
[4318] - Quote
I have removed two posts that were off topic or trollish in nature.
Quote:27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
ISD Decoy
Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 08:26:31 -
[4319] - Quote
Hi I'm still around if anyone cared.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZz_5dI6fgM
Still running that setup since CCP appears to believe that videoFX is some kind of OMG HAXOR LEVEL!!!
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
210
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 08:47:48 -
[4320] - Quote
I am using the 120 xkey version btw. |
|
|
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 12:10:25 -
[4321] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:I am using the 120 xkey version btw.
Interesting, where did you buy/get it ?
I could need some more keys/hotkeys... |
Vicrodhe Lemmont
N-C-i-S
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 12:29:29 -
[4322] - Quote
Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:It is possible to sue CCP currently under american law; [UCC, view; Deceit, Entrapment, False advertisement] So... if anyone is interested in a mass tort.
What do you think they have done that would allow you to take this course of action ? |
Vicrodhe Lemmont
N-C-i-S
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 12:30:21 -
[4323] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Charadrass wrote:I am using the 120 xkey version btw. Interesting, where did you buy/get it ? I could need some more keys/hotkeys... And how do you feel it work out for you? (I have been looking for something like that for a while)
http://xkeys.com/xkeys/xk128.php |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
210
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 12:53:17 -
[4324] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Charadrass wrote:I am using the 120 xkey version btw. Interesting, where did you buy/get it ? I could need some more keys/hotkeys... And how do you feel it work out for you? (I have been looking for something like that for a while)
http://xkeys.com/xkeys/xk128.php
but i am currently experimenting with a usb touchscreen, cause i can adjust keys faster.
and ccp allowed using touchscreens for input. |
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 13:35:34 -
[4325] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:Charadrass wrote:I am using the 120 xkey version btw. Interesting, where did you buy/get it ? I could need some more keys/hotkeys... And how do you feel it work out for you? (I have been looking for something like that for a while) http://xkeys.com/xkeys/xk128.php
but i am currently experimenting with a usb touchscreen, cause i can adjust keys faster. and ccp allowed using touchscreens for input.
Touch screen sounds interesting :) maybe you can show me later? 'etc. heh. or tell me how it works? :) |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
210
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 13:51:25 -
[4326] - Quote
it is a usb display in fact. as touchscreen. |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 14:19:52 -
[4327] - Quote
Vicrodhe Lemmont wrote:Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:It is possible to sue CCP currently under american law; [UCC, view; Deceit, Entrapment, False advertisement] So... if anyone is interested in a mass tort. What do you think they have done that would allow you to take this course of action ?
Deceit / Entrapment / False advertisement involving Power Of 2, among other issues like; being banned for using a operating softwares built in abilitys [aero]... among a few more. [go read up on UCC law, commonly known as trade law.]
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
1049
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 14:49:52 -
[4328] - Quote
Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:Vicrodhe Lemmont wrote:Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:It is possible to sue CCP currently under american law; [UCC, view; Deceit, Entrapment, False advertisement] So... if anyone is interested in a mass tort. What do you think they have done that would allow you to take this course of action ? Deceit / Entrapment / False advertisement involving Power Of 2, among other issues like; being banned for using a operating softwares built in abilitys [aero]... among a few more. [go read up on UCC law, commonly known as trade law.]
Please get the f*ck out and take your bullsh*t with you.
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 15:12:23 -
[4329] - Quote
This is not something I have written, but something someone did write in response to someone that thought multiboxing was cheating, and that it should be limited to 1 account per ip. (with like 12 slots max on one account)
This was 1 off the responses to his post,
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
So easy to bypass it's not even worth trying. Simple solution is connect second, and subsequent accounts, through VPNs, and voila, seperate IPs for each account.
Besides, your post makes it pretty obvious that you have no clue how much work it is to multibox at that level, experienced multiboxers just make it look easy. If a player wants to dedicate the time to learn how to multibox like that, I say let them reap the benefits of that dedication, rather than try to restrict them to your ability level simply because you don't think it's fair. If you want to play a game where everything is fair, you're in the wrong place. This is EvE, where the strong and capable thrive while the weak and inept go back to WoW.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
-Link to where it's taken from
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=388628
Edit: |
Vicrodhe Lemmont
N-C-i-S
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 16:11:05 -
[4330] - Quote
Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:Vicrodhe Lemmont wrote:Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:It is possible to sue CCP currently under american law; [UCC, view; Deceit, Entrapment, False advertisement] So... if anyone is interested in a mass tort. What do you think they have done that would allow you to take this course of action ? Deceit / Entrapment / False advertisement involving Power Of 2, among other issues like; being banned for using a operating softwares built in abilitys [aero]... among a few more. [go read up on UCC law, commonly known as trade law.]
How have they been "Deceit / Entrapment / False advertisement" with the power of 2?
And have you been banned for something which against the Eula or have they banned you unfairly? |
|
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
212
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 16:13:14 -
[4331] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:This is not something I have written, but something someone did write in response to someone that thought multiboxing was cheating, and that it should be limited to 1 account per ip. (with like 12 slots max on one account) This was 1 off the responses to his post, ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ So easy to bypass it's not even worth trying. Simple solution is connect second, and subsequent accounts, through VPNs, and voila, seperate IPs for each account. Besides, your post makes it pretty obvious that you have no clue how much work it is to multibox at that level, experienced multiboxers just make it look easy. If a player wants to dedicate the time to learn how to multibox like that, I say let them reap the benefits of that dedication, rather than try to restrict them to your ability level simply because you don't think it's fair. If you want to play a game where everything is fair, you're in the wrong place. This is EvE, where the strong and capable thrive while the weak and inept go back to WoW. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ -Link to where it's taken from https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=388628
Edit:
good definition of a multiboxer :)
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
213
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 19:48:51 -
[4332] - Quote
If you don't want to buy an extra keypad or a Touchscreen.
changing the language of Windows should solve your Problem
https://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/goglobal/bb964665
you can create a new language file with the keymaps you Need.
and you can simply load them into the language Switch functionality from Windows.
board Software. not third Party.
should be not violating the eula.
|
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 22:05:08 -
[4333] - Quote
Chara you have no idea how funny that is; who would've thought windows would have key maps huh? Lololol
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 22:19:21 -
[4334] - Quote
Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:Chara you have no idea how funny that is; who would've thought windows would have key maps huh? Lololol
Windows has all kinds of functions that CCP doesn't seem to know about. Most tricks are related to "ease of use" stuff. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
213
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 22:29:08 -
[4335] - Quote
the question is if ccp sees Windows as third Party or not.
i think i remember a posting about Windows not beeing third Party to the eula. |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 22:51:04 -
[4336] - Quote
Prolly is since they banned using windows aero /sarc
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12277
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 03:39:21 -
[4337] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:the question is if ccp sees Windows as third Party or not.
i think i remember a posting about Windows not beeing third Party to the eula.
You should just give up, because at this point it's apparent to everyone here that you're grasping for straws.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 04:05:31 -
[4338] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Charadrass wrote:the question is if ccp sees Windows as third Party or not.
i think i remember a posting about Windows not beeing third Party to the eula. You should just give up, because at this point it's apparent to everyone here that you're grasping for straws.
So it's grasping for straws to ask if Windows is now considered a third party program that is against the EULA? |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 05:08:49 -
[4339] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Charadrass wrote:the question is if ccp sees Windows as third Party or not.
i think i remember a posting about Windows not beeing third Party to the eula. You should just give up, because at this point it's apparent to everyone here that you're grasping for straws. So it's grasping for straws to ask if Windows is now considered a third party program that is against the EULA?
Apparently so. I guess asking reasonable questions is this lil guys definition [wrong by the way, google : define grasping at straws] of grasping at straws. heh. funny.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
213
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 08:28:36 -
[4340] - Quote
Actually the Russians gave me the idea, cause they switch between cyrillic and english keymaps all the time.
so it has to be allowed by ccp.
otherwise putin will conquer iceland :P
no. so switching keymaps is allowed.
switching into your own keymap is nothing different then. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
795
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 12:21:28 -
[4341] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Charadrass wrote:the question is if ccp sees Windows as third Party or not.
i think i remember a posting about Windows not beeing third Party to the eula. You should just give up, because at this point it's apparent to everyone here that you're grasping for straws.
If anyone's grasping for straws, it's CCP declaring that ISBoxer interacts with the client via VideoFX, broadcasting, at window management while allowing EVE-O Preview. |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 20:31:50 -
[4342] - Quote
Vicrodhe Lemmont wrote:Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:Vicrodhe Lemmont wrote:Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:It is possible to sue CCP currently under american law; [UCC, view; Deceit, Entrapment, False advertisement] So... if anyone is interested in a mass tort. What do you think they have done that would allow you to take this course of action ? Deceit / Entrapment / False advertisement involving Power Of 2, among other issues like; being banned for using a operating softwares built in abilitys [aero]... among a few more. [go read up on UCC law, commonly known as trade law.] How have they been "Deceit / Entrapment / False advertisement" with the power of 2? And have you been banned for something which against the Eula or have they banned you unfairly?
Yes; they've banned pretty much any efficient multiboxer and some methods which come from windows (operating system) and still refuse to communicate to their (most loyal) customer group. Just sayin.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
Rosewalker
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
164
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 00:20:16 -
[4343] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Charadrass wrote:the question is if ccp sees Windows as third Party or not.
i think i remember a posting about Windows not beeing third Party to the eula. You should just give up, because at this point it's apparent to everyone here that you're grasping for straws. If anyone's grasping for straws, it's CCP declaring that ISBoxer interacts with the client via VideoFX, broadcasting, at window management while allowing EVE-O Preview. ' Hint: They don't, unless you want to declare video capture software banned as well as the OS-level function "on mouse focus switch window". ISBoxer does not do anything that was intended to be covered in 6A2, and CCP needs to know that.
Could you please provide the link to that? I'd like to add it to my collection of links on the subject since I seemed to have missed that one.
To my knowledge, the objection in 6A2 is that those things change the way the game is played, not any deep technical reason. If you look at the recap slide at the end, they specifically mention 6A2 and push 6A3 to the side.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 00:53:52 -
[4344] - Quote
video fx banned? |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
797
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 00:59:23 -
[4345] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Charadrass wrote:the question is if ccp sees Windows as third Party or not.
i think i remember a posting about Windows not beeing third Party to the eula. You should just give up, because at this point it's apparent to everyone here that you're grasping for straws. If anyone's grasping for straws, it's CCP declaring that ISBoxer interacts with the client via VideoFX, broadcasting, at window management while allowing EVE-O Preview. ' Hint: They don't, unless you want to declare video capture software banned as well as the OS-level function "on mouse focus switch window". ISBoxer does not do anything that was intended to be covered in 6A2, and CCP needs to know that. Could you please provide the link to that? I'd like to add it to my collection of links on the subject since I seemed to have missed that one. To my knowledge, the objection in 6A2 is that those things change the way the game is played, not any deep technical reason. If you look at the recap slide at the end, they specifically mention 6A2 and push 6A3 to the side.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=389086 Here.
The objection via 6A2 (that it somehow changes the way the game is played) is nonsense and should have been laughed out of the office by Team Security. ISBoxer doesn't change the way the game is played any more than having multiple monitors, or having your windows tiled, or using virtual desktops, or even having multiple clients running. There is no basis for banning ISBoxer's tools and functions while not touching EVE-O Preview, Mumble Overlay, TS3 overlay, and Steam Overlay, as well as multiple clients at a time.
I'm suddenly reminded that at least one CCP and one CSM member declared an interest for one client per IP, or one client per person. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12285
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 01:33:35 -
[4346] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: ISBoxer doesn't change the way the game is played any more than having multiple monitors, or having your windows tiled, or using virtual desktops, or even having multiple clients running.
Do you think anyone believes that lie anymore?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
797
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 01:58:23 -
[4347] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote: ISBoxer doesn't change the way the game is played any more than having multiple monitors, or having your windows tiled, or using virtual desktops, or even having multiple clients running. Do you think anyone believes that lie anymore?
You have yet to provide any evidence contrary, so yes. I will continue to spread the truth until CCP decides they want to become a complete totalitarian entity and ban my account for daring to speak the truth contrary to the popular rhetoric. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
378
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 02:12:35 -
[4348] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
I'm suddenly reminded that at least one CCP and one CSM member declared an interest for one client per IP, or one client per person.
One client per person?
How quickly would CCP go broke if that were introduced?
I wonder how much compensation would need to be paid out to customers who purchased accounts via the "never fly alone" promotions?
No matter what some choose to believe, multi boxers are the backbone of Eve.
1 person subbing 10 accounts puts far more into CCP coffers than 1 person with 1 account.
Eve-offline currently shows 22,831 players on TQ (server time 02.11), remove 50% for the multi boxers (generous estimate, I believe it would be far higher), you end up with around 10,000 individual players online. Not a lot really, is it?
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
|
Rosewalker
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
164
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 02:19:49 -
[4349] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rosewalker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Charadrass wrote:the question is if ccp sees Windows as third Party or not.
i think i remember a posting about Windows not beeing third Party to the eula. You should just give up, because at this point it's apparent to everyone here that you're grasping for straws. If anyone's grasping for straws, it's CCP declaring that ISBoxer interacts with the client via VideoFX, broadcasting, at window management while allowing EVE-O Preview. ' Hint: They don't, unless you want to declare video capture software banned as well as the OS-level function "on mouse focus switch window". ISBoxer does not do anything that was intended to be covered in 6A2, and CCP needs to know that. Could you please provide the link to that? I'd like to add it to my collection of links on the subject since I seemed to have missed that one. To my knowledge, the objection in 6A2 is that those things change the way the game is played, not any deep technical reason. If you look at the recap slide at the end, they specifically mention 6A2 and push 6A3 to the side. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=389086 Here. The objection via 6A2 (that it somehow changes the way the game is played) is nonsense and should have been laughed out of the office by Team Security. ISBoxer doesn't change the way the game is played any more than having multiple monitors, or having your windows tiled, or using virtual desktops, or even having multiple clients running. There is no basis for banning ISBoxer's tools and functions while not touching EVE-O Preview, Mumble Overlay, TS3 overlay, and Steam Overlay, as well as multiple clients at a time. I'm suddenly reminded that at least one CCP and one CSM member declared an interest for one client per IP, or one client per person.
Are you referring to this post by CCP Foxfour?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5604653#post5604653
As far as I can tell, Eve-O Preview is just a very unsophisticated subset of ISBoxer's capabilities. I think someone over on the Dual-Boxer forums said it was like comparing an apple to an apple growing corporation with subsidiaries in the tech and financial sectors. When I downloaded and used Eve-O Preview, I definitely got that impression.
If you use ISBoxer just like you would Eve-O Preview, then you won't get banned. It's when things like putting 12 capacitor readout wheels and other things that allow you to control 12 clients from one window where you get ISBoxer changing the way the game is played. I've watched some YouTube vidoes demonstrating the advanced capabilities of ISBoxer and the guy definitely was playing a different game that I do.
I will say you are correct about the Mumble and TS3 overlays technically being client modification. That's why they were given an explicit exemption in the Third Party Policies. It's the same exemption that ISBoxer used to enjoy until CCP removed the exemption from the Third Party Policies on 25 November and began enforcing all provisions of the EULA on 1 January.
I'm not exactly thrilled with the way this whole issue surrounding ISBoxer has been handled over the years, with at least 2 stealth edits to rulings that I've documented. However, CCP has finally gotten around to making ISBoxer users follow the EULA and Rules of Conduct in a way that doesn't outright prohibit the use of the software.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 04:51:36 -
[4350] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote: ISBoxer doesn't change the way the game is played any more than having multiple monitors, or having your windows tiled, or using virtual desktops, or even having multiple clients running.
Do you think anyone believes that lie anymore?
I've posted video evidence showing that I can achieve the same results as videoFX by just using eve in windowed mode.
|
|
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
362
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 04:58:53 -
[4351] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote: ISBoxer doesn't change the way the game is played any more than having multiple monitors, or having your windows tiled, or using virtual desktops, or even having multiple clients running.
Do you think anyone believes that lie anymore? I've posted video evidence showing that I can achieve the same results as videoFX by just using eve in windowed mode.
well please stop, because your obviously at an advantage compared to the average player.
cheating and 3rd party programs arent allowed....
oh your using Windows, a keyboard and a mouse? Well so you know thats a 3rd party program.
Thank you for your cooperation, Citizen.
EVE Online and Multiboxing
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 07:09:09 -
[4352] - Quote
Setiously; either ccp communicates or we sue for sub money ?
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5241
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 09:00:39 -
[4353] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:If you use ISBoxer just like you would Eve-O Preview, then you won't get banned. It's when things like putting 12 capacitor readout wheels and other things that allow you to control 12 clients from one window where you get ISBoxer changing the way the game is played. I've watched some YouTube vidoes demonstrating the advanced capabilities of ISBoxer and the guy definitely was playing a different game that I do. This right here is a problem though. As we found out, they have no client side detection, so there's no way to know if someone is tiling their windows as long as they aren't using them "too efficiently". How is is fair to allow a guy with scouts for example to tile all of his local windows and d-scans into a single screen to protect his ratter, or tile all his ratters information panels into a single place to view them more quickly? Answer is, it's not, but it's impossible to ban.
So what's happening here is the most obvious ISBoxer users and the most efficient manual multiboxers will get banned, while people who are less efficient but still gaining a massive advantage over "normal" players get away without an issue.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
734
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 09:02:14 -
[4354] - Quote
They have communicated. There is a video of a presentation from fanfest, there is the first post in this thread by CCP Falcon as well as the EULA.
It's not CCP's fault you don't like what has been communicated or that some people don't understand what has been communicated. |
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 09:17:28 -
[4355] - Quote
You seem to think it is the fault of the multiboxers when the very first post mentions input duplication
Round robin and videofx are, if used properly, exempt from that ruling
Yet people were banned anyways
What has been communicated is false and full of missing grey matter for the grey area |
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 09:33:24 -
[4356] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Rosewalker wrote:If you use ISBoxer just like you would Eve-O Preview, then you won't get banned. It's when things like putting 12 capacitor readout wheels and other things that allow you to control 12 clients from one window where you get ISBoxer changing the way the game is played. I've watched some YouTube vidoes demonstrating the advanced capabilities of ISBoxer and the guy definitely was playing a different game that I do. This right here is a problem though. As we found out, they have no client side detection, so there's no way to know if someone is tiling their windows as long as they aren't using them "too efficiently". How is is fair to allow a guy with scouts for example to tile all of his local windows and d-scans into a single screen to protect his ratter, or tile all his ratters information panels into a single place to view them more quickly? Answer is, it's not, but it's impossible to ban. So what's happening here is the most obvious ISBoxer users and the most efficient manual multiboxers will get banned, while people who are less efficient but still gaining a massive advantage over "normal" players get away without an issue.
You have without a doubt given me the harshest critical appraisal ever without even mentioning my name :P
Someday I will be an efficient manual multiboxer :( |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
213
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 10:17:27 -
[4357] - Quote
Eve has currently aprox 145k paid subs.
And yes, they have to ban eve-overlay too if they are going to enforce videofx user bans.
for me now. i am testing the keyboard layout. and soon i will switch over completely.
then i would like to see the ban for using windows on my character screen :) |
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
916
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 12:37:18 -
[4358] - Quote
This argument is still going?
Replicating a single input to multiple clients was stupid.
Get over it.
Not today spaghetti.
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
213
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 13:04:28 -
[4359] - Quote
Sexy Cakes wrote:This argument is still going?
Replicating a single input to multiple clients was stupid.
Get over it.
do you even read my posting?
I press 1 key
and this key
is sending 1 command
to 1 box
where is that broadcasting or multiplexing
or input to multiple clients?
tell me. |
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
916
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 13:49:55 -
[4360] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:Sexy Cakes wrote:This argument is still going?
Replicating a single input to multiple clients was stupid.
Get over it. do you even read my posting? I press 1 key and this key is sending 1 command to 1 box where is that broadcasting or multiplexing or input to multiple clients? tell me.
I've had the displeasure of running across you ingame via the incursion community back in the day.
I'm not going to read your posts or join into the argument that this thread has devolved into.
I'm simply trying to bring you all back on the topic which is input automation.
Not today spaghetti.
|
|
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
213
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 14:04:31 -
[4361] - Quote
you should buy a goggles.
as long as there are pilots getting banned using allowed / non violating methods to multibox we have to discuss that here,
that is not offtopic cause ccp closed other threads we started and pointed us back into this thread. so either you join the discussion with constructive text or leave it please. |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
194
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 14:42:51 -
[4362] - Quote
Sexy Cakes wrote:
I'm simply trying to bring you all back on the topic which is input automation.
It is not only about input automation, as has been shown in the security talk at Fanfest. They now consider more than input automation to be cheating. They also now consider using VideoFX features of ISBoxer to also be cheating.
Basically if you are using more than a couple of accounts, CCP reserves the right to Ban you for whatever reason they deem appropriate.
It is what it is, and I think the war is lost and we all just need to be happy with our couple of accounts and call it a day.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
189
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 14:51:20 -
[4363] - Quote
Sexy Cakes wrote:This argument is still going?
Replicating a single input to multiple clients was stupid.
Get over it.
its been almost 2k post since ccp posted. They leave this open to reduce new threads being created. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
800
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 16:52:54 -
[4364] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Are you referring to this post by CCP Foxfour? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5604653#post5604653As far as I can tell, Eve-O Preview is just a very unsophisticated subset of ISBoxer's capabilities. I think someone over on the Dual-Boxer forums said it was like comparing an apple to an apple growing corporation with subsidiaries in the tech and financial sectors. When I downloaded and used Eve-O Preview, I definitely got that impression. If you use ISBoxer just like you would Eve-O Preview, then you won't get banned. It's when things like putting 12 capacitor readout wheels and other things that allow you to control 12 clients from one window where you get ISBoxer changing the way the game is played. I've watched some YouTube vidoes demonstrating the advanced capabilities of ISBoxer and the guy definitely was playing a different game that I do. I will say you are correct about the Mumble and TS3 overlays technically being client modification. That's why they were given an explicit exemption in the Third Party Policies. It's the same exemption that ISBoxer used to enjoy until CCP removed the exemption from the Third Party Policies on 25 November and began enforcing all provisions of the EULA on 1 January. I'm not exactly thrilled with the way this whole issue surrounding ISBoxer has been handled over the years, with at least 2 stealth edits to rulings that I've documented. However, CCP has finally gotten around to making ISBoxer users follow the EULA and Rules of Conduct in a way that doesn't outright prohibit the use of the software.
By your logic, anyone playing in a windowed mode, multiple monitors, or tiling multiple windows should be banned. VideoFX does nothing but dictate pieces of each window to DWM (much the same way that FRAPS or Twitch does) and display them somewhere else using Aero. Note that Shadowplay by NVidia may be different.
There is no reason why "putting 12 capacitor readout wheels" would or should be disallowed. Some people prefer their capacitor readout at the top of the screen; shall we ban them as well? ISBoxer is emergent gameplay at it's finest. As defined by WIkipedia: "Emergent gameplay refers to complex situations in video games, board games, or table top role-playing games that emerge from the interaction of relatively simple game mechanics." (Source in French: Here). We contend that ISBoxer is nothing more than emergent gameplay that came about as a direct result of CCP's encouragement (some may argue necessity) of multiple accounts and characters. CCP previously ruled on this with that person who had duct-taped multiple mice together and used dowels with key-pads. He was banned for botting but got it lifted after demonstrating that he was sitting behind the keyboard implementing the actions himself, not some program that kept running like clockwork while he was at the Five-and-Dime. Same thing with ISBoxer.
I mentioned the previous case because it set something known as a "precedent". CCP communicated with the playerbase that as long as you aren't AFK while the program continues to function and act, it's fine. CCP is currently breaking a clearly set and defined precedent. This is not something to be taken lightly. CCP is upset that we are creating emergent gameplay using legitimate mechanics. Margin trading scams are considered emergent gameplay, as the mechanics behind the Margin Trading skill was not meant to be used to scam players when it was first devised and implemented. The sandbox of EVE is being slowly constricted bit by bit. I hate to participate in a slippery slope fallacy, but first ISBoxers, next scammers and gankers. |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 17:26:52 -
[4365] - Quote
Goddamn. Like i said; programmers, doctors, crim defense, attorneys arguing against what seems to be like 9-5 burger flippers. (Lookin at you, troll).
E;actually I think burger flippers would have more logic than ccp AND the trolls in here providing no valid counter arguement
E2; round two analogy, this is like going to a ghetto trying to teach math.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
800
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 18:05:33 -
[4366] - Quote
Sexy Cakes wrote:I've had the displeasure of running across you ingame via the incursion community back in the day.
I'm not going to read your posts or join into the argument that this thread has devolved into.
I'm simply trying to bring you all back on the topic which is input automation.
Input automation is an interesting topic. First let's look at the definition of automation, per Merriam-Webster:
automation noun
Definition of AUTOMATION
1 the technique of making an apparatus, a process, or a system operate automatically
2 the state of being operated automatically
3 automatically controlled operation of an apparatus, process, or system by mechanical or electronic devices that take the place of human labor.
Now, any reasonable person (as defined by law) would take one look at this and tell you that 1) ISBoxer doesn't allow one to automate gameplay and 2) since ISBoxer doesn't allow you to automate gameplay there should be no ban regarding it. |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 20:00:41 -
[4367] - Quote
The answer is simple Nolak; we arnt dealing with reasonable, sound of mind, people.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
213
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 20:19:33 -
[4368] - Quote
as i told everyone here.
i am waiting for a Pilot getting banned for using Windows :) |
Sir Constantin
28
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 22:14:41 -
[4369] - Quote
TLDR: People want VFX to be allowed so they can import pieces of Eve into their 3'rd party software on pc or tablets so they can go fullretard there with rollovers and all the things.
How about HTFU and play the game as we 99% of players do. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5248
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 22:53:40 -
[4370] - Quote
Sir Constantin wrote:TLDR: People want VFX to be allowed so they can import pieces of Eve into their 3'rd party software on pc or tablets so they can go fullretard there with rollovers and all the things.
How about HTFU and play the game as we 99% of players do.
It's called comprehension. Look it up. How many special people are going to repeat this as if it's an accurate representation of what's going on here, even though they've not bothered to actually read the posts?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
802
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 23:05:56 -
[4371] - Quote
Sir Constantin wrote:TLDR: People want VFX to be allowed so they can import pieces of Eve into their 3'rd party software on pc or tablets so they can go fullretard there with rollovers and all the things.
How about HTFU and play the game as we 99% of players do.
Wrong, actually. A better tl;dr would be: People want CCP to stop killing emergent gameplay simply because a select few individuals cried about it long enough. Especially since this program does not violate any part of 6A2 and input broadcasting is nowhere to be found in the EULA. CCP might as well remove fleets and declare that you can't fly with your friends.
As for the "99%" comment, you must've missed when CCP broke down the demographics of EVE, which is where the famous "leveling my raven" joke came from. I'm not a station trader. I don't move 1T isk / month through orders. If I wanted to play "Market PVP Online" I'd play the stock market. Other people live in a WH 24/7 and never see the light of day, so to speak. Attempting to force us to do a certain thing in-game has always lead to disaster. We just want to play the game the way we want to. |
Rosewalker
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
167
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 23:59:37 -
[4372] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Rosewalker wrote:If you use ISBoxer just like you would Eve-O Preview, then you won't get banned. It's when things like putting 12 capacitor readout wheels and other things that allow you to control 12 clients from one window where you get ISBoxer changing the way the game is played. I've watched some YouTube vidoes demonstrating the advanced capabilities of ISBoxer and the guy definitely was playing a different game that I do. This right here is a problem though. As we found out, they have no client side detection, so there's no way to know if someone is tiling their windows as long as they aren't using them "too efficiently". How is is fair to allow a guy with scouts for example to tile all of his local windows and d-scans into a single screen to protect his ratter, or tile all his ratters information panels into a single place to view them more quickly? Answer is, it's not, but it's impossible to ban. So what's happening here is the most obvious ISBoxer users and the most efficient manual multiboxers will get banned, while people who are less efficient but still gaining a massive advantage over "normal" players get away without an issue.
The question is, how long will CCP monitor a player before pulling out the ban hammer? CCP stated that they are not using automated means to ban players and that they are looking at players over several sessions. If they were using client side detection, then it gets easier. But with a big data approach with everything being done server-side? I would think that someone doing everything manually would show a lot more slip-ups than someone using advanced multi-boxing software, but if one of those incredible LoL or StarCraft guys decides to play EVE? I don't know how that would look in the logs.
I'd suggest doing what I did a few years ago with botting and RMT. Watch what's happening and publicize what you see. You've got a nice blog already, use it. Being a watchdog isn't a bad thing. And that would be something I'd read.
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
804
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 00:34:19 -
[4373] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Rosewalker wrote:If you use ISBoxer just like you would Eve-O Preview, then you won't get banned. It's when things like putting 12 capacitor readout wheels and other things that allow you to control 12 clients from one window where you get ISBoxer changing the way the game is played. I've watched some YouTube vidoes demonstrating the advanced capabilities of ISBoxer and the guy definitely was playing a different game that I do. This right here is a problem though. As we found out, they have no client side detection, so there's no way to know if someone is tiling their windows as long as they aren't using them "too efficiently". How is is fair to allow a guy with scouts for example to tile all of his local windows and d-scans into a single screen to protect his ratter, or tile all his ratters information panels into a single place to view them more quickly? Answer is, it's not, but it's impossible to ban. So what's happening here is the most obvious ISBoxer users and the most efficient manual multiboxers will get banned, while people who are less efficient but still gaining a massive advantage over "normal" players get away without an issue. The question is, how long will CCP monitor a player before pulling out the ban hammer? CCP stated that they are not using automated means to ban players for input broadcasting/multiplexing at this time and that they are looking at players over several sessions. If they were using client side detection, then it gets easier. But with a big data approach with everything being done server-side? I would think that someone doing everything manually would show a lot more slip-ups than someone using advanced multi-boxing software, but if one of those incredible LoL or StarCraft guys decides to play EVE? I don't know how that would look in the logs. I'd suggest doing what I did a few years ago with botting and RMT. Watch what's happening and publicize what you see. You've got a nice blog already, use it. Being a watchdog isn't a bad thing. And that would be something I'd read.
CCP killed the last real "watchdog" website/blog (kugu) after they ragebanned them for exposing the T20 scandal. |
Marsha Mallow
2069
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 00:36:43 -
[4374] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:CCP killed the last real "watchdog" website/blog (kugu) after they ragebanned them for exposing the T20 scandal.
Err, no
Benny Ohu wrote:
fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread
|
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
194
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 01:04:38 -
[4375] - Quote
I got to thinking about this a bit more and I think I know what is going on here.
CCP is hostile to people who prefer solo game play. They only want non solo players in Eve. Therefore they wish to take away the tools that solo players have from being on equal footing with groups.
Well played CCP. Well played. |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 01:23:23 -
[4376] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:I got to thinking about this a bit more and I think I know what is going on here.
CCP is hostile to people who prefer solo game play. They only want non solo players in Eve. Therefore they wish to take away the tools that solo players have from being on equal footing with groups.
Well played CCP. Well played.
Except to do so they'll have to make their own OS! Hahahah!
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5250
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 07:46:48 -
[4377] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:The question is, how long will CCP monitor a player before pulling out the ban hammer? CCP stated that they are not using automated means to ban players for input broadcasting/multiplexing at this time and that they are looking at players over several sessions. If they were using client side detection, then it gets easier. But with a big data approach with everything being done server-side? I would think that someone doing everything manually would show a lot more slip-ups than someone using advanced multi-boxing software, but if one of those incredible LoL or StarCraft guys decides to play EVE? I don't know how that would look in the logs. But that's the point I raised in the round table. VFX/Round robin is manual, so it will show just as many slip ups as someone using no tools. All it does is group your binds and screens into one area, it doesn't automate anything, so it doesn't eliminate human error. If they study someone and find them to be too efficient, they have absolutely no way of knowing if that person is simply tiling their screens over 3 monitors or using VFX to chop up their clients. They are guessing.
That's an absolutely ludicrous way to go about banning people from a game, and quite honestly there's no gain from doing it. Since all this has started, the game hasn't improved. We're not logging in going "wow, I'm so glad multiplexing is gone, my gameplay is just so much better!". Basically nothing changed. Ice is still owned by multiboxers, single man incursion and bombing fleets still exist, and traders still dominate ISK making more than any other multiboxer can ever dream of. So other than reducing subs from the giants and throwing all multiboxers at risk, manual or not, this whole thing has been a pointless endeavour.
Rosewalker wrote:I'd suggest doing what I did a few years ago with botting and RMT. Watch what's happening and publicize what you see. You've got a nice blog already, use it. Being a watchdog isn't a bad thing. And that would be something I'd read. How can one be a watchdog when CCP can do no wrong? You even had the same opinion, when someone says they did nothing and didn't use tools when they got banned by CCP, they were lying. That's what you said, that's what CCP said. As far as CCP are concerned they get nearly no false positives, because out of everyone they ban very few people are able to prove they did nothing wrong, primarily because they only have their word. If CCP decide to ban someone then in the eyes of the community they were using tools, regardless of what the actual truth is. Nothing anyone posts on a blog will change that.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
213
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 08:54:53 -
[4378] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:I got to thinking about this a bit more and I think I know what is going on here.
CCP is hostile to people who prefer solo game play. They only want non solo players in Eve. Therefore they wish to take away the tools that solo players have from being on equal footing with groups.
Well played CCP. Well played.
I could play with my 10 boxes solo.
i don't
the reason for me to 10box is the amount of attentive is need to operate them while beeing fc of an HQ incursion fleet for example.
i fall asleep with one ship.
i tried 20 boxes. it was too much for me. so i went down to 10. which i found a good amount for me to be concentrated on while fcing and having fun.
i dont 10 box cause of money. i have more money to spent in my whole life in eve online :) mostly out of trading. <-- nothing to do with multiboxing.
so ccp is trying to force me into a less attractive gameplay.
again. i am not a solo player.
yes i fly 10 boxes, but i dont like to fly them alone. |
Tiberius Zol
turaagaq
GANOR INC.
55
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 09:01:02 -
[4379] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Wrong, actually. A better tl;dr would be: People want CCP to stop killing emergent gameplay simply because a select few individuals cried about it long enough. Especially since this program does not violate any part of 6A2 and input broadcasting is nowhere to be found in the EULA. CCP might as well remove fleets and declare that you can't fly with your friends..
The only "minority" crying for about 200 pages, are you few guys who desperately search for workarounds to use your tools.
You want CCP to justify their bans? They don't have to.
You want to dictate CCP how they have to work? Good luck.
You say, you pay for it? No one soerce you to do. Just leave the game.
Maybe it is not obvious to you few guys, but CCP can ban whoever they want without a reason.
And using tools like you do is a good reason. You didn't get banned yet? Lucky guys. But this doesn't mean you're right and CCP wrong.
Mr. Tibbers on twitter: @Mr_Tibbers
Mr. Tibbers Blog (german, but english posts incoming): www.eve-versum.de
|
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 09:19:31 -
[4380] - Quote
Tiberius Zol wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Wrong, actually. A better tl;dr would be: People want CCP to stop killing emergent gameplay simply because a select few individuals cried about it long enough. Especially since this program does not violate any part of 6A2 and input broadcasting is nowhere to be found in the EULA. CCP might as well remove fleets and declare that you can't fly with your friends..
The only "minority" crying for about 200 pages, are you few guys who desperately search for workarounds to use your tools. You want CCP to justify their bans? They don't have to. You want to dictate CCP how they have to work? Good luck. You say, you pay for it? No one soerce you to do. Just leave the game. Maybe it is not obvious to you few guys, but CCP can ban whoever they want without a reason. And using tools like you do is a good reason. You didn't get banned yet? Lucky guys. But this doesn't mean you're right and CCP wrong.
One. I get the feeling you're either ******** or didnt read at all.
Two. Sure, you can ban your customers all you want without reason; but you're gonna end up broke
Three. They've broke about five UCC laws by count so far; So just wait till the other multiboxers are tired of argueing with you and give up and go for their sub-money returned.
Four. Theres windows-level keymaps... so.... ban me for using windows. Herpderp. Ban linux. Herpderp. Better yet, CCP needs to make their own OS!
Five. I'm pretty sure they've broken their own EULA [End User License Agreement] WITH US not the otherway around. [Contracts work both ways buddies.]
Six. Ima let your body drop to the floor. Sizzle.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
|
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
213
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 09:39:01 -
[4381] - Quote
Tiberius Zol wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Wrong, actually. A better tl;dr would be: People want CCP to stop killing emergent gameplay simply because a select few individuals cried about it long enough. Especially since this program does not violate any part of 6A2 and input broadcasting is nowhere to be found in the EULA. CCP might as well remove fleets and declare that you can't fly with your friends..
The only "minority" crying for about 200 pages, are you few guys who desperately search for workarounds to use your tools. You want CCP to justify their bans? They don't have to. You want to dictate CCP how they have to work? Good luck. You say, you pay for it? No one soerce you to do. Just leave the game. Maybe it is not obvious to you few guys, but CCP can ban whoever they want without a reason. And using tools like you do is a good reason. You didn't get banned yet? Lucky guys. But this doesn't mean you're right and CCP wrong.
The only "minority" crying for about 200 pages, are you few guys who desperately search for workarounds to use your tools.
- not everyone is writing in the forums you should know that. you cant extrapolate the numbers posting to the numbers against or for multiboxing. you just cant
You want CCP to justify their bans? They don't have to.
- yes they have to, at least me is paying a lot of his accounts with real money. if they ban me without justifying that, they would get a problem with my lawyer. so does any other service provider which ccp is. nothing more. a service provider. they can't just cut you out without justifying why. if you break the rules with botting, ok, but they have to proof it.
and don't try to make it laughable with the famous "its only a game" sentence. it is real money which we give ccp.
You want to dictate CCP how they have to work? Good luck.
- You should really buy goggles,. We dont want to dictate CCP anything. We do want CCP to ANSWER CUSTOMER QUESTIONS.. and that is not a dictate, that is mandatory for a service provider. We are paying their salary.
You say, you pay for it? No one soerce you to do. Just leave the game.
- If youre paying for a service. like we do. and you change the service one sided. and you cant use the service the way you are used to, you are able to go to court. not a lot of players would do that, but you have that option on the table.
i know at least one multiboxer who is still using broadcast cause he took a lawyer and wrote ccp that he would took them to court if he get banned.
no i dont took the lawyer.
i prefer trying to talk with ccp.
still no answer.
sadly... |
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 09:43:15 -
[4382] - Quote
Like I said Mr Tard... Just wait till the other boxers are ready to "go to the lawyer" as Chara put it. I'm already ready to sue and get my subs returned; All the way back to 07. And im 95% Sure if/when it comes to that that a mass tort will go through. [Returning subs to more than just one person at once; welcome to legalitys]
And Yes; Any logical person would understand my rightous fury against CCP. I've explained the situation CCP has caused to so many people, and its so easy to explain in layman terms, that they all agree we should've done stopped talking and sue'd [Esp my almost-lawyer relatives who've been dealing in legal BS for 40yrs]
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4140
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 10:43:24 -
[4383] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post.
The Rules:
31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.
CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, GÇ£outingGÇ¥ of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.
Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 10:55:08 -
[4384] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:I have removed a rule breaking post. The Rules:31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.
CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, GÇ£outingGÇ¥ of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.
Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.
Nothing in my post was abuse of CCP or ISD; Nice censorship. Thanks for showing EXACTLY why i'm furious with CCP.
And instead of doing anything helpful; you still moderate into oblivion. What a joke.
Like I asked before; Googling the definition of "Communication" and "Liaison"; One gets the question, Whom is the ISD a communication liaison for? Certainly isn't for everybody equally. [Past action defines outlook].
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3
Yep..
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
379
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 11:51:20 -
[4385] - Quote
Sir Constantin wrote:TLDR: People want VFX to be allowed so they can import pieces of Eve into their 3'rd party software on pc or tablets so they can go fullretard there with rollovers and all the things.
How about HTFU and play the game as we 99% of players do.
I think you would be unhappily surprised at how few players use a single character.
I've said it before and still believe - Multi boxers are the backbone of Eve, without them, it would be a very different game.
20,000 individual accounts subbed every month is not going to keep CCP afloat, hell that wouldn't even pay the electricity bill.
Whereas 1 person subbing 20 accounts a month multiplied by the amount of multi boxers = money in the bank.
Just in the small group I play the game with, there are a little over 100 individual accounts spread between 8 of us. (around 80 of which are now unsubbed or will be when current game time expires)
CCP keep making multiboxing rules vaguer and vaguer, with no clear instructions/rules for players (paying customers). Eventually multiboxers stop subbing multiple accounts, personally i have gone from 11 down to 2 and have intention of resubbing more until CCP publishes clear precise rules for multiboxers.
I don't want to take the chance of breaking some vague, subsection of the EULA which depending on who's interpreting it can be used to ban me.
Easy fix - No more multiboxing.
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
|
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
196
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 12:37:13 -
[4386] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:
I could play with my 10 boxes solo.
Sure people can continue to multibox 10+ accounts, and they will.
CCP really doesn't mind if you multibox with a few accounts, so they really can't ban the 10+ account people and leave alone the few account people as that would look bad. Nor would they want to, as the people with just a couple accounts are not on a level playing field with large groups, so there isn't a problem.
But what they can do, and have done, is take away the tools that a player with 10+ accounts have to level the playing field against larger groups. They don't want the solo players to be effective against the group players, so they have removed a tool that allowed the solo player to be effective against the group players. CCP doesn't mind you being a solo player as long as you can't defend yourself against larger groups.
Anyway, just a theory. I use to have 12 accounts and peacefully mined ice in Providence. With ISBoxer I was able to defend myself against larger hostile groups. Now I no longer have the tools to do that. As a solo player that limits my options, hence the whole CCP doesn't want you to be a solo player theory. CCP is trying to force solo players to abandon their play style or be demoted into irrelevance.
It's CCPs game, they can do what they want. But at least now I have a good idea the "why" behind the madness :-) |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
214
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 14:09:58 -
[4387] - Quote
so your point is that ccp is banning players who use their boxes against others?
possible.
but a larger group is always able to take out a boxer.
you just have to shoot the anchor :P |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
805
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 14:18:30 -
[4388] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:so your point is that ccp is banning players who use their boxes against others?
possible.
but a larger group is always able to take out a boxer.
you just have to shoot the anchor :P
Hell, even a smaller group is able to take out a boxer. EWAR is there for a reason. There's a video out there of a multiboxer using Harbingers who was destroyed by a smaller group because of EWAR and fitting. |
eXeler0n
turaagaq
GANOR INC.
497
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 15:51:36 -
[4389] - Quote
I have to say, that Charadrass is totally right.
I hate it, that I can't play more characters at the same time as my own personal skills allow me to. Unfortunately CCP has not integrated any multiboxing functionality into the client and also they banned every external tools that helps me to achive more then I could only with my personal skills.
I think this is unfair, as I now have to play as a normal player and can't feel any better, stronger or even cooler then other players. May I should quit Eve because now I have realized that I'm not a pro-gramer. Instead I'm only a small player like all the other players out there and because of this I feel really mad.
Instead of adepting this I think it's the best way to flame the forums and threaten other players and CCP with my lawyer. This is the only educated and mature way to handle my own inability to play (or leave) a game the way the create intended it to.
eXeler0n
============================
Quafe: http://quafe.de
Blogpack: http://eveblogs.de
|
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
196
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 16:07:23 -
[4390] - Quote
eXeler0n wrote:I have to say, that Charadrass is totally right.
I hate it, that I can't play more characters at the same time as my own personal skills allow me to. Unfortunately CCP has not integrated any multiboxing functionality into the client and also they banned every external tools that helps me to achive more then I could only with my personal skills.
I think this is unfair, as I now have to play as a normal player and can't feel any better, stronger or even cooler then other players. May I should quit Eve because now I have realized that I'm not a pro-gramer. Instead I'm only a small player like all the other players out there and because of this I feel really mad.
Instead of adepting this I think it's the best way to flame the forums and threaten other players and CCP with my lawyer. This is the only educated and mature way to handle my own inability to play (or leave) a game the way the create intended it to.
Exactly my point. CCP doesn't want solo players to have tools to compete with groups. If you don't want to join a group then you just have to live with the fact that CCP sees you as a second class citizen of the game. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
805
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 16:15:39 -
[4391] - Quote
eXeler0n wrote:cherry picking fallacy, straw man fallacy, and wrong to boot
1/10 made me respond.
1) ISBoxer does not allow a player to exceed the ISK/hour that an identical fleet can earn. ISBoxer does not allow a player to take a trip to Europe and let the program continue to earn ISK for the player. ISBoxer does not modify a player's guns to do 140k alpha every second with perfect tracking and 250km optimal.
2) We did adapt by using RoundRobin and Rollover, as well as VideoFX dashboards. ISBoxer's Round Robin and Rollover features are allowed by CCP Falcon's own statements but we've been banned for using them.
2.5) We just had a 5-boxer who was banned while mining in a belt without using any broadcasting tools.
3) While I do not agree with Aru's methods, if that is what it takes to get CCP to respond, then so be it.
4) The fact remains that ISBoxer does nothing to break the EULA that is not also broken by Fraps and other video recording software, as well as EVE-O Preview, TS3, Mumble, and Steam, not to mention KVM Switches, which were explicitly allowed by CCP. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5254
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 16:22:07 -
[4392] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:Exactly my point. CCP doesn't want solo players to have tools to compete with groups. If you don't want to join a group then you just have to live with the fact that CCP sees you as a second class citizen of the game. But then their method of banning doesn't prevent the use of tools, and puts manual multiboxers at risk too. If you have 3 monitors and 12 accounts tiled, you will be able to react as fast as someone using VideoFX and efficiently using that setup will likely result in a ban a few months down the line. At the same time, someone using VFX/round robin but not being overly efficient is likely to survive a lot longer. They have no method of detecting how you are playing, they've made that clear. They are analysing your gameplay data, and if you play substantially more efficiently than the average player, you're assumed to be using tools.
In the meantime, players like myself get to continue happily using trading tools which are fully within the EULA to make orders of magnitude more than any multiboxer gets for their effort and with considerably less accounts. Quite honestly they've got their priorities twisted and are kicking some of the most dedicated players who have invested thousands into the game in the nuts to appease people who whine that "their" ice is being taken, which amusingly still happens.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
214
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 16:24:20 -
[4393] - Quote
Ignore exeleron for 1. his post is getting deleted for trolling and 2. he hates me anyway.
thank you fanboy :) |
eXeler0n
turaagaq
GANOR INC.
498
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 16:28:25 -
[4394] - Quote
It allows a single player to be minimum as efficient as a good group. Because of the lack of human errors (alpha dmg for example) they often perform even better then the same number of chars that are controlled by induvidual players.
I would search for my calculations I made already in german forums, but as Charadrass showed me, it is useless to show this to most ISBoxers, as they don't understand them.
ISBoxers should get skill, friends, play as intended or simply leave the game. They use tools only if they aren't able to do one of the previous mentioned things.
P.s. May your new tools are different, but I can't understand, why players are unable to play a game as intended. Especially if they say that there is no difference to the intended way?
eXeler0n
============================
Quafe: http://quafe.de
Blogpack: http://eveblogs.de
|
eXeler0n
turaagaq
GANOR INC.
498
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 16:29:57 -
[4395] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:Ignore exeleron for 1. his post is getting deleted for trolling and 2. he hates me anyway.
thank you fanboy :)
It's not hate, my dear Charadrass. It's pity.
eXeler0n
============================
Quafe: http://quafe.de
Blogpack: http://eveblogs.de
|
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
196
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 16:52:09 -
[4396] - Quote
eXeler0n wrote:friends, play as intended
Once again, exactly my point. Solo players should not feel comfortable playing Eve Online. It is only for people who want to be in groups.
|
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
196
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 17:06:31 -
[4397] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Quite honestly they've got their priorities twisted and are kicking some of the most dedicated players who have invested thousands into the game in the nuts
Truth!
I think this is the part that bothers me the most. My reward for spending thousands of dollars on this game and being an extremely loyal fan for years is to be told that "Oh by the way, we think you are a filthy dirty cheater. We have always thought you were a filthy dirty cheater, but didn't want to say anything because we liked your money. But now for our own super secret reasons we want you to go away, you filthy dirty cheater."
Now I know I have a heart...for it is broken. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
214
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 18:18:27 -
[4398] - Quote
eXeler0n wrote:It allows a single player to be minimum as efficient as a good group. Because of the lack of human errors (alpha dmg for example) they often perform even better then the same number of chars that are controlled by induvidual players.
I would search for my calculations I made already in german forums, but as Charadrass showed me, it is useless to show this to most ISBoxers, as they don't understand them.
ISBoxers should get skill, friends, play as intended or simply leave the game. They use tools only if they aren't able to do one of the previous mentioned things.
P.s. May your new tools are different, but I can't understand, why players are unable to play a game as intended. Especially if they say that there is no difference to the intended way?
i Play as i want to Play. i am telling you that.
and the Problem here is that ccp is banning your left Hand. while supporting the right Hand.
eve overview and videofx are exactly the same.
one is endorsed by ccp the other banned.
thats logic?
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
808
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 20:48:45 -
[4399] - Quote
eXeler0n wrote:It allows a single player to be minimum as efficient as a good group. Because of the lack of human errors (alpha dmg for example) they often perform even better then the same number of chars that are controlled by induvidual players.
I would search for my calculations I made already in german forums, but as Charadrass showed me, it is useless to show this to most ISBoxers, as they don't understand them.
ISBoxers should get skill, friends, play as intended or simply leave the game. They use tools only if they aren't able to do one of the previous mentioned things.
P.s. May your new tools are different, but I can't understand, why players are unable to play a game as intended. Especially if they say that there is no difference to the intended way?
1) I dunno what you think multiboxing is, but it's still affected by human error. If I mis-click, half my boxes will target A and half will target B, and that's on a good day! On a bad day, my boxes will be split completely 1 for 1 on each target.
2) We're motivated by actual figures, evidence, and facts, not feelings and beliefs. Show us actual evidence or facts and we can have an actual conversation. Leave the feels to tumblr.
3) Don't knock it until you try it. ISBoxer is not "plug and play" like some cheap two-bit Dell keyboard. Just like racing, it may seem simple and easy from the sidelines or from the couch, but sit behind the wheel and it isn't so easy. Hell, I was on the other side of the fence here! I tried ISBoxing myself, and found out just how difficult it was. I've had about 3/4 of a year of practice, and I like to think I'm semi-decent, but I'm nowhere near as good as others are. But all combined we are nowhere near as good as an alliance like PL or HK in their prime, or as fast as TVP-VG's new Roadrunner fleets. A new ISBoxer is nowhere near as efficient as a good group, even if the ISBoxer has 500m SP toons. Remember: Ebay'd characters being piloted by Joe Schmoe will die to a 5m SP toon piloted by Mr Hyde (sorry for spelling). I can drop as much money as I want into the game and buy purple mods and the only thing that will get me (assuming I bought PLEX) is a one-way ticket to TMC's ALOD column.
4) "... unable to play a game as intended". Uh, wormholes? Incursions? Roaming capital fleets? Double heavy cap boosting Moros? Slippery Petes? C6 Magentar infinite guns? CCP didn't imagine people would min/max this game as strongly as they have. The biggest example are wormholes. CCP didn't expect people to live in them 24/7, but they did. I doubt people expected market PVPers to have such powerful tools available to them to let them and move well over 1 T ISK/month. I also doubt CCP foresaw the growth of the lotto websites as well.
5) Some of us dislike massive groups. I personally tend to get migraines when I'm on a comm channel with 25+ people and some of them talking over each other. There are some among us who are more paranoid than others, and there are some who want to challenge themselves as much as possible when it comes to the game and their multitasking abilities. Watching the video of Pinkskull the Multiboxer from WoW (here) I'm amazed at what a seriously devoted multiboxer can do. I'm nowhere near his level of competency, and thanks to the server's coding as well as fundamental differences in the two games, nobody can do that sort of thing in EVE. |
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 21:07:04 -
[4400] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:1) I dunno what you think multiboxing is, but it's still affected by human error. If I mis-click, half my boxes will target A and half will target B, and that's on a good day! On a bad day, my boxes will be split completely 1 for 1 on each target. 2) We're motivated by actual figures, evidence, and facts, not feelings and beliefs. Show us actual evidence or facts and we can have an actual conversation. Leave the feels to tumblr. 3) Don't knock it until you try it. ISBoxer is not "plug and play" like some cheap two-bit Dell keyboard. Just like racing, it may seem simple and easy from the sidelines or from the couch, but sit behind the wheel and it isn't so easy. Hell, I was on the other side of the fence here! I tried ISBoxing myself, and found out just how difficult it was. I've had about 3/4 of a year of practice, and I like to think I'm semi-decent, but I'm nowhere near as good as others are. But all combined we are nowhere near as good as an alliance like PL or HK in their prime, or as fast as TVP-VG's new Roadrunner fleets. A new ISBoxer is nowhere near as efficient as a good group, even if the ISBoxer has 500m SP toons. Remember: Ebay'd characters being piloted by Joe Schmoe will die to a 5m SP toon piloted by Mr Hyde (sorry for spelling). I can drop as much money as I want into the game and buy purple mods and the only thing that will get me (assuming I bought PLEX) is a one-way ticket to TMC's ALOD column. 4) "... unable to play a game as intended". Uh, wormholes? Incursions? Roaming capital fleets? Double heavy cap boosting Moros? Slippery Petes? C6 Magentar infinite guns? CCP didn't imagine people would min/max this game as strongly as they have. The biggest example are wormholes. CCP didn't expect people to live in them 24/7, but they did. I doubt people expected market PVPers to have such powerful tools available to them to let them and move well over 1 T ISK/month. I also doubt CCP foresaw the growth of the lotto websites as well. 5) Some of us dislike massive groups. I personally tend to get migraines when I'm on a comm channel with 25+ people and some of them talking over each other. There are some among us who are more paranoid than others, and there are some who want to challenge themselves as much as possible when it comes to the game and their multitasking abilities. Watching the video of Pinkskull the Multiboxer from WoW ( here) I'm amazed at what a seriously devoted multiboxer can do. I'm nowhere near his level of competency, and thanks to the server's coding as well as fundamental differences in the two games, nobody can do that sort of thing in EVE. I've actually ended up shooting myself more than once over the years when using the repeater in isboxer. Despite the fact that I use the overview for targeting and the overview is set to NOT show fleet members or in the case of incursions to ONLY show NPCs. When my vindis would start shooting a harby in my fleet it got interesting quickly. Best I could figure is I was somehow clicking on ships in space occasionally on some of the accounts.
There's a video of pinkskill interacting with a GM due to petitions. The GM actually told the people that were complaining to HTFU cause it's allowed. Isn't that funny that the people running the game disparaged as hello kitty online have a harder stance than ccp.
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
810
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 21:23:02 -
[4401] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:I've actually ended up shooting myself more than once over the years when using the repeater in isboxer. Despite the fact that I use the overview for targeting and the overview is set to NOT show fleet members or in the case of incursions to ONLY show NPCs. When my vindis would start shooting a harby in my fleet it got interesting quickly. Best I could figure is I was somehow clicking on ships in space occasionally on some of the accounts.
There's a video of pinkskill interacting with a GM due to petitions. The GM actually told the people that were complaining to HTFU cause it's allowed. Isn't that funny that the people running the game disparaged as hello kitty online have a harder stance than ccp.
You mean this video?
I've nearly alpha'd one of my nightmares off the grid as well after a mishap with remote cap x-fers. That was entertaining to explain to my dorm buddies why I was screaming bloody murder at 9:00 pm. I know another of the VG boxers did alpha a boat off the grid once, but the name escapes me. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
214
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 21:38:37 -
[4402] - Quote
i totally forgot about that.
i nearly shot me while i was flying with 7 boxes in assaults.
nearly alphaed one machariel of mine :)
and always good is the wrong site enter during false warp hence losing ship.
english is bad cause alcoholic lvel has hit 6... |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
810
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 22:49:05 -
[4403] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:and always good is the wrong site enter during false warp hence losing ship.
I've lost count of the number of ships I've lost from mis-warping to belts or taking gates early. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
380
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 00:18:17 -
[4404] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:eXeler0n wrote:I have to say, that Charadrass is totally right.
I hate it, that I can't play more characters at the same time as my own personal skills allow me to. Unfortunately CCP has not integrated any multiboxing functionality into the client and also they banned every external tools that helps me to achive more then I could only with my personal skills.
I think this is unfair, as I now have to play as a normal player and can't feel any better, stronger or even cooler then other players. May I should quit Eve because now I have realized that I'm not a pro-gramer. Instead I'm only a small player like all the other players out there and because of this I feel really mad.
Instead of adepting this I think it's the best way to flame the forums and threaten other players and CCP with my lawyer. This is the only educated and mature way to handle my own inability to play (or leave) a game the way the create intended it to. Exactly my point. CCP doesn't want solo players to have tools to compete with groups. If you don't want to join a group then you just have to live with the fact that CCP sees you as a second class citizen of the game.
I believe your correct in your assumptions. The "sandbox" is getting smaller and smaller.
There are certain activities in TQ that if left to "groups" of individual players would never be efficient.
How many "groups" are prepared to sit in an ice field or asteroid belt for up to 8 hours per day doing nothing but mine. Where risk vs reward is more often risk than reward.
Mining large quantities of ore/ice has always been carried out by individuals with multiple accounts. It is the only efficient way to do it.
IsBoxer and other software like it only became an issue when a small group of players who had the ear of a dev or two complained loudly enough about being beaten by PVP isboxers and a few IsBoxer miners who seemed to have an advantage over individual players in the ice fields.
Instead of looking at the problem and dealing with it in a professional transparent way, CCP chose to start looking at the EULA for loopholes they could use to ban (as it turns out) anyone who multiboxes, using "interpretation" as a tool instead of amending the EULA so it is clear what is and is not legal.
If my round robin keystrokes are against the EULA, I want to see it in writing as part of the terms and conditions of the game. CCP may own Eve but that does not give them the right to ban one person for doing something while letting someone else continue to do it based on how efficient they are.
So far it seems, you can use round robin keystrokes or anything else, as long as you are not too efficient. CCP provide the tools to use Round Robin but somehow, have given themselves the right to ban individuals for using those tools, at their discretion.
A little like "power of two" promotions, "never fly alone again" but don't do it well or we will ban you.
"Too Efficient" is in the hands of a member of CCP security team, that interprets what you are doing, with the very real possibility, they have no idea what you are doing. (A good guess will suffice)
I have adapted in a way that suits me, I no longer multi box. I'm not "mad" about it but can understand why others are.
My suggestion to all multiboxers who are not happy with the current changes - UNSUB multiple toons. Don't quit the game, just play it the way the minority wants us all to, the way CCP is leading us, 1 person 1 active character.
Sure it will be boring for those who like the challenge of multiboxing but what better way to send a message than subs drop by 50%?
Power of Two, be damned, show CCP the power of 40,000 or 50,000 alts.
NB; The suggestions and thoughts here are mine as an individual paying customer, I am not trying to incite others to do as I have. Just putting my thoughts out there for others to read.
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
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 03:44:03 -
[4405] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Charadrass wrote:and always good is the wrong site enter during false warp hence losing ship. I've lost count of the number of ships I've lost from mis-warping to belts or taking gates early.
My worst loss due to stupitidy was a nestor that I warped to the wrong gate on. I was running with some newbros so I was busy making sure they were in the proper place and doing the right thing. It was also late at night and I was going to call it soon due to tiredness. I was using one nestor to warp everyone but I didn't have room for one account so I put the second nestor in a second squad with the ore dropper. Worked fine all night till it didn't....
If CCP had fixed wing commander so it gets boosts from the fleet commander then none of this would of happened as the warping nestor would of been in wing command.
|
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
197
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 13:40:54 -
[4406] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
My suggestion to all multiboxers who are not happy with the current changes - UNSUB multiple toons. Don't quit the game, just play it the way the minority wants us all to, the way CCP is leading us, 1 person 1 active character.
Yea that is exactly my plan as well. I am liquidating all of my assets and converting my net wealth into plexes. I am going to start up a brand new character on a new account, plex out the account with the plexes from the liquidation.
CCP will then have that amount of time to impress me enough to stay before I give them another penny of my money.
To be honest though the one character thing so far just hasn't engaged me, so I don't know how long that will last.
I still just don't understand why CCP has deemed the way I want to play the game, a way I have been playing the game for years without issue, to now be cheating.
CCP, I love EVE and I love you, why are you treating me like garbage? I just don't get it.
Well haters gonna hate I suppose and in this case the haters actually won :-(
|
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
82
|
Posted - 2015.03.30 13:45:26 -
[4407] - Quote
I have not for that long relished how important overheating modules etc... and if you was/were using multi broadcasting, and would
've overheated on all accounts. then I would've seen it quite likely/quite possible. to go really wrong. (lol) like burning out modules. I don't even have thermic trained on more than 1 off my accounts :) (because the risk off burning something out) |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
216
|
Posted - 2015.03.30 14:28:34 -
[4408] - Quote
happend to me multiple times.
thanks to the broadcasting bans i dont accidently overheat anymore.
so in fact i have to thank ccp for banning broadcasts. |
granny Lina
Viziam
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 11:01:09 -
[4409] - Quote
reading a few posts back just confirms some thoughts I shared with ccp.
my question, to which I do not expect an answer, is when those new rules are about to get effective.
there is one guy saying I can use 2 guns to outgun the ohers. im so great and my greatness is restricted.
you know... I can wave my middle finger out of my porthole, ccp restricts me from being so great myself. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6681
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 02:48:27 -
[4410] - Quote
granny Lina wrote:reading a few posts back just confirms some thoughts I shared with ccp.
my question, to which I do not expect an answer, is when those new rules are about to get effective.
I don't know, what exactly are you thinking of?
CCP Falcon wrote:As of 15th of March 2013 we have been policing input automation based on a two-strike policy GÇó1st strike for input automation is a 30 day ban GÇó2nd strike for input automation is a permanent ban Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy. Based on the discussion in this area and our will to be more clear and concise with the community regarding this part of our rules, we have decided to also apply this two-strike policy to prohibited forms of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing as of January 1st 2015.We would like to add, however, that we will not be taking action retroactively and will only be policing this policy as of January 1st, 2015.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
|
granny Lina
Viziam
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 19:33:54 -
[4411] - Quote
ok a reply cos you are a " Delicious goon " or another reason.
massive multiboting online
a single person in my ao is using more accounts than I have fingers on my hands and legs.
ccp is idle about it. thanking me for my reports or whatever they said.
the game probably have like a 1000 real people |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
812
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 23:26:40 -
[4412] - Quote
granny Lina wrote:ok a reply cos you are a " Delicious goon " or another reason.
massive multiboting online
a single person in my ao is using more accounts than I have fingers on my hands and legs.
ccp is idle about it. thanking me for my reports or whatever they said.
the game probably have like a 1000 real people
If the guy is still there, and you continue to submit false reports, you can receive a temp ban. It does not take some superhuman feat of brainpower to manually box a squad of toons. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
395
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 01:41:18 -
[4413] - Quote
granny Lina wrote:ok a reply cos you are a " Delicious goon " or another reason.
massive multiboting online
a single person in my ao is using more accounts than I have fingers on my hands and legs.
ccp is idle about it. thanking me for my reports or whatever they said.
the game probably have like a 1000 real people
Only 1,000 real people?
Sweet that means 20,000+ alts to kill.
And, I could do it legally using my 11 characters, all at once.
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
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
812
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 04:31:17 -
[4414] - Quote
An accurate description of CCP right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWo-vDVajns |
granny Lina
Viziam
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 13:27:45 -
[4415] - Quote
pay more attention when you read. im talking about bots not alts. im talking about abusing, cheating, breaking the rules...
I know you like to do it. I just don't have a clear statement of the game genre from CCP. they need to state it clearly if that game is a s-hole or else. |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
201
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 15:41:14 -
[4416] - Quote
With two monitors I can control two account extremely well without the need of ISBoxer.
Why is it morally right to be allowed to control two accounts well, but it's not O.K. to do the same with 5 accounts, or 10 accounts, or N accounts?
Why is controlling 2 accounts efficiently not considered cheating and running 10 accounts efficiently is considered cheating?
Why?
Why is it O.K. for groups of players to do this, but not O.K. for a single player?
I just don't understand why groups are considered morally superior to solo players.
I am open minded and willing to try and understand why groups are better, but in a sandbox game I just don't understand why it is O.K. for 10 people to fly 10 ships and do what they will, but it is not O.K. for 1 person to fly 10 ships and do what he will. In game terms there is no difference. The 10 ships controlled by 10 players have the same effect in the game as the 10 ships controlled by the one player.
I just don't understand. I would like to understand, but I just don't understand. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
741
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 16:15:59 -
[4417] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:With two monitors I can control two account extremely well without the need of ISBoxer.
Why is it morally right to be allowed to control two accounts well, but it's not O.K. to do the same with 5 accounts, or 10 accounts, or N accounts?
Why is controlling 2 accounts efficiently not considered cheating and running 10 accounts efficiently is considered cheating?
Why?
Why is it O.K. for groups of players to do this, but not O.K. for a single player?
I just don't understand why groups are considered morally superior to solo players.
I am open minded and willing to try and understand why groups are better, but in a sandbox game I just don't understand why it is O.K. for 10 people to fly 10 ships and do what they will, but it is not O.K. for 1 person to fly 10 ships and do what he will. In game terms there is no difference. The 10 ships controlled by 10 players have the same effect in the game as the 10 ships controlled by the one player.
I just don't understand. I would like to understand, but I just don't understand.
You can do all that. You can control as many accounts as you like.
Your just not allowed to break the EULA whilst you do it.
Why can't you understand that? |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
217
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 17:36:09 -
[4418] - Quote
I am Controlling 10 boxes without breaking the eula.
and still ccp is missing with a clear Statement here.
nolak i have to disagree. the Video Shows a CLEAR line. what you can and what you cannot do. no matter how ridiculous it is.
ccp is not drawing a clear line. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
813
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 17:43:26 -
[4419] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:You can do all that. You can control as many accounts as you like.
Your just not allowed to break the EULA whilst you do it.
Why can't you understand that?
What part of "Since direct broadcasting is banned, and RoundRobin and rollovers are not, players have switched to RR and rollover, and have gotten banned for it, not to mention the 5-boxer who was banned w/o using any broadcasting" do you not understand?
What part of "This was only declared to break the EULA because corebloodbrothers didn't want to accept responsibility for his BS fleet that got welped when he told em to go AFK at a planet" do you not understand?
What part of "ISBoxer doesn't violate 6A3 and the only way it can be construed to violate 6A2 is if you also ban Steam Overlay, Mumble Overlay, TS3 Overlay, Overwolf Overlay, and EVE-O Preview" do you not understand?
What part of "Seagull herself told us that multiboxing was not going to be changed at the previous Fanfest and EVE Vegas" do you not understand?
What part of "CCP Falcon promised a sit-down after Jan1 and still hasn't come through" do you not understand?
What part of "Nobody in the entirety of EVE has yet to bring a half-decent argument against ISBoxer without resorting to fallacies and insults, or that could be used against aforementioned overlays or other third-party programs" do you not understand? |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
741
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 18:29:35 -
[4420] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
What part of "Since direct broadcasting is banned, and RoundRobin and rollovers are not, players have switched to RR and rollover, and have gotten banned for it, not to mention the 5-boxer who was banned w/o using any broadcasting" do you not understand?
Just because those players were not using any broadcasting does not mean they weren't breaking the EULA in a different manner. I personally have only seen 2 youtube videos of a multiboxer who wasn't breaking the EULA and the thing they had in common was, all the clients were controlled individually.
Nolak Ataru wrote:What part of "This was only declared to break the EULA because corebloodbrothers didn't want to accept responsibility for his BS fleet that got welped when he told em to go AFK at a planet" do you not understand?
If you beleive the CSM have that much power over CCP, get a CSM to change CCP's mind.
Nolak Ataru wrote:What part of "ISBoxer doesn't violate 6A3 and the only way it can be construed to violate 6A2 is if you also ban Steam Overlay, Mumble Overlay, TS3 Overlay, Overwolf Overlay, and EVE-O Preview" do you not understand?
Quite correct Isboxer doesn't break the EULA. BUT..... IsBoxer can be used to break the EULA. That is a distinction you seem incapable of understanding. The people who are using IsBoxer and getting banned are not getting banned for using IsBoxer. They are getting banned for breaking the EULA.
Nolak Ataru wrote:What part of "Seagull herself told us that multiboxing was not going to be changed at the previous Fanfest and EVE Vegas" do you not understand?
They changed their minds. You should be greatful CCP gave notice that they were going to start enforcing their EULA.
Nolak Ataru wrote:-1What part of "CCP Falcon promised a sit-down after Jan1 and still hasn't come through" do you not understand?
-2What part of "Nobody in the entirety of EVE has yet to bring a half-decent argument against ISBoxer without resorting to fallacies and insults, or that could be used against aforementioned overlays or other third-party programs" do you not understand?
-1.I understand there was a round table discussion at fanfest. Lucas mentions it in an earlier post. I wasn't there myself but Lucas mentions asking questions about this subject.
-2Nothing wrong with IsBoxer. Using IsBoxer to break the EULA is wrong though.
CCP's stance on this is really clear to me. They even published a little flow chart to help people. Instead of looking for a way around the EULA, just play the game.
|
|
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
363
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 19:19:17 -
[4421] - Quote
If there is anything "positive" coming out of all this, look at the daily PCU numbers, EVE has lost 20k logged in pilot's since it's peak in 2013 and the decline comparing year over year is also extremely depressed.
Eve-offline.net
How many of those are alts people were forced to unsubsrcibe? We shall see how long CCP is willing to take this hit to their wallet.
Legacy - An EVE Online Blog
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6697
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 19:28:15 -
[4422] - Quote
granny Lina wrote:ok a reply cos you are a " Delicious goon " or another reason.
massive multiboting online
a single person in my ao is using more accounts than I have fingers on my hands and legs.
ccp is idle about it. thanking me for my reports or whatever they said.
the game probably have like a 1000 real people
It depends yeah. If you've reported them and you notice they're still around they probably passed the check
For some things it's possible to multibox quite a lot without having to use broadcasting or the other now illegal mechanics.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
813
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 20:00:33 -
[4423] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Just because those players were not using any broadcasting does not mean they weren't breaking the EULA in a different manner. I personally have only seen 2 youtube videos of a multiboxer who wasn't breaking the EULA and the thing they had in common was, all the clients were controlled individually.
Grasping at straws and declaring guilty until proven innocent. I shouldn't need to record my every move just because an inept FC decided he wasn't going to take responsibility for his actions of leaving a battleship fleet parked at a planet AFK.
Quote:If you beleive the CSM have that much power over CCP, get a CSM to change CCP's mind.
Working on it.
Quote:Quite correct Isboxer doesn't break the EULA. BUT..... IsBoxer can be used to break the EULA. That is a distinction you seem incapable of understanding. The people who are using IsBoxer and getting banned are not getting banned for using IsBoxer. They are getting banned for breaking the EULA. Cars can be used to kill people via vehicular homicide. Shall we ban people from driving? What about kitchen knives? Baseball bats? Fists? Just because a program or tool can theoretically be used to break the law does not mean you should ban it. Quote:-1.I understand there was a round table discussion at fanfest. Lucas mentions it in an earlier post. I wasn't there myself but Lucas mentions asking questions about this subject.
-2Nothing wrong with IsBoxer. Using IsBoxer to break the EULA is wrong though. 1. Not everyone has the cash to plunk down to head out to Iceland on the drop of a dime. 2. RoundRobin and Rollover doesn't break the EULA. [quote]CCP's stance on this is really clear to me. They even published a little flow chart to help people. Instead of looking for a way around the EULA, just play the game.
CCP's stance is clear to us too. "One account per IP, and don't get too good at playing EVE." |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
203
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 20:58:36 -
[4424] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
You can do all that. You can control as many accounts as you like.
Your just not allowed to break the EULA whilst you do it.
Why can't you understand that?
You still haven't answered the question of why group play is considered morally superior to solo play?
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
741
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 01:03:49 -
[4425] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Grasping at straws and declaring guilty until proven innocent. I shouldn't need to record my every move just because an inept FC decided he wasn't going to take responsibility for his actions of leaving a battleship fleet parked at a planet AFK.
You don't need to record your every move and I have never declared someone is guilty until proven innocent. Just because CCP doesn't share their evidence with you does not mean they don't have evidence.
Nolak Ataru wrote: Cars can be used to kill people via vehicular homicide. Shall we ban people from driving? What about kitchen knives? Baseball bats? Fists? Just because a program or tool can theoretically be used to break the law does not mean you should ban it.
Of course they shouldn't.
1-Cars are not banned and IsBoxer is not banned.
2-Using cars to kill people risks you getting banned from driving (and imprisoned) and using IsBoxer to break the EULA risks you getting banned from Eve.
How you can not see the difference between 1 and 2 is quite outstanding
Archi wrote:-1.I understand there was a round table discussion at fanfest. Lucas mentions it in an earlier post. I wasn't there myself but Lucas mentions asking questions about this subject.
-2Nothing wrong with IsBoxer. Using IsBoxer to break the EULA is wrong though.
Nolak Ataru wrote:1. Not everyone has the cash to plunk down to head out to Iceland on the drop of a dime.
2. RoundRobin and Rollover doesn't break the EULA.
It doesn't matter where the discussion was. Or do you think you are a special snowflake who should of been invited? If the discussion was via Skype on a Friday afternoon, there would be some people unable to attend who would of liked to. That doesn't mean the discussion didn't take place.
Nolak Ataru wrote:CCP's stance is clear to us too. "One account per IP, and don't get too good at playing EVE."
If that is what you take away from reading the EULA and CCP's posts on the matter, then you are clearly incapable of understanding how to use third party programs without breaking the EULA. So you should stop using them.
The rest of us who are capable of understanding what is and what isn't allowed will carry on as normal. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
741
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 01:06:12 -
[4426] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
You can do all that. You can control as many accounts as you like.
Your just not allowed to break the EULA whilst you do it.
Why can't you understand that?
You still haven't answered the question of why group play is considered morally superior to solo play?
That would be because I don't think group play is consider morally superior to solo play. |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
203
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 01:11:42 -
[4427] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Jason Xado wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
You can do all that. You can control as many accounts as you like.
Your just not allowed to break the EULA whilst you do it.
Why can't you understand that?
You still haven't answered the question of why group play is considered morally superior to solo play? That would be because I don't think group play is consider morally superior to solo play.
Then why are group players allowed to play multiple ships efficiently and solo players are not?
Why was the tool that was allowed for years that allowed solo players to compete with group players taken away?
I use to be able to ice mine in null sec space and defend myself against small groups. Now I cannot. Why, if not for the fact that CCP is now hostile to solo gameplay. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
741
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 01:28:35 -
[4428] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:
Then why are group players allowed to play multiple ships efficiently and solo players are not?
Solo players can play as many accounts as they want too, the same as group players can. How efficient a player is, is down to the player.
Jason Xado wrote:Why was the tool that was allowed for years that allowed solo players to compete with group players taken away?
It wasn't taken away. CCP just decided to start enforcing their EULA. They even gave you advance notice.
Jason Xado wrote:I use to be able to solo ice mine in null sec space and defend myself against small groups. Now I cannot. Why, if not for the fact that CCP is now limiting solo gameplay.
You still can. You're just not allowed to break the EULA whilst doing it anymore. If you are not capable of defending yourself without breaking the EULA that's your problem.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
813
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 01:44:28 -
[4429] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:I have never declared someone is guilty until proven innocent. Just because CCP doesn't share their evidence with you does not mean they don't have evidence.
You did when you said that any ISBoxer who was banned deserved it or was breaking the EULA.
Quote:Of course they shouldn't.
1-Cars are not banned and IsBoxer is not banned.
2-Using cars to kill people risks you getting banned from driving (and imprisoned) and using IsBoxer to break the EULA risks you getting banned from Eve.
How you can not see the difference between 1 and 2 is quite outstanding
People using ISBoxer and following the new guidelines were banned. And a 5-boxer was just banned w/o using any broadcasting tools.
Quote:It doesn't matter where the discussion was. Or do you think you are a special snowflake who should of been invited? If the discussion was via Skype on a Friday afternoon, there would be some people unable to attend who would of liked to. That doesn't mean the discussion didn't take place.
No, I was saying that in counter to everyone and their mother saying "hurrdurr shoulda gone to Fanfest".
Quote:If that is what you take away from reading the EULA and CCP's posts on the matter, then you are clearly incapable of understanding how to use third party programs without breaking the EULA. So you should stop using them.
The rest of us who are capable of understanding what is and what isn't allowed will carry on as normal.
No. I've taken that away after the first declaration on Nov25, the subsequent betrayal and lying committed by CCP Falcon, the following six months of listening to every whiner and their mother blubber here on why they feel ISBoxer should be banned while taking hits of Doritos, Mountain Dew, and their asthma inhaler, had two CCP members say that they want 1 account / IP AND two CSM members say the same thing.
Speaking of third party programs and the EULA, I trust you're not using Pyfa, EFT, Fuzzworks, TS3 overlay, Mumble overlay, or Steam overlay? |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
203
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 01:53:22 -
[4430] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Solo players can play as many accounts as they want too, the same as group players can. How efficient a player is, is down to the player.
Says the groups player who likes to run around and kill all the poor little solo players who aren't superior enough to join a group. |
|
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
741
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 02:29:09 -
[4431] - Quote
The first part of your post was so full of non-sense it doesn't deserve a reply.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Speaking of third party programs and the EULA, I trust you're not using Pyfa, EFT, Fuzzworks, TS3 overlay, Mumble overlay, or Steam overlay?
I use all of those program as well as IsBoxer. I have no fear of getting banned because I do not use them to break Eve's EULA.
You see Pyfa/EFT/Fuzzworks all work off the Eve API. That is information CCP gives the player base to use. The game is designed to allow those types of programs.
Steam has its own client. The game is designed to use the steam overlay.
TS3/Mumble overlays that I use display the same information that would be displayed if I used Eve voice and the chat boxes in the client. ie; who is speaking and any text they type. It doesn't do anything the game wasn't designed to allow.
A player got banned a while back, mainly because of their behavior on a TS3 server ( No1 isk doubler person). So its entirely possible to get banned for using a third party voice program, if you break the EULA with it.
Isboxer, I only use the functions described by CCP Falcon in this thread and I used that chart that was floating around. I use it to set up my clients so all my windows (like the overview etc) are in the same place on every client. Then I use it to place all my clients on my 1 big monitor so I can see them and quickly switch between them.
Your point would have more merit if you had mentioned Eve-Central (or similar website). Does that site still use cache scraping? which is against the EULA but allowed by CCP for the time being. Or has it switched its method of collecting data?
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6704
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 04:20:19 -
[4432] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:No. I've taken that away after the first declaration on Nov25, the subsequent betrayal and lying committed by CCP Falcon, the following six months of listening to every whiner and their mother blubber here on why they feel ISBoxer should be banned while taking hits of Doritos, Mountain Dew, and their asthma inhaler, had two CCP members say that they want 1 account / IP AND two CSM members say the same thing.
Speaking of third party programs and the EULA, I trust you're not using Pyfa, EFT, Fuzzworks, TS3 overlay, Mumble overlay, or Steam overlay?
1 account per IP huh.
An interesting concept. Let us wait for an "Update regarding Multiclienting and player multitasking" thread to suddenly appear
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
813
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 12:34:06 -
[4433] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:The first part of your post was so full of non-sense it doesn't deserve a reply. Nolak Ataru wrote:
Speaking of third party programs and the EULA, I trust you're not using Pyfa, EFT, Fuzzworks, TS3 overlay, Mumble overlay, or Steam overlay?
I use all of those program as well as IsBoxer. I have no fear of getting banned because I do not use them to break Eve's EULA. You see Pyfa/EFT/Fuzzworks all work off the Eve API. That is information CCP gives the player base to use. The game is designed to allow those types of programs. Steam has its own client. The game is designed to use the steam overlay. TS3/Mumble overlays that I use display the same information that would be displayed if I used Eve voice and the chat boxes in the client. ie; who is speaking and any text they type. It doesn't do anything the game wasn't designed to allow. A player got banned a while back, mainly because of their behavior on a TS3 server ( No1 isk doubler person). So its entirely possible to get banned for using a third party voice program, if you break the EULA with it. Isboxer, I only use the functions described by CCP Falcon in this thread and I used that chart that was floating around. I use it to set up my clients so all my windows (like the overview etc) are in the same place on every client. Then I use it to place all my clients on my 1 big monitor so I can see them and quickly switch between them. Your point would have more merit if you had mentioned Eve-Central (or similar website). Does that site still use cache scraping? which is against the EULA but allowed by CCP for the time being. Or has it switched its method of collecting data?
Ah, but each aforementioned program can be interpreted to violate 6A3, the "accelerated gameplay" clause, so to be on the safe side you should stop using them. /s
This is exactly how you sound. You're telling us to stop using a car just because John Doe here went gonzo and ran over the mailman and the government went into full "SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING" mode after getting slapped with a libelous lawsuit regarding brakes and gas pedals.
CCP was quite clear: Any interaction or modification of their client by any outside program constitutes a violation of 6A2. That includes overlays from Steam, Mumble, and TS3/Overwolf.
The player got banned for their behavior on a TS server mainly because someone didn't have the stones to admit he got scammed out of his ISK and didn't disconnect from the server, so they filed a ticket. Policing players behavior on alternate sites and communication software would send any reasonable lawyer into a froth at the number of privacy violations that were committed.
We used ISBoxer to the letter of the law after the change, and still got banned. The 5-boxer wasn't even using broadcasting or rollovers and he got banned. That drop in the subs of Peligro's graph wasn't people getting scared. It was people protesting. Not just ISBoxers, but other people who were dropping subs in protest. GSF is in the middle of a new fountain war. The last war found 50k concurrent subs on almost 24/7. Now we're lucky to break 30k. As of right now the current number of people online is exactly 23,053. People are sick and tired of CCP's behaviors as shown in extreme detail in the WH Mass spawn thread, the fighter assist thread, the Entosis thread, and this thread, and they're leaving for E:D and Star Citizen. Multiboxing was one of the last things unique about EVE, but now it's blending into all the other space MMOs coming out. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
742
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 13:07:13 -
[4434] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Ah, but each aforementioned program can be interpreted to violate 6A3, the "accelerated gameplay" clause, so to be on the safe side you should stop using them. /s
Nope, you really don't understand the EULA.
Nolak Ataru wrote:This is exactly how you sound. You're telling us to stop using a car just because John Doe here went gonzo and ran over the mailman and the government went into full "SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING" mode after getting slapped with a libelous lawsuit regarding brakes and gas pedals.
Back with lying again.
I'm not telling you to stop using anything. I'm saying if you break the EULA you risk getting banned.
Nolak Ataru wrote:CCP was quite clear: Any interaction or modification of their client by any outside program constitutes a violation of 6A2. That includes overlays from Steam, Mumble, and TS3/Overwolf.
Nope, again read the EULA.
Nolak Ataru wrote:The player got banned for their behavior on a TS server mainly because someone didn't have the stones to admit he got scammed out of his ISK and didn't disconnect from the server, so they filed a ticket. Policing players behavior on alternate sites and communication software would send any reasonable lawyer into a froth at the number of privacy violations that were committed.
So?
My point was the player got banned based on the use of a third party voice coms. But that doesn't mean that third party voice coms breaks the EULA. Once again you miss the crucial distinction and veered off on a tangent that is not only irrelevant but also completely untrue. (But thats for a different thread)
Nolak Ataru wrote:We used ISBoxer to the letter of the law after the change, and still got banned. The 5-boxer wasn't even using broadcasting or rollovers and he got banned. That drop in the subs of Peligro's graph wasn't people getting scared. It was people protesting. Not just ISBoxers, but other people who were dropping subs in protest. GSF is in the middle of a new fountain war. The last war found 50k concurrent subs on almost 24/7. Now we're lucky to break 30k. As of right now the current number of people online is exactly 23,053. People are sick and tired of CCP's behaviors as shown in extreme detail in the WH Mass spawn thread, the fighter assist thread, the Entosis thread, and this thread, and they're leaving for E:D and Star Citizen. Multiboxing was one of the last things unique about EVE, but now it's blending into all the other space MMOs coming out.
Yes, we ( as in me and you) do use Isboxer to the letter of the law and we are not banned.
Just because the 5-boxer wasn't using broadcasting or rollovers, that doesn't mean he wasn't breaking the EULA.
Oh sorry, I didn't realise this was an Eve is dying thread now. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
813
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 21:28:05 -
[4435] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Nope, you really don't understand the EULA.
Alright, then, please stand up and explain to the class how they cannot conceivably be interpreted to violate 6A3.
Quote: I'm saying if you break the EULA you risk getting banned.
Except we *didn't* break the EULA, and still got banned.
Quote:Nope, again read the EULA.
Read it. 6A2 specifically says "any" modification. That includes TS3 and Mumble overlays.
Quote:So? My point was the player got banned based on the use of a third party voice coms. But that doesn't mean that third party voice coms breaks the EULA. Once again you miss the crucial distinction and veered off on a tangent that is not only irrelevant but also completely untrue. (But thats for a different thread)
CCP was attempting to police third party programs; something which made any lawyer who plays the game laugh. Like I said, the player was banned because he was too greedy to see a scam if it rolled into town with a massive circus tent and billboards saying "THIS IS A SCAM!". He got mad that he lost his ISK and decided instead of manning up and learning from his mistakes, he went and whined to mommy and lied. ISBoxer uses Windows Aero and OS-level commands to function.
Quote:Yes, we ( as in me and you) do use Isboxer to the letter of the law and we are not banned.
Just because the 5-boxer wasn't using broadcasting or rollovers, that doesn't mean he wasn't breaking the EULA.
Corollary: Just because a player was banned doesn't mean he was breaking the EULA.
Additional corollary: Just because [insert government / corporation here] makes a declaration does not mean it's infallible. The US Government can stand in front of a microphone and talk until he's blue in the face about why grass is actually red, but it doesn't make it true.
CCP could have saved face ages ago if they were willing to come to the table and discuss this issue with us like civilized human beings. Normally I shy away from pointing out concurrent players logged in as there are literally hundreds if not thousands of causes that may contribute to the issue. Comparing a war-time concurrent logged in to another war-time concurrent logged in was better than comparing a war-time number to a non-war-time number, so I added it in. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12543
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 23:44:20 -
[4436] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Except we *didn't* break the EULA, and still got banned.
No one believes you lot on that, except yourselves.
Quote:
CCP could have saved face ages ago if they were willing to come to the table and discuss this issue with us like civilized human beings.
You still don't get it yet.
There is no "come to the table", there is no negotiation, no deal, no discussing this.
You lose.
Stop cheating.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
813
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 02:04:42 -
[4437] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:No one believes you lot on that, except yourselves.
Moralistic fallacy, Argument from repetition, and proof of assertion. Come back when you have an actual argument.
Quote:You still don't get it yet.
There is no "come to the table", there is no negotiation, no deal, no discussing this.
At the risk of sounding infantile, "says you".
What part of "people were banned while following CCP's new rules" do you not understand?
Oh wait, are you another of the "one account / IP" crowd? I do hope you know CODE has it's fair share of boxers in the ranks... |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
742
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 02:31:15 -
[4438] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Alright, then, please stand up and explain to the class how they cannot conceivably be interpreted to violate 6A3.
Because of the Eve API amd Eve voice.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Except we *didn't* break the EULA, and still got banned.
We didn't break the EULA and we didn't get banned. We are both still here.
Nolak Ataru wrote:Read it. 6A2 specifically says "any" modification. That includes TS3 and Mumble overlays.
The TS3 and Mumble overlays I use don't. You notice I state the overlays I use as both TS3 and Mumble can be used to break the EULA, which leads to...
Nolak Ataru wrote:
CCP was attempting to police third party programs; something which made any lawyer who plays the game laugh. Like I said, the player was banned because he was too greedy to see a scam if it rolled into town with a massive circus tent and billboards saying "THIS IS A SCAM!". He got mad that he lost his ISK and decided instead of manning up and learning from his mistakes, he went and whined to mommy and lied. ISBoxer uses Windows Aero and OS-level commands to function.
You completely missing the point again. Just for the record the victim didn't report the matter and the only person lying is you.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Corollary: Just because a player was banned doesn't mean he was breaking the EULA.
Additional corollary: Just because [insert government / corporation here] makes a declaration does not mean it's infallible. The US Government can stand in front of a microphone and talk until he's blue in the face about why grass is actually red, but it doesn't make it true.
CCP could have saved face ages ago if they were willing to come to the table and discuss this issue with us like civilized human beings. Normally I shy away from pointing out concurrent players logged in as there are literally hundreds if not thousands of causes that may contribute to the issue. Comparing a war-time concurrent logged in to another war-time concurrent logged in was better than comparing a war-time number to a non-war-time number, so I added it in.
Yes, Look at the hyperdunking thread. Players were banned and CCP investigated and un-banned them.
You don't seem to realise CCP created Eve. If CCP say all the grass in Eve is red, then all the grass in Eve is red.
Well you certainly haven't behaved like a civilised person with all the lies and hypocrisy you spout. As I said before CCP had a round table at fanfest that included this topic and you have already stated this change of stance about enforcing the EULA came about as a result of talks with CSM. So. just because CCP didn't talk to you doesn't mean they haven't has a conversation with the more civilised members of the community. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
813
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 04:07:59 -
[4439] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:We didn't break the EULA and we didn't get banned. We are both still here.
We are, sure. Others aren't. I stopped my usage of ISBoxer and de-subbed my accounts in protest after Jan 1.
Quote:The TS3 and Mumble overlays I use don't. You notice I state the overlays I use as both TS3 and Mumble can be used to break the EULA, which leads to...
Hold on, you can't argue both sides of the court case here. You can't say that XYZ people who got banned for using RoundRobin and Rollovers (which were permitted under the flowchart and via direct interpretation by CCP in the first post) are bad and then turn around and say in the same breath say that your overlays are so much different so of course they should be exempted from 6a2. If you do that fast enough you're going to get whiplash.
Quote:Just for the record the victim didn't report the matter and the only person lying is you.
You cannot have a case without someone filing a complaint.
Quote:Yes, Look at the hyperdunking thread. Players were banned and CCP investigated and un-banned them.
You don't seem to realize CCP created Eve. If CCP say all the grass in Eve is red, then all the grass in Eve is red.
I'm of the opinion (as a ganker and a freighter pilot) that hyperdunking is still a violation of the EULA, but that's not this thread. There are some times where CCP actually listens to "the little people", however those times are far and few between these days. See: WH mass spawn thread (where there was overwhelming dissent from the WH community regarding the issue), skynets, Entosis sov, and jump fatigue for evidence of the lackluster communication.
Quote:Well you certainly haven't behaved like a civilized person with all the lies and hypocrisy you spout. As I said before CCP had a round table at fanfest that included this topic and you have already stated this change of stance about enforcing the EULA came about as a result of talks with CSM. So. just because CCP didn't talk to you doesn't mean they haven't has a conversation with the more civilized members of the community.
Point out one lie and hypocritical thing I said. I challenge you. I have been subjected to countless threats, fallacies, insults, and other such crudity in this thread and in other mediums, and have responded with nothing but civility, logic, and common decency. I have patiently responded to people who came here to jeer and with surgical precision dismantled each argument that was thrown haphazardly my way riddled with nothing but illogic and fallacies. Not one single person has given me a solid reason why ISBoxer and it's functions should be banned, including CCP themselves, and I will continue to offer a 1b isk reward for such an argument. The CSM members are by no means infallible, as demonstrated by corebloodbrother and his obliterated BS fleet sitting on a planet. CBB and Xander have not presented any argument whatsoever regarding ISBoxer other than "wah muh BS fleet" by CBB. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
217
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 08:08:20 -
[4440] - Quote
Is googles automatic driving car called botting?
anyway.
I am currently 10 boxing with windows as my "third" party software. using my latest posted method.
as long as ccp doesnt call windows a third party software i am safe with that i think. |
|
|
corebloodbrothers
Volition Cult
The Volition Cult
1199
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 11:38:24 -
[4441] - Quote
Its been a while now, most poeple move on and take blows in life for granted and regroup. Find new goals and targets. I whish anyone the same. The thread turned into a sad display of bitternes over a subject the majority of players agree. No matter how the same poeple going to turn my words over and over.
Also eve is going up, not down in logins and other metrics. Dont try to make the whole thing bigger then the few hundred accounts affected. Noone misses a bombrun of 3 waves of 20 bombers in total done by 1 guy, honestly we dont. Nor ever will.
Ccp will not role back on this, if anything data and inquiry show its so the right decision, and no you dont get too see them, nor try too manipulate them. You want to test the borders of words and actions, try, maybe you get lucky, maybe u ll burn your fingers. Noone using a normal eve client, starting it 3 times to perform different tasks on them ever gotten in trouble. All mentioned examples are ways to push ccp, or the boundaries, go for it, if thtas your thing, dont cry if it fails.
Abusing csm is also funny, no csm member agreed on the use, and all suported the ban or didnt care for it enough to be opposed. Or had opinion cause of lack of knowledge aboht it. **** is turned into data projected as truth when it isnt. Within the current csm you will see the same.
The broken record starts to make noise noone likes too hear or cares about. I wish you again the best of lives and hope you can find something positive to focus energy too get satisfaction out of the g+ñme you play as a hobby and love to play, versus a lost war on words and bitterness tryign to make something happen noone cares, the world moved on and agreed they should.
I got decced and got 5 billion bounty on my csm toon cause of my opinion on the subject, which is a sign of bitterness in itself sadly. As much as you are entitled to an opinion and not get decced over it, i was hoping that would work both ways, but he, a big bounty is fun, please double it, i do get shot alot these days cause of it
Again, hopefully enjoy eve, fly safe, or not |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
204
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 12:22:13 -
[4442] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Noone misses a bombrun of 3 waves of 20 bombers in total done by 1 guy
Why is it O.K. for a group of players to do the bomb run, but not O.K. for a solo player to do the bomb run.
Why do you consider the group players morally superior to the solo players? Why does the CSM not want solo players to have the tool to defend themselves? Why are you trying to force your "group up" play style on other players who don't want to "group up"? I thought Eve was a sandbox?
I'm not asking for a change. I have moved on. I'm just asking for the simple courtesy of explaining why CCP and the CSM is against solo players defending themselves against groups.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
813
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 12:28:33 -
[4443] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Its been a while now, most poeple move on and take blows in life for granted and regroup. Find new goals and targets. I whish anyone the same. The thread turned into a sad display of bitternes over a subject the majority of players agree. No matter how the same poeple going to turn my words over and over.
You're absolutely right. Most people would shrug off losing a complete BS fleet in nullsec after going AFK on a planet instead of attempting to find a scapegoat for the situation. If "everyone" agrees on this subject, have CCP send us a poll and we'll see.
Quote:Also eve is going up, not down in logins and other metrics. Dont try to make the whole thing bigger then the few hundred accounts affected. Noone misses a bombrun of 3 waves of 20 bombers in total done by 1 guy, honestly we dont. Nor ever will.
Few hundred? According to CCP's graphs there were a bit more than a few hundred. Again, send us a poll and we'll see who misses what. Two multibox bombers went on the record stating that defensive bubbles will prevent them from bombing, so I don't see the problem there.
Quote:Ccp will not roll back on this, if anything data and inquiry show its so the right decision, and no you dont get too see them, nor try too manipulate them. You want to test the borders of words and actions, try, maybe you get lucky, maybe u ll burn your fingers. Noone using a normal eve client, starting it 3 times to perform different tasks on them ever gotten in trouble. All mentioned examples are ways to push ccp, or the boundaries, go for it, if thtas your thing, dont cry if it fails.
Tell that to the 5boxer who was banned whilst not using broadcasting. According to CCP's own post, Round Robin and rollovers are completely fine, yet we're still getting banned for them.
Quote:Abusing csm is also funny, no csm member agreed on the use, and all suported the ban or didnt care for it enough to be opposed. Or had opinion cause of lack of knowledge about it. **** is turned into data projected as truth when it isnt. Within the current csm you will see the same.
If by "abuse" you mean the abuse you flung at me in the mails when I asked for nothing more than a quiet interview, sure. I was completely civil whilst you flung venom like it was going out of style in the mails, not to mention your atrocious grammar and spelling.
Quote:I got decced and got 5 billion bounty on my csm toon cause of my opinion on the subject, which is a sign of bitterness in itself sadly. As much as you are entitled to an opinion and not get decced over it, i was hoping that would work both ways, but he, a big bounty is fun, please double it, i do get shot alot these days cause of it
Again, hopefully enjoy eve, fly safe, or not
In a game where you can bounty someone for no actual reason, and wardec anything if your pockets are deep enough, do you really, honestly, think that the 5b bounty and wardec was anything more than a "lol let's do this today"? Are you that egotistical?
You want to know why I keep posting here and fighting for this? To paraphrase someone else, because it doesn't matter if everyone in the universe decides that something right is wrong. I was raised on a rather simple principle: the requirement that I stand up for what I believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When you or CCP or whoever else tells me to move, to give up, to go away, my job is to plant myself like a rock beside the truth, and tell everyone "No, you move." |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12546
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 12:32:09 -
[4444] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
What part of "people were banned while following CCP's new rules" do you not understand?
I understand the claim, I just think it's a lie.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
742
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 12:46:06 -
[4445] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Hold on, you can't argue both sides of the court case here. You can't say that XYZ people who got banned for using RoundRobin and Rollovers (which were permitted under the flowchart and via direct interpretation by CCP in the first post) are bad and then turn around and say in the same breath say that your overlays are so much different so of course they should be exempted from 6a2. If you do that fast enough you're going to get whiplash.
No whiplash occurred. Eve voice is the voice coms program included in the Eve client. It attaches itself to an Eve chat channel and when people speak it moves their name to the top of the list and highlights it so you know who is talking. If people type in the chat channel their text appears so you can read it.
The TS3/Mumble overlays I use show the name of the person speaking and if anyone types a message that also appears so I can read it. Notice the similarities.
That's the way I set up my ISBoxer fleet I'm trying out. Each client is controlled just like it was the only one. Just as the game was designed to be played. ISBoxer just makes it easier to set up.
Nolak Ataru wrote:You cannot have a case without someone filing a complaint.
The person filing the complaint does not have to be the victim.
As for why some of the features of ISBoxer can be used to break the EULA. Not counting the features mentioned by CCP Falcon in this thread.
The dashboard setups. That sort of setup is not possible just using the eve client. If it was possible to have your fleet mates ui on your screen you would make all the nullsec FCs very happy. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
217
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 12:59:51 -
[4446] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:
Also eve is going up, not down in logins and other metrics. Dont try to make the whole thing bigger then the few hundred accounts affected.
I know for sure that eve's active subs are shrinking. dont know where your intel is coming from, but i think youre just talking.
corebloodbrothers wrote:
Ccp will not role back on this, if anything data and inquiry show its so the right decision, and no you dont get too see them, nor try too manipulate them.
you didnt even read the thread here did you?
its not about rolling back into allowing broadcasting again.
it is about not banning players who are now using eula conform methods to multibox.
corebloodbrothers wrote:
Or had opinion cause of lack of knowledge aboht it.
i truly believe that no one voting against multiboxing has ever done it. period.
Again. this is not about forcing ccp to take back the broadcast ban.
were doing this to get a clear statement from ccp about the eula conformable multiboxing.
and stop beeing proud about your csm status, you have been elected, you have to serve your people. serve <--- google that if you dont know what it means. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12546
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 13:02:30 -
[4447] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:
i truly believe that no one voting against multiboxing has ever done it. period.
I alt tab routinely, and have often run multiple clients between two computers.
But I don't cheat, and I never have.
Quote:were doing this to get a clear statement from ccp about the eula conformable multiboxing.
It wasn't clear before? Here, I'll restate it.
Stop. Cheating.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
204
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 13:14:42 -
[4448] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Stop. Cheating.
As the metrics have shown we have stopped cheating.
The questions at hand are:
1.) Why did I wake up one morning a cheater, when I wasn't a cheater the day before?
2.) Why does CCP and the CSM not want solo players to be able to defend themselves against group players?
3.) Why is CCP and the CSM wanting to force me to "group up" in a sand box game.
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
742
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 13:17:12 -
[4449] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Point out one lie and hypocritical thing I said. I challenge you. I have been subjected to countless threats, fallacies, insults, and other such crudity in this thread and in other mediums, and have responded with nothing but civility, logic, and common decency. I have patiently responded to people who came here to jeer and with surgical precision dismantled each argument that was thrown haphazardly my way riddled with nothing but illogic and fallacies. Not one single person has given me a solid reason why ISBoxer and it's functions should be banned, including CCP themselves, and I will continue to offer a 1b isk reward for such an argument. The CSM members are by no means infallible, as demonstrated by corebloodbrother and his obliterated BS fleet sitting on a planet. CBB and Xander have not presented any argument whatsoever regarding ISBoxer other than "wah muh BS fleet" by CBB.
(3826) You said "I was saying you needed citations / evidence for your claim that ISBoxer = cheating."---You lied. I never claimed ISBoxer =cheating (I said the exact opposite)
(3830) You said "CCP has always had an anti-bot policy which has been enforced regularly which makes your statements strange regarding this change"---You lied. I never made any statement about a change in CCPs anti-bot policy, which hasn't changed.
As for the hypocrisy, every time you go [Citation Needed] when you are unable or unwilling to back your own statements up with proof yourself you become a hypocrite.
Specifically, your claims that CCP is banning people who use ISBoxer without breaking the EULA(4022)(4026)
You really need to back claims like that up with proof if you are going to ask everyone else to provide proof for their statement.
Also you quite vehemently accused CCP Falcon of lying (3889)(4022). Accusing someone of lying when you are a liar yourself is hypocritical and you really should back up your claim that CCP Falcon is lying with some proof.
I've been kind enough to provide proof of my claim, how about providing some of your own? |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
217
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 13:17:23 -
[4450] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Charadrass wrote:
were doing this to get a clear statement from ccp about the eula conformable multiboxing.
It wasn't clear before? Here, I'll restate it. Stop. Cheating.
I am using my keyboard with windows to control my 10 boxes nearly simultainously.
no third party software involved.
what should i stop doing? |
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5292
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 13:26:23 -
[4451] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I alt tab routinely, and have often run multiple clients between two computers.
But I don't cheat, and I never have. Noone here has cheated. People having used software that at the time was completely allowed and accepted by CCP isn't cheating, even if you think it's unfair. The interesting part is though that you don't need to do anything beyond alt tabbing to get banned. CCP have made it pretty clear that they have no client side checking and are basing bans purely on data analysis from their side. If you multibox manually and become too efficient at it, you run the risk of being banned.
Quote:It wasn't clear before? Here, I'll restate it.
Stop. Cheating. Define cheating. When I manually multibox (which to be clear, is the only way I multibox) I use just windows to hover and see all of my screens tiled so I can rapidly interact with a window when it requires attention. It's no different to using VFX within innerspace and no different from using EVE-O preview which has been stated by CCP as being allowed, yet all 3 could end up getting you banned if you're too quick.
My problems with CCP aren't that they choose to ban multiplexing - hell they could ban multiboxing altogether if they want - my problems are with how they detect it, how they enforce it and what benefit it gives to put many legitimate players at risk.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
397
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 13:30:37 -
[4452] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Its been a while now, most poeple move on and take blows in life for granted and regroup. Find new goals and targets. I whish anyone the same. The thread turned into a sad display of bitternes over a subject the majority of players agree. No matter how the same poeple going to turn my words over and over.
Also eve is going up, not down in logins and other metrics. Dont try to make the whole thing bigger then the few hundred accounts affected. Noone misses a bombrun of 3 waves of 20 bombers in total done by 1 guy, honestly we dont. Nor ever will.
Ccp will not role back on this, if anything data and inquiry show its so the right decision, and no you dont get too see them, nor try too manipulate them. You want to test the borders of words and actions, try, maybe you get lucky, maybe u ll burn your fingers. Noone using a normal eve client, starting it 3 times to perform different tasks on them ever gotten in trouble. All mentioned examples are ways to push ccp, or the boundaries, go for it, if thtas your thing, dont cry if it fails.
Abusing csm is also funny, no csm member agreed on the use, and all suported the ban or didnt care for it enough to be opposed. Or had opinion cause of lack of knowledge aboht it. **** is turned into data projected as truth when it isnt. Within the current csm you will see the same.
The broken record starts to make noise noone likes too hear or cares about. I wish you again the best of lives and hope you can find something positive to focus energy too get satisfaction out of the g+ñme you play as a hobby and love to play, versus a lost war on words and bitterness tryign to make something happen noone cares, the world moved on and agreed they should.
I got decced and got 5 billion bounty on my csm toon cause of my opinion on the subject, which is a sign of bitterness in itself sadly. As much as you are entitled to an opinion and not get decced over it, i was hoping that would work both ways, but he, a big bounty is fun, please double it, i do get shot alot these days cause of it
Again, hopefully enjoy eve, fly safe, or not
Hmm interesting, no available statistics but you fall in with "majority of players agree". How many players have you spoken to on the subject?
CCP banning players via unclear rules, is not OK. It is multi boxers now, it could be anyone they choose next, simply by interpreting the EULA in a different way, again.
Logins are down, I don't know what you are using for your information but i use EveOffline and for the last 12 months logins have steadily dropped. Twelve months ago daily average was 39k, it is now 36k. US prime time was at around 30k is now closer to 24k. Much of this can be explained away with unlimited training cues removing the need for players to login. Good for CCP (short term) but not good for those who want to actually play the game but can't find content.
So CSM members didn't take an interest - Good to know. For those who continue to play with multiple characters it will be handy to know, none of the current CSM support their play style come next elections. (curious, are you sure other members of the CSM are ok with you saying they don't have any interest in multiboxers? Judging by your post, I don't think it would matter to you either way)
Lack of pertinent information, your right, CCP are good at turning a whine into a statistic and using it as justification for nerfs.
Finding new goals and interests is all well and good, if there is a new goal or interest worth pursuing, sadly most of the interesting, challenging things to do in eve are slowly being nerfed out of existence or changed to hours of mind numbing grinding, orbiting buttons. This should last as an interest for about 3 to 6 months by which time it will be replaced with more of, nothing to do but wait.
At 55, I don't know i will be around long enough for sov 7.0 or 8.0, by which time they might introduce something new and interesting.
As for the broken record. Who forced you to read this thread or for that matter write your purely subjective post.
- - - - - - - -
I do wish you had posted this earlier, my CSM voting would have been very different.
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
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12547
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 15:36:07 -
[4453] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:
I am using my keyboard with windows to control my 10 boxes nearly simultainously.
no third party software involved.
what should i stop doing?
You even admit to macroing, and then spend page after page of "I did nothing wrong!"
Do you wonder why no one feels sorry for you lot?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12547
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 15:39:40 -
[4454] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:
1.) Why did I wake up one morning a cheater, when I wasn't a cheater the day before?
You always were, CCP just finally woke up and decided to enforce it. They were even really nice about it and gave you a dropoff date, instead of just banning you all outright like I would have.
Quote:
2.) Why does CCP and the CSM not want solo players to be able to defend themselves against group players?
Strawman. CCP doesn't want hordes of farmers and quasi botters stripping the game of content from genuine solo players, whom your kind crowd out.
Quote:
3.) Why is CCP and the CSM wanting to force me to "group up" in a sand box game.
This is an MMO. "Multi. Player." Not "single player with twenty plus accounts". Why you ever thought this was okay is beyond me.
A few accounts? Sure, everyone has to scan or trade or haul, and those aren't viable for main accounts. But as many as some of the abusers have been? That is just obscene, a blight on the industry itself.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
ashley Eoner
470
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 16:08:01 -
[4455] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Jason Xado wrote:
1.) Why did I wake up one morning a cheater, when I wasn't a cheater the day before?
You always were, CCP just finally woke up and decided to enforce it. They were even really nice about it and gave you a dropoff date, instead of just banning you all outright like I would have. Quote:
2.) Why does CCP and the CSM not want solo players to be able to defend themselves against group players?
Strawman. CCP doesn't want hordes of farmers and quasi botters stripping the game of content from genuine solo players, whom your kind crowd out. Quote:
3.) Why is CCP and the CSM wanting to force me to "group up" in a sand box game.
This is an MMO. "Multi. Player." Not "single player with twenty plus accounts". Why you ever thought this was okay is beyond me. A few accounts? Sure, everyone has to scan or trade or haul, and those aren't viable for main accounts. But as many as some of the abusers have been? That is just obscene, a blight on the industry itself. Massive multiplayer doesn't mean "can only be played when you find others to play with you" either..
In the older days the MM part just meant a lot of people could play the same game with you at the same time. |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
204
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 16:15:16 -
[4456] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:[quote=Jason Xado]
genuine solo players
Sure as long as those "genuine solo players" don't have the tools to defend themselves from the groups all is good, correct?
If they want to defend themselves from the groups they should "group up", correct?
We wouldn't want those solo players to be able to defend themselves from groups now would we. That would just be wrong. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5293
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 16:40:51 -
[4457] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You always were, CCP just finally woke up and decided to enforce it. They were even really nice about it and gave you a dropoff date, instead of just banning you all outright like I would have. Completely and utterly wrong. CCP didn't just allow it, for years they stated quite explicitly that it was fine to affect as many clients as you want with a single keypress as long as you were there to do the presses and it didn't do more than one action on any given client. That attitude changed. And I think we can quite safely say that what you would do is irrelevant, since you wouldn't be running a popular MMO.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Strawman. CCP doesn't want hordes of farmers and quasi botters stripping the game of content from genuine solo players, whom your kind crowd out. And yet there still are players multiboxing like crazy without tools, and there's actual botters still trashing up the game. Get into any serious volumes on the market and behold the increase in market bots of late.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:This is an MMO. "Multi. Player." Not "single player with twenty plus accounts". Why you ever thought this was okay is beyond me.
A few accounts? Sure, everyone has to scan or trade or haul, and those aren't viable for main accounts. But as many as some of the abusers have been? That is just obscene, a blight on the industry itself. Why is it not OK? What is a limit on number of accounts? Why if this is the problem have CCP not simply hard capped number of accounts allowed to be active at a given time. As with many things, you're very much of the opinion that you don't do it, therefore it's wrong, which is a terrible attitude to have.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12549
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 17:19:51 -
[4458] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
genuine solo players
Sure as long as those "genuine solo players" don't have the tools to defend themselves from the groups all is good, correct? If they want to defend themselves from the groups they should "group up", correct? We wouldn't want those solo players to be able to defend themselves from groups now would we. That would just be wrong.
ISBoxers are part of "the groups", so I really don't know what you're going on about.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
397
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 23:31:11 -
[4459] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Jason Xado wrote:
1.) Why did I wake up one morning a cheater, when I wasn't a cheater the day before?
You always were, CCP just finally woke up and decided to enforce it. They were even really nice about it and gave you a dropoff date, instead of just banning you all outright like I would have. Quote:
2.) Why does CCP and the CSM not want solo players to be able to defend themselves against group players?
Strawman. CCP doesn't want hordes of farmers and quasi botters stripping the game of content from genuine solo players, whom your kind crowd out. Quote:
3.) Why is CCP and the CSM wanting to force me to "group up" in a sand box game.
This is an MMO. "Multi. Player." Not "single player with twenty plus accounts". Why you ever thought this was okay is beyond me. A few accounts? Sure, everyone has to scan or trade or haul, and those aren't viable for main accounts. But as many as some of the abusers have been? That is just obscene, a blight on the industry itself.
Kaarous you need practice, your trolling is slipping. I'm sorry but it is no where near as entertaining as it used to be.
Multiboxing with ISBoxer was never cheating, CCP allowed it until a minority took it that one step too far and generated a few complaints.
As complaining to CCP has become the easiest way to defeat your enemy, this has become a real game changer. The game touted to be a sandbox, was far more interesting when CCP had the attitude of - Find a way to beat him / them, people play the way they choose. (I do have a response to a ticket from years ago, before I knew there were no rules regarding player conduct.)
I wonder how many would complain if CCP were to start enforcing rules about manipulating game mechanics to ensure greater success in certain styles of game play? Doing this is essentially cheating, why do CCP let it continue?
CCP actively based advertising on multiboxing - Never fly alone (specifically aimed at players using multiple accounts to get the job done faster), plus numerous other advertising pitches to sell players multiple accounts.
A bucket with holes in is not going to hold water, the same as your pitiful argument will never hold any truth.
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
|
War StalkeR
NOOBIAN UNION
Bright Side of Death
9
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 02:17:28 -
[4460] - Quote
Out of pure interest what exactly prohibited in ISBoxer? Or rather - is it's main feature "cloning mouse's position and actions" in all windows of the game (all instances of eve online) - is still permitted? |
|
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
219
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 07:33:28 -
[4461] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Charadrass wrote:
I am using my keyboard with windows to control my 10 boxes nearly simultainously.
no third party software involved.
what should i stop doing?
You even admit to macroing, and then spend page after page of "I did nothing wrong!" Do you wonder why no one feels sorry for you lot?
Please explain where i use macros? |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
219
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 07:34:30 -
[4462] - Quote
War StalkeR wrote:Out of pure interest what exactly prohibited in ISBoxer? Or rather - is it's main feature "cloning mouse's position and actions" in all windows of the game (all instances of eve online) - is still permitted?
The Broadcast function is now a banable offense.
means you hit one button that issues one buttonclick on each box |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
183
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 09:17:34 -
[4463] - Quote
I'm only monitoring one large ISBoxer mining fleet atm comprised of about sixteen vessels. When they still all log on within two seconds of each other on my notifications list then either there is a timing mismatch on the notifications or they are using ISBoxer software to log on their accounts.
I believe it is still legal under the EULA to use ISBoxer type software to log on multiple accounts simultaneously. Other usage of that software such as to turn on all mining lasers on multiple accounts/vessels at the same time is illegal under the EULA. If I happen to be in their location when/if they turn on all their mining lasers simultaneously CCP will be notified of the fact. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5298
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 09:24:01 -
[4464] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:I'm only monitoring one large ISBoxer mining fleet atm comprised of about sixteen vessels. When they still all log on within two seconds of each other on my notifications list then either there is a timing mismatch on the notifications or they are using ISBoxer software to log on their accounts.
I believe it is still legal under the EULA to use ISBoxer type software to log on multiple accounts simultaneously. Other usage of that software such as to turn on all mining lasers on multiple accounts/vessels at the same time is illegal under the EULA. If I happen to be in their location when/if they turn on all their mining lasers simultaneously CCP will be notified of the fact. There's actually a script which can log on whole fleets too without having to use isboxer. Controlling even 20 miners manually is pretty trivial too, it's just the setup that is time consuming, so I imagine a lot of the time you guys see ISBoxers they are simply multiboxers. At fanfest CCP said the number of false reports at the moment is exceedingly high as you can imagine.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
183
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 09:28:26 -
[4465] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Charadrass wrote:
were doing this to get a clear statement from ccp about the eula conformable multiboxing.
It wasn't clear before? Here, I'll restate it. Stop. Cheating. I am using my keyboard with windows to control my 10 boxes nearly simultainously. no third party software involved. what should i stop doing?
What I see happening isn't physically possible to do manually in such a short time frame over ten or sixteen or many accounts. Therefore if I see it in the first person I will report it to CCP. If you are acting as you say you are without using third party software then you have nothing to worry about. In terms of resource management I and my contractors are not that that keen on large mining fleets controlled by one player. My activities are location specific though and control of multiple accounts keeps CCP going financially. |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
183
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 09:33:55 -
[4466] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Bethan Le Troix wrote:I'm only monitoring one large ISBoxer mining fleet atm comprised of about sixteen vessels. When they still all log on within two seconds of each other on my notifications list then either there is a timing mismatch on the notifications or they are using ISBoxer software to log on their accounts.
I believe it is still legal under the EULA to use ISBoxer type software to log on multiple accounts simultaneously. Other usage of that software such as to turn on all mining lasers on multiple accounts/vessels at the same time is illegal under the EULA. If I happen to be in their location when/if they turn on all their mining lasers simultaneously CCP will be notified of the fact. There's actually a script which can log on whole fleets too without having to use isboxer. Controlling even 20 miners manually is pretty trivial too, it's just the setup that is time consuming, so I imagine a lot of the time you guys see ISBoxers they are simply multiboxers. At fanfest CCP said the number of false reports at the moment is exceedingly high as you can imagine.
Regarding false positives I imagine there are a lot reported. I would only make a report if I genuinely felt the EULA had been broken. I wouldn't use it to harass people or cause a nuisance. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
219
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 09:52:46 -
[4467] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:I'm only monitoring one large ISBoxer mining fleet atm comprised of about sixteen vessels. When they still all log on within two seconds of each other on my notifications list then either there is a timing mismatch on the notifications or they are using ISBoxer software to log on their accounts.
I believe it is still legal under the EULA to use ISBoxer type software to log on multiple accounts simultaneously. Other usage of that software such as to turn on all mining lasers on multiple accounts/vessels at the same time is illegal under the EULA. If I happen to be in their location when/if they turn on all their mining lasers simultaneously CCP will be notified of the fact.
Legal and Illegal.
CCP is not a country who enforces law.
it is within the rules of the eula or breaching it.
to your question:
I am boxing 10 boxes using 1 key on my keyboard for each box to send 1 command.
hence i can box 10 eve clients pretty simultaniously. not exact at the same time, but nearly.
|
Darkblad
Hilf Dir selbst in EVE
837
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 19:07:01 -
[4468] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:I believe it is still legal under the EULA to use ISBoxer type software to log on multiple accounts simultaneously. Other usage of that software such as to turn on all mining lasers on multiple accounts/vessels at the same time is illegal under the EULA. If I happen to be in their location when/if they turn on all their mining lasers simultaneously CCP will be notified of the fact. As shown here (green = allowed as per EULA rules)
EVE Infolinks GÇó Mining Handbuch GÇó Colortags/Timer
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
815
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 22:18:57 -
[4469] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:No whiplash occurred. CCP currently allow TS3/Mumble overlays. They can change their mind and if they do, I'll stop using them without any whining.
The the way I set up my ISBoxer fleet I'm trying out. Each client is controlled just like it was the only one. Just as the game was designed to be played. ISBoxer just makes it easier to set up.
Whiplash Wang is at it again. You just got done arguing that TS3 and Mumble don't break the EULA and now you said they do. I can set up a DxNothing dashboard to operate a phenomenal VG fleet of sentry Domis, 5/1 guards, and a Loki, and it'll be legal according to CCP's interpretation of the EULA.
If I really wanted to go full-isolationist-carebear, I can run solo C5/6 Capital escalation sites with 4 toons: 1 Phoenix, 1 Archon, 1 booster, and 1 capital escalator. You can out-earn just about any other profession and activity in the game while not interacting with anyone. If I build my own fuel and Stront, the only reason to venture into highsec would be to sell enough Blue Loot to make Bill Gates consider taking up a second job.
Quote:The person filing the complaint does not have to be the victim.
True in criminal courts, not true in civil courts or in CCP's ticket system.
Quote:As for why some of the features of ISBoxer can be used to break the EULA. Not counting the features mentioned by CCP Falcon in this thread.
The dashboard setups. That sort of setup is not possible just using the eve client. If it was possible to have your fleet mates ui on your screen you would make all the nullsec FCs very happy.
It's very possible to create dashboard setups without ISBoxer for anyone with even a BASIC understanding of any coding language, and Windows Aero. My ninety-two year old grandmother probably understands ISBoxer and Aero better than you do. To quote Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Just because you don't understand it or do it doesn't mean it can't be done or isn't being done. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
815
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 22:53:48 -
[4470] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:( 3826) You said "I was saying you needed citations / evidence for your claim that ISBoxer = cheating."---You lied. I never claimed ISBoxer =cheating (I said the exact opposite) ( 3830) You said "CCP has always had an anti-bot policy which has been enforced regularly which makes your statements strange regarding this change"---You lied. I never made any statement about a change in CCPs anti-bot policy, which hasn't changed.
You did not directly say "isboxer = cheating" but your attitude regarding anyone using ISBoxer certainly painted that picture.
No, you didn't mention the botting policy, but you did talk about bots, which are decidedly different from boxers. I said that your statement regarding what would be interpreted as a bot was strange given that CCP has always banned bots.
Quote:As for the hypocrisy, every time you go [Citation Needed] when you are unable or unwilling to back your own statements up with proof yourself you become a hypocrite. Specifically, your claims that CCP is banning people who use ISBoxer without breaking the EULA( 4022)( 4026) You really need to back claims like that up with proof if you are going to ask everyone else to provide proof for their statement.
Very hard to post proof here when CCP deletes such posts. Come over to the dual-boxing forums and ask there and you'll get your proof. You still have no proof yourself of anything you've claimed, so every time you harp on ME not providing proof you merely underscore your lack of proof when I present mine.
Quote:Also you quite vehemently accused CCP Falcon of lying ( 3889)( 4022). Accusing someone of lying when you are a liar yourself is hypocritical and you really should back up your claim that CCP Falcon is lying with some proof.
I was not the one who set up the meeting between the ISBoxers and Falcon; that was a CSM member and another multiboxer. They have not deigned to show me a picture as that could be construed to be "sharing private correspondences" so the screenshots were not distributed. But please, continue to chase straws. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
815
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 23:17:01 -
[4471] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:I'm only monitoring one large ISBoxer mining fleet atm comprised of about sixteen vessels. When they still all log on within two seconds of each other on my notifications list then either there is a timing mismatch on the notifications or they are using ISBoxer software to log on their accounts.
I believe it is still legal under the EULA to use ISBoxer type software to log on multiple accounts simultaneously. Other usage of that software such as to turn on all mining lasers on multiple accounts/vessels at the same time is illegal under the EULA. If I happen to be in their location when/if they turn on all their mining lasers simultaneously CCP will be notified of the fact.
You don't broadcast for mining fleets...... any miner knows that. Same reason you don't stack lasers.
It's legal to use ISBoxer broadcasting to log in. After that, there's this cute little thing called a "fleet warp" that you can use to move multiple characters around a system without too much hassle.
e:
Quote:What I see happening isn't physically possible to do manually in such a short time frame over ten or sixteen or many accounts. Therefore if I see it in the first person I will report it to CCP. If you are acting as you say you are without using third party software then you have nothing to worry about. In terms of resource management I and my contractors are not that that keen on large mining fleets controlled by one player. My activities are location specific though and control of multiple accounts keeps CCP going financially.
Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it isn't possible. I can't slam-dunk a basketball, doesn't mean Michael Jordan was cheating. I'm a half-decent PVPer, but watching Garmon's videos leaves me in wonder. I'm not on his level, but that doesn't mean he was hacking. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
405
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 02:54:39 -
[4472] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:I'm only monitoring one large ISBoxer mining fleet atm comprised of about sixteen vessels. When they still all log on within two seconds of each other on my notifications list then either there is a timing mismatch on the notifications or they are using ISBoxer software to log on their accounts.
I believe it is still legal under the EULA to use ISBoxer type software to log on multiple accounts simultaneously. Other usage of that software such as to turn on all mining lasers on multiple accounts/vessels at the same time is illegal under the EULA. If I happen to be in their location when/if they turn on all their mining lasers simultaneously CCP will be notified of the fact.
Are you sure they are using ISBoxer or any other software?
When all my accounts were active I could log them all in within seconds simply by getting all to the login screen and clicking the appropriate characters 1 after the other. 11 characters spread across 4 monitors is really easy to login fast. I could also activate all weapons / lasers quickly by pre locking the target/s and activating modules pretty much all at once, again by simply clicking on each individual window.
NB; This is why I no longer multibox. CCP's new rules concerning multiboxing rights and wrongs are unclear enough, I fear I could be banned simply by my server tics being too fast.
When i sent a support ticket asking for information, I was referred to this thread, which of course is no help at all.
I wanted to know what CCP consider as too many server clicks in a given time. By knowing how many times I can click each character in a set period of time I could avoid being banned for simply being too fast with key presses.
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
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
405
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 03:21:20 -
[4473] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:Charadrass wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Charadrass wrote:
were doing this to get a clear statement from ccp about the eula conformable multiboxing.
It wasn't clear before? Here, I'll restate it. Stop. Cheating. I am using my keyboard with windows to control my 10 boxes nearly simultainously. no third party software involved. what should i stop doing? What I see happening isn't physically possible to do manually in such a short time frame over ten or sixteen or many accounts. Therefore if I see it in the first person I will report it to CCP. If you are acting as you say you are without using third party software then you have nothing to worry about. In terms of resource management I and my contractors are not that that keen on large mining fleets controlled by one player. My activities are location specific though and control of multiple accounts keeps CCP going financially.
Not physically possible for you or me is not physically impossible for everyone else.
If you see what in 1st person? Are you able to see ISBoxer in use by being in the same system as the multiboxer? How can you be sure what you think you are seeing is not affected by lag?
You are presuming guilt based in nothing more then - He can do something I consider "impossible".
Not too long ago sending things into space was considered impossible. Not too many years before that, people flying was considered impossible, 2 bicycle builders many considered mad were told they would never fly.
I was born before the internet, had you told me, within a few years I would be able to talk to and see people from all over the world with a telephone i could put in my pocket i would have told you - NEVER, it is just not possible.
Today there is one thing in this world I am absolutely sure of - Nothing is impossible.
If an individual is able to interact with characters "too quickly" CCP have no way of knowing whether or not that person is using 3rd party software to speed things up or if they just have a very highend machine with little server latency. They too are only guessing, based on server tics.
Someone who is not using 3rd party software could indeed be banned, if the are too efficient at multiboxing.
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
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
219
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 07:02:37 -
[4474] - Quote
if ccp is naming their game a sandbox game, they shouldnt interfere too much with it, cause forcing pilots into playing with others if they dont want to is not a sandbox.
as i was saying... i can send 10 commands to 10 different boxes at once using 10 fingers hitting 10 different keys.
no macros involved.
ans surely no broadcasting. |
Jason Xado
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 13:03:26 -
[4475] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:if ccp is naming their game a sandbox game, they shouldnt interfere too much with it, cause forcing pilots into playing with others if they dont want to is not a sandbox.
This is what it all boils down to. CCP and the CSM are saying that if you want to do anything beyond just the basic gameplay you have to group up. They are gating end-game content for only people who are interested in the "group up" game play.
Before this change went into effect I could solo practically every aspect of Eve (eventually). Now I can only solo very basic content.
I still don't understand why the desire to force people to "group up" who are just simply not that interested in grouping up.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12585
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 13:51:56 -
[4476] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:if ccp is naming their game a sandbox game, they shouldnt interfere too much with it, cause forcing pilots into playing with others if they dont want to is not a sandbox.
And being told that you can't automate twenty plus accounts simultaneously with the precision of a machine is not "forcing" you to play with others.
It's simply taking a grossly unfair advantage out of your hands, finally.
Your exact same argument can be made about botting, by the way.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
742
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 14:26:51 -
[4477] - Quote
War StalkeR wrote:Out of pure interest what exactly prohibited in ISBoxer? Or rather - is it's main feature "cloning mouse's position and actions" in all windows of the game (all instances of eve online) - is still permitted?
Input Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing as mentioned in this thread's first post will cause you to break Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies.
Also using videofx and dxnothing to set up dashboard type setups where you have the UI of other clients seperated from the rest of the clients also break Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies.
Using round robin type keyboard controls. eg:
F1 = F1 client 1
F1 = F1 client 2
F1 = F1 client 3
This also breaks Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies.
Using set up that allow you to do:
F1 = F1 client 1
F2 = F1 client 2
F3 = F1 client 3
Also breaks Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies.
Now a few people are going to post below saying I don't know what I'm talking about. The interesting thing is, those people will have all posted in this thread claiming CCP are banning people either unfairly or for no reason. To put it simply they do not understand Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies and how they relate to the use of third party programs to play Eve.
This guy (3861) doesn't understand Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies.
wrote:I set up a few xml files to multibox in eve without using broadcast or multiplex.
and i gave them to a few pilots plus ccp so they can see how we multibox.
one pilot of those got banned using this setup.
the others dont got a ban.
now tell me on what basis is ccp banning?
note: the xml files save the setup isboxer uses. so you can copy that setup from one to another pc.
there are no macros or else.
He gave someone else some files to use in a multi-boxing set up and someone got banned for it. Notice he is not banned himself. He shouldn't be listened to when it comes to decideing what is or is not allowed by Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies.
Ultimately its is down to you to ensure you don't break Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies. If you are using a third party program and you are unsure if you will be breaking Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies, then you need to decide if its worth the risk of your accounts being banned.
I do understand Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies, so I will continue to use third party programs as I see fit. This player (4032)
Nolak Ataru wrote:I stopped my usage of ISBoxer and de-subbed my accounts in protest after Jan 1. doesn't understand Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies and has stopped using ISBoxer. Interestingly Nolak has been quite vocal in saying what is allowed by Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies but he stopped using ISBoxer on Jan 1st. I dread to think how many players have been banned because they believed what he said.
These people do not understand Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies and should not be listened to. They see CCP banning people and because they think those people are doing nothing wrong, they come to the forums and claim CCP is banning them unfairly. Instead of realising they are wrong about what is allowed or not allowed by Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
818
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 14:31:51 -
[4478] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:And being told that you can't automate twenty plus accounts simultaneously with the precision of a machine is not "forcing" you to play with others.
It's simply taking a grossly unfair advantage out of your hands, finally.
Your exact same argument can be made about botting, by the way.
You're conflating ISBoxing and botting. Stop it. You're only underlining your own ignorance of both.
I shall attempt to give an ELI5 shortened explanation:
Botting is when you automate gameplay using a program, where "automate" means "without human input". The program is not subjected to what is called "human error" in science and statistics, and does not have "reaction times", i.e. "time to react to a change or situation". These programs have what is known colloquially in coding language as "modules". These modules dictate to the program what it does in a situation without waiting on human input. These programs are very complex and flexible. One of the most clear examples is the D2NT program for Diablo 2 botting.
ISBoxer is a program that does not allow a player to bot. It is impacted by "human error" and the GIGO Theory (bad inputs give bad outputs). It requires constant human input to function, which increases the chance and impact of "human error". ISBoxer also relies on a player's "reaction times" as it cannot perform it's own actions without input from the player. The player must still PLEX or pay for each account, he must have the hardware to run however many accounts he wants, and must interact with these accounts. The only people who think ISBoxer is botting are those who are uninformed or those who cry at anyone who is perceived to have an "unfair advantage", including boosters, implants, and OGBs, using the most nebulous definition of "advantage" in the world. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12585
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 14:34:40 -
[4479] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
You're conflating ISBoxing and botting. Stop it. You're only underlining your own ignorance of both.
They're extremely similar, that's why you want to avoid the comparison.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
743
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 14:38:35 -
[4480] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:( 3826) You said "I was saying you needed citations / evidence for your claim that ISBoxer = cheating."---You lied. I never claimed ISBoxer =cheating (I said the exact opposite) ( 3830) You said "CCP has always had an anti-bot policy which has been enforced regularly which makes your statements strange regarding this change"---You lied. I never made any statement about a change in CCPs anti-bot policy, which hasn't changed. You did not directly say "isboxer = cheating" but your attitude regarding anyone using ISBoxer certainly painted that picture. No, you didn't mention the botting policy, but you did talk about bots, which are decidedly different from boxers. I said that your statement regarding what would be interpreted as a bot was strange given that CCP has always banned bots. Quote:As for the hypocrisy, every time you go [Citation Needed] when you are unable or unwilling to back your own statements up with proof yourself you become a hypocrite. Specifically, your claims that CCP is banning people who use ISBoxer without breaking the EULA( 4022)( 4026) You really need to back claims like that up with proof if you are going to ask everyone else to provide proof for their statement. Very hard to post proof here when CCP deletes such posts. Come over to the dual-boxing forums and ask there and you'll get your proof. You still have no proof yourself of anything you've claimed, so every time you harp on ME not providing proof you merely underscore your lack of proof when I present mine. Quote:Also you quite vehemently accused CCP Falcon of lying ( 3889)( 4022). Accusing someone of lying when you are a liar yourself is hypocritical and you really should back up your claim that CCP Falcon is lying with some proof. I was not the one who set up the meeting between the ISBoxers and Falcon; that was a CSM member and another multiboxer. They have not deigned to show me a picture as that could be construed to be "sharing private correspondences" so the screenshots were not distributed. But please, continue to chase straws.
Thank you for admitting you have been lying and that you are unwilling or unable to provide any proof as to your claims, especially about your claim CCP Falcon has lied to you. |
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
818
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 14:39:19 -
[4481] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:You're conflating ISBoxing and botting. Stop it. You're only underlining your own ignorance of both. They're extremely similar, that's why you want to avoid the comparison.
A Corvette is similar to a F150, but it don't mean the F150 can out-run a Corvette, or that a Corvette can pull as much as a F150.
My netbook is similar to my gaming desktop, but my netbook can barely run Minecraft at it's lowest settings.
There are many creatures in nature that seem similar but aren't.
Just because something looks similar does not mean they are identical. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
818
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 14:42:06 -
[4482] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: Thank you for admitting you have been lying and that you are unwilling or unable to provide any proof as to your claims, especially about your claim CCP Falcon has lied to you.
Bzzt, wrong. But good job attempting to move the goalposts, and admitting you yourself have no proof that ISBoxing is bad, or violates the EULA in ways that other programs do not. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
743
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 14:47:12 -
[4483] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: Thank you for admitting you have been lying and that you are unwilling or unable to provide any proof as to your claims, especially about your claim CCP Falcon has lied to you. Bzzt, wrong. But good job attempting to move the goalposts, and admitting you yourself have no proof that ISBoxing is bad, or violates the EULA in ways that other programs do not.
You just said ISBoxer violates the EULA. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc
The Bloc
1679
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 14:47:50 -
[4484] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:if ccp is naming their game a sandbox game, they shouldnt interfere too much with it, cause forcing pilots into playing with others if they dont want to is not a sandbox.
as i was saying... i can send 10 commands to 10 different boxes at once using 10 fingers hitting 10 different keys.
no macros involved.
and surely no broadcasting.
Tell me more about how CCP forced you to play with others. I really want to hear it because I am of course forced to follow the exact same rules as you do and I can do whatever I want in the game alone all by myself without interaction with other player if I see fit. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5318
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 15:03:44 -
[4485] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Using set up that allow you to do:
F1 = F1 client 1
F2 = F1 client 2
F3 = F1 client 3
Also breaks Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies. Not that I would bother with this, but how is this against the EULA? If this is against the EULA, then even things such as voice command programs would be against the EULA, because what you're effectively saying is that out of game keybinds even for a single commands are against the EULA.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
743
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 15:03:47 -
[4486] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Alright, if you want to nitpick, I shall acquiesce:
ISBoxer violates 6A2, but not in the way you think.
TS3 violates 6A2.
Mumble violates 6A2
Overwolf violates 6A2
Steam Overlay violates 6A2.
EVE-Online Preview violates 6A2.
Windows Aero violates 6A2.
PYFA violates 6A3.
EFT violates 6A3.
Fuzzworks violates 6A3.
That new market program violates 6A3.
I'm probably missing a bit, but this was what just came to me off the top of my head.
So now you are saying ISBoxer does violate the EULA. What on earth have you been moaning about for the past 200 pages for then?.
Just so you know, you are wrong about them violating the EULA, they can be used to violate the EULA. Thats a vey important distinction you should remember.
Does this mean I get the 1 Billion isk you promised earlier in the thread?
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc
The Bloc
1679
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 15:04:48 -
[4487] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:
Tell me more about how CCP forced you to play with others. I really want to hear it because I am of course forced to follow the exact same rules as you do and I can do whatever I want in the game alone all by myself without interaction with other player if I see fit.
Before this change I could solo defend myself from incoming enemies while ice mining in null. After this change I can no longer do that without being forced to "group up".
Not being able to do something the way you used to before does not mean CCP force you to do this. If you think it's no longer possible for you to mine ice without ISboxer, then do something else in the game. CCP is not forcing you to mine ice without the defence you used to be able to provide yourself. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5318
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 15:07:10 -
[4488] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:You're conflating ISBoxing and botting. Stop it. You're only underlining your own ignorance of both. They're extremely similar, that's why you want to avoid the comparison. They are in fact nothing alike. Botting is about enabling the PC to play independently without requiring human interaction, ISBoxer has absolutely no features to do this.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
743
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 15:08:42 -
[4489] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Using set up that allow you to do:
F1 = F1 client 1
F2 = F1 client 2
F3 = F1 client 3
Also breaks Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies. Not that I would bother with this, but how is this against the EULA? If this is against the EULA, then even things such as voice command programs would be against the EULA, because what you're effectively saying is that out of game keybinds even for a single commands are against the EULA.
In that example all 3 clients are active and you are sending data to all 3 clients at the same time.CCP Random's little flow chart.
What needs to be done to not break Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies is.
F1
(switch client)
F1
(switch client)
etc.. |
Charadrass
Angry Germans
222
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 15:14:06 -
[4490] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Using set up that allow you to do:
F1 = F1 client 1
F2 = F1 client 2
F3 = F1 client 3
Also breaks Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies. Not that I would bother with this, but how is this against the EULA? If this is against the EULA, then even things such as voice command programs would be against the EULA, because what you're effectively saying is that out of game keybinds even for a single commands are against the EULA. In that example all 3 clients are active and you are sending data to all 3 clients at the same time. CCP Random's little flow chart. What needs to be done to not break Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies is. F1 (switch client) F1 (switch client) etc..
bullshit incoming?
you can target each box at a time
you can press only F1 to trigger F1 in client 1
or you can press F1 to F3 for all 3 clients to get the command.
no macros
no broadcasting
no eula violation.
simple windows keyboard layout.
if ccp is going to ban anyone else for that they can also ban changeable keymaps for the russians cause they do that language switch all the time between english and kyrillic.
if you read that flowchart correctly you would have noticed that they mean sending ONE data point to multiple clients at once.
i am sending ONE data point to ONE client at a time.
i am just using my natural born 10 fingers to do that for 10 boxes at nearly the same time.
now go ahead and blame me for using 10 fingers..
i am waiting. |
|
|
Jason Xado
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 15:14:37 -
[4491] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Not being able to do something the way you used to before does not mean CCP force you to do this. If you think it's no longer possible for you to mine ice without ISboxer, then do something else in the game. CCP is not forcing you to mine ice without the defence you used to be able to provide yourself.
Exactly CCP no longer wants solo players to be able to defend themselves from the groups.
That is what I have been saying. I just don't know why the sudden hostility to solo game play. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5319
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 15:17:29 -
[4492] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Using set up that allow you to do:
F1 = F1 client 1
F2 = F1 client 2
F3 = F1 client 3
Also breaks Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies. Not that I would bother with this, but how is this against the EULA? If this is against the EULA, then even things such as voice command programs would be against the EULA, because what you're effectively saying is that out of game keybinds even for a single commands are against the EULA. In that example all 3 clients are active and you are sending data to all 3 clients at the same time. CCP Random's little flow chart. What needs to be done to not break Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies is. F1 (switch client) F1 (switch client) etc.. I think you are confused. By at the same time, they mean with the same keypress. If you press F1 and it presses F1 in 4 clients, that's at the same time. In a setup where F1 does F1 on C1 and F2 does F1 on C2, etc, this is not the same time. I doubt CCP have a policy against global keybinds which is what you are saying.
Edit: Oh and point of note, you are supposedly not allowed to bind 1 key to multiple keys in 1 client either, so you can;t bind F1 to do F1,F2,F3...F8 all at the same time on one client. You can however hit F1-F8 all with your fingers at the same time though, which while technically allowed will show as a macro to CCP, so your fingers are in fact a bannable offense if you use them too efficiently.
According to randoms flowchart, both VFX and round robin are completely acceptable, and yet CCP have confirmed that's not the case, so I'd take randoms flowchart wit ha pinch of salt.
Amusingly though, it's irrelevant. Even if you click between clients pressing F1 into each window, you can still get banned since they have no way of telling if you are using round robin or switching between clients. What it boils down to is "if you are too efficient at multiboxing, you will be banned". Even better, it may be months down the line that ban occurs, and when it does you lose all of your isk too since they are running this under the bot policy not the cheat policy. Then even better than that, if they falsely ban you and refuse to believe that you weren't in fact using tools, your play data gets added to their detection profiles which makes it more likely that they catch a manual multiboxer next time.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
818
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 15:21:30 -
[4493] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:So now you are saying ISBoxer does violate the EULA. What on earth have you been moaning about for the past 200 pages for then?.
Just so you know, you are wrong about them violating the EULA, they can be used to violate the EULA. Thats a vey important distinction you should remember.
Does this mean I get the 1 Billion isk you promised earlier in the thread?
6A2 specifies ANY MODIFICATION, so that's TS3, mumble, overwolf, steam, and EVE-O preview banned right off the bat. The others indeed can be used so that they do not violate the EULA, but that would involve not actually using them.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:In that example all 3 clients are active and you are sending data to all 3 clients at the same time.CCP Random's little flow chart.
What needs to be done to not break Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies is.
F1
(switch client)
F1
(switch client)
etc..
Wait, how are you sending data to all 3 clients at the same time unless you suddenly want to declare that pressing multiple F-keys on the same client is bannable.
OS Flag "Keep On Top" would trigger a false flag on "sending data" and "keeping in focus".
CCP's little flowchart only specified sending inputs simultaneously to each client. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
743
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 15:39:10 -
[4494] - Quote
See the people disagreeing (4070)are the people who claim CCP is banning people unfairly or for no reason.
They do not understand Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies and how they relate to third party programs.
Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies
Also to help you understand it.
Fanfest security presentation
CCP Random's flowchart
When reading and watching, don't presume they mean something they don't actually say.
Edit: I wonder how many players have been banned because you lot keep saying actions which clearly violate Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies are in fact ok to use. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5320
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 15:53:40 -
[4495] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:See the people disagreeing ( 4070)are the people who claim CCP is banning people unfairly or for no reason. Because they in fact are. I was there at fanfest in the room talking with CCP, and they confirmed they have no ability to determine what the client is doing, there is no client side checking. All they can see is what actions are being taken on the server and they use data analysis to guess if someone is likely to be using tools. If you seriously can't see how this leads to false positives, there's no helping you.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: It's quite obvious you yourself have no idea what their policies state, since you're claiming things unrelated to isboxing altogether are suddenly banned. You also repeatedly link CCP randoms flowchart even though it's be stated by CCP that things that are allowed on that flowchart are in fact not allowed.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
9
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 18:47:06 -
[4496] - Quote
I can't believe how many times this thread goes full circle...
To those who say that ISBoxer has no advantages over using multiple clients or boxes and manually switching clients/boxes to play, then what are you complaining about? Stop using ISBoxer if it's not giving you any advantage. If you WANT to keep using it, then obviously there is an advantage to using it which makes it unfair towards those who don't, otherwise, you yourself wouldn't use it. Also, comparing a single player that is running a fleet to multiple players in a fleet does not make sense, which brings me to my next point.
To those who say they can't defend themselves against groups of people: MAKE FRIENDS! In case you haven't noticed, there are other people playing Eve that you can interact with so you too can also join a fleet or corp. If you can't make friends, then that's your personal social issue that you need to work on.
To those crying that CCP changed rules: So what if they did? They CAN if they want to. IRL new laws and rules are created all the time, and existing rules can change. Complain all you want to the police about how stupid the new law is but you'll still have to pay for it. If a speed limit on a road gets lowered and you continue to drive at the old posted speed, you'll still get pulled over and ticketed for speeding, no matter how much crying you do about how the new limit is too low so you want to keep driving the old limit...
To anyone disagreeing with me or with CCP's rules, and just can't get it through their heads that this change is happening: Quit the game! There are many other games to play out there, Eve is not the only one. So if you don't like it, go away and play something else. Agreeing with the EULA is not required, however, if you want to play, you must agree to it. It's your choice.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Alright, if you want to nitpick, I shall acquiesce:
ISBoxer violates 6A2, but not in the way you think.
TS3 violates 6A2.
Mumble violates 6A2
Overwolf violates 6A2
Steam Overlay violates 6A2.
EVE-Online Preview violates 6A2.
Windows Aero violates 6A2.
PYFA violates 6A3.
EFT violates 6A3.
Fuzzworks violates 6A3.
That new market program violates 6A3.
I'm probably missing a bit, but this was what just came to me off the top of my head.
Funny, because read here:
CCP Third Party Policies
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. We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay. For instance, the use of programs that provide in-game overlays (Mumble, Teamspeak) is not something we plan to actively police at this time. 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.
Don't know about the other stuff, all I know is TeamSpeak and EFT, but seeing the Windows Aero made me LOL as you're grasping at straws now. And to be honest, I didn't even know that TS3 did overlays. And EFT doesn't interact with the Eve client, so I don't know why that's listed... Might as well list spreadsheets too if that's where you're going with it, along with pen and paper... Regardless, that was not my point in this post, my point is everything above the first quote... |
Jason Xado
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 19:34:08 -
[4497] - Quote
Trakow wrote:
To those who say they can't defend themselves against groups of people: MAKE FRIENDS! In case you haven't noticed, there are other people playing Eve that you can interact with so you too can also join a fleet or corp. If you can't make friends, then that's your personal social issue that you need to work on.
O.K. finally someone who might be able to answer my question.
Do you know why CCP now considered group play to be better than solo play and is trying to force solo players to join groups?
You seem to have a good handle on why group play is morally superior to solo play, so please help me understand.
Thanks.
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
9
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 20:40:37 -
[4498] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:Trakow wrote:
To those who say they can't defend themselves against groups of people: MAKE FRIENDS! In case you haven't noticed, there are other people playing Eve that you can interact with so you too can also join a fleet or corp. If you can't make friends, then that's your personal social issue that you need to work on.
O.K. finally someone who might be able to answer my question. Do you know why CCP now considered group play to be better than solo play and is trying to force solo players to join groups? You seem to have a good handle on why group play is morally superior to solo play, so please help me understand. Thanks.
I don't see how you think that CCP considers group play to be better than solo play. You can still easily play solo. I have a couple characters that do, and aren't in corps with anyone. You can play solo and mine, or explore, refine and build, the options are many. However, if you plan to go into more hostile territory like mining in nullsec for example, it's probably best to go with some friends, but hey, that's your choice. If you decide to go mine in nullsec alone, then you're choosing to take that risk, and you should probably stab up. Same goes with anything else, like exploring wormholes for example. If you plan on doing so, it's best to have a fast and/or cloaky ship to minimize the risk. If you plan on taking a Bowhead full of ships across null/lowsec unescorted, that's your choice. Common sense really.
Want to PvP? That's fine too, and it's not hard to find solo PvP'ers in nullsec, and avoid large groups, except sometimes gate camps, but even those are avoidable and can be escaped easily enough if you know what you're doing and you're fitted properly. Seeing a single person in local and finding him is a pretty safe engagement, but if local starts filling fast, then it's time to GTFO. Want to PvP in larger engagements with fleets? Then find a fleet. There's even a built-in fleet finder in Eve itself...
Eve has always been a multiplayer game where you can team up and (insert gameplay pastime here), so I don't know what the issue is with needing to play solo and ONLY solo. Fleets and Corps' are not new, and most MMORPG's have their own versions (Guilds or whatever). Using some software to help you control your own fleet in an easier way than doing it manually is pretty lame IMO, and has the same honor in killing as shooting someone in the back, or back stabbing, whichever you prefer. I also don't see why people who do this think they're superior in the game. Most boxers have all their characters look similar and have similar names, so it's quite obvious on the KB when you see all parties involved that killed a single guy, and it just makes them look like a coward.
If you're really hard set on playing solo, there's plenty of other space games out there that aren't online and don't even require an internet connection. Then you can do what you want and you won't be bothered by other real players in the game, and vice versa. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
819
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 20:42:54 -
[4499] - Quote
Trakow wrote:I can't believe how many times this thread goes full circle...
To those who say that ISBoxer has no advantages over using multiple clients or boxes and manually switching clients/boxes to play, then what are you complaining about? Stop using ISBoxer if it's not giving you any advantage. If you WANT to keep using it, then obviously there is an advantage to using it which makes it unfair towards those who don't, otherwise, you yourself wouldn't use it. Also, comparing a single player that is running a fleet to multiple players in a fleet does not make sense, which brings me to my next point.
OK, so stop using Mumble, TS3, and Vent because they're better than EVE Voice. Stop using Pyfa and EFT as that's better than buying every mod and trying each mod to see if it will work on a given fit. Stop using Fuzzworks and do your own math for LP stores. Seed every market hub with your own alts and stop using EVE-Central.
ISBoxer allows a player to limit the framerates of each client, alleviating stress on a given computer among other things.
Quote:To those who say they can't defend themselves against groups of people: MAKE FRIENDS! In case you haven't noticed, there are other people playing Eve that you can interact with so you too can also join a fleet or corp. If you can't make friends, then that's your personal social issue that you need to work on.
I don't make friends easily. Call it a quirk of nature, or whatever, but I could never walk up to someone, introduce myself, and play a round of basketball and become friends. I've been to therapists and social workers, and it didn't help. Also, you're assuming the ISBoxers weren't talking to each other and swapping notes and stuff. We had a channel where a group of us hung out in and talked, so in a way, we did make friends.
Quote:To those crying that CCP changed rules: So what if they did? They CAN if they want to. IRL new laws and rules are created all the time, and existing rules can change. Complain all you want to the police about how stupid the new law is but you'll still have to pay for it. If a speed limit on a road gets lowered and you continue to drive at the old posted speed, you'll still get pulled over and ticketed for speeding, no matter how much crying you do about how the new limit is too low so you want to keep driving the old limit...
Ah, but IRL, there are officials from both sides of whatever line on the issue. Additionally, people can vote for different officials, and in most if not all issues, players can make their voice heard. And finally, laws IRL can be judged unconstitutional and removed.
Quote:To anyone disagreeing with me or with CCP's rules, and just can't get it through their heads that this change is happening: Quit the game! There are many other games to play out there, Eve is not the only one. So if you don't like it, go away and play something else. Agreeing with the EULA is not required, however, if you want to play, you must agree to it. It's your choice. Funny, because read here: CCP Third Party PoliciesQuote:
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. We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay. For instance, the use of programs that provide in-game overlays (Mumble, Teamspeak) is not something we plan to actively police at this time. 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.
Don't know about the other stuff, all I know is TeamSpeak and EFT, but seeing the Windows Aero made me LOL as you're grasping at straws now. And to be honest, I didn't even know that TS3 did overlays. And EFT doesn't interact with the Eve client, so I don't know why that's listed... Might as well list spreadsheets too if that's where you're going with it, along with pen and paper... Regardless, that was not my point in this post, my point is everything above the first quote... [/quote]
Dunno why you bolded the part that helped our cause. ISBoxer used to be under the "not policed" section, and that got changed. Who's to say these other programs won't be viewed in the same way? The fact that CCP is picking and choosing which of their own rules to enforce reminds many of us of the days of T20, where a CCP dev spawned T2 BPOs for his nullsec alliance, used his power as Dev to look at private correspondences and character sheets, and was only reprimanded after the news went public and revealed his in-game toon. The site that revealed his identity was punished in retaliation for exposing the fact that CCP is only human. The Internal Affairs division was created here to prevent that exact kind of horse-hockey.
Re-read what I said. EFT was filed under 6A3, aka "accelerated gameplay", not 6A2 "client modification" |
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 20:45:39 -
[4500] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Using set up that allow you to do:
F1 = F1 client 1
F2 = F1 client 2
F3 = F1 client 3
Also breaks Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies. Not that I would bother with this, but how is this against the EULA? If this is against the EULA, then even things such as voice command programs would be against the EULA, because what you're effectively saying is that out of game keybinds even for a single commands are against the EULA. In that example all 3 clients are active and you are sending data to all 3 clients at the same time. CCP Random's little flow chart. What needs to be done to not break Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies is. F1 (switch client) F1 (switch client) etc.. I think you are confused. By at the same time, they mean with the same keypress. If you press F1 and it presses F1 in 4 clients, that's at the same time. In a setup where F1 does F1 on C1 and F2 does F1 on C2, etc, this is not the same time. I doubt CCP have a policy against global keybinds which is what you are saying. Edit: Oh and point of note, you are supposedly not allowed to bind 1 key to multiple keys in 1 client either, so you can;t bind F1 to do F1,F2,F3...F8 all at the same time on one client. You can however hit F1-F8 all with your fingers at the same time though, which while technically allowed will show as a macro to CCP, so your fingers are in fact a bannable offense if you use them too efficiently. According to randoms flowchart, both VFX and round robin are completely acceptable, and yet CCP have confirmed that's not the case, so I'd take randoms flowchart wit ha pinch of salt. Amusingly though, it's irrelevant. Even if you click between clients pressing F1 into each window, you can still get banned since they have no way of telling if you are using round robin or switching between clients. What it boils down to is "if you are too efficient at multiboxing, you will be banned". Even better, it may be months down the line that ban occurs, and when it does you lose all of your isk too since they are running this under the bot policy not the cheat policy. Then even better than that, if they falsely ban you and refuse to believe that you weren't in fact using tools, your play data gets added to their detection profiles which makes it more likely that they catch a manual multiboxer next time.
Sadly this is the reason why I record my runs. I've got my VG site times down to a pretty reasonable level so it might only be a matter of time now.
Trakow wrote:To those crying that CCP changed rules: So what if they did? They CAN if they want to. IRL new laws and rules are created all the time, and existing rules can change. Complain all you want to the police about how stupid the new law is but you'll still have to pay for it. If a speed limit on a road gets lowered and you continue to drive at the old posted speed, you'll still get pulled over and ticketed for speeding, no matter how much crying you do about how the new limit is too low so you want to keep driving the old limit...
I have but that doesn't mean I won't be banned for using tools that I'm not actually using. False positives are an issue and that's why some continue this discussion.
Don't bring in real life in that manner in relation to eve as it makes no sense. My counter to your silly scenario is the law that was passed in Indiana. Notice how complaints lead to a "revision" which in reality is a massive change to the law to address the complaints. So "crying" (using your word) resulted in the law being massively changed. Not exactly in line with what your "point" tried to be. |
|
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
11
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 21:06:19 -
[4501] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
OK, so stop using Mumble, TS3, and Vent because they're better than EVE Voice. Stop using Pyfa and EFT as that's better than buying every mod and trying each mod to see if it will work on a given fit. Stop using Fuzzworks and do your own math for LP stores. Seed every market hub with your own alts and stop using EVE-Central.
ISBoxer allows a player to limit the framerates of each client, alleviating stress on a given computer among other things.
The only thing I've used is TS, and only because the corp did, but I'm perfectly fine using EV. If they changed the rules and said that TS is now banned, then of course, I would stop using it and just stick to EV, which I also use. I wouldn't go on forums ranting about it... They're allowed to change their rules and policies.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
I don't make friends easily. Call it a quirk of nature, or whatever, but I could never walk up to someone, introduce myself, and play a round of basketball and become friends. I've been to therapists and social workers, and it didn't help. Also, you're assuming the ISBoxers weren't talking to each other and swapping notes and stuff. We had a channel where a group of us hung out in and talked, so in a way, we did make friends.
Again, that's your personal issue, sorry to say but it's true. It is what it is. So if you made ISBoxer friends, then play with them...
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Ah, but IRL, there are officials from both sides of whatever line on the issue. Additionally, people can vote for different officials, and in most if not all issues, players can make their voice heard. And finally, laws IRL can be judged unconstitutional and removed.
Yes but that's where my comparison ends, CCP's say is the final and only word.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Dunno why you bolded the part that helped our cause. ISBoxer used to be under the "not policed" section, and that got changed. Who's to say these other programs won't be viewed in the same way? The fact that CCP is picking and choosing which of their own rules to enforce reminds many of us of the days of T20, where a CCP dev spawned T2 BPOs for his nullsec alliance, used his power as Dev to look at private correspondences and character sheets, and was only reprimanded after the news went public and revealed his in-game toon. The site that revealed his identity was punished in retaliation for exposing the fact that CCP is only human. The Internal Affairs division was created here to prevent that exact kind of horse-hockey.
Re-read what I said. EFT was filed under 6A3, aka "accelerated gameplay", not 6A2 "client modification"
Exactly, like you said; "ISBoxer used to be under the "not policed" section", USED to be, and is no longer. Like I said before, if they said that from now on TS or anything else is no longer allowed, then so be it. I have no problem with that. I played for 7 years with no TS (or anything at all) with no problems, I've only used TS the last 1.5 years... |
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 21:13:02 -
[4502] - Quote
Trakow wrote:baaaaa baaaaaaaa baaaaaa.
Look man if you want to be herded blindly along while refusing to use the voice that CCP gave you to use then that's fine. Just don't rag on people for utilizing the tools that CCP gave them in order to do what CCP intended when they created the forums and this post.
My point is that this thread is here to discuss the changes. THe forums were created for feedback purposes. Sometimes that feedback is positive and sometimes it's negative or as you call it "crying". Yelling at everyone to just shut up and keep their opinions to themselves runs counter to the very reason this forum exists.
If you want to just call the people crybabies and move on then that might be more productive. |
Jason Xado
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 21:19:52 -
[4503] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Jason Xado wrote:Trakow wrote:
To those who say they can't defend themselves against groups of people: MAKE FRIENDS! In case you haven't noticed, there are other people playing Eve that you can interact with so you too can also join a fleet or corp. If you can't make friends, then that's your personal social issue that you need to work on.
O.K. finally someone who might be able to answer my question. Do you know why CCP now considered group play to be better than solo play and is trying to force solo players to join groups? You seem to have a good handle on why group play is morally superior to solo play, so please help me understand. Thanks. I don't see how you think that CCP considers group play to be better than solo play. You can still easily play solo. I have a couple characters that do, and aren't in corps with anyone. You can play solo and mine, or explore, refine and build, the options are many. However, if you plan to go into more hostile territory like mining in nullsec for example, it's probably best to go with some friends, but hey, that's your choice. If you decide to go mine in nullsec alone, then you're choosing to take that risk, and you should probably stab up. Same goes with anything else, like exploring wormholes for example. If you plan on doing so, it's best to have a fast and/or cloaky ship to minimize the risk. If you plan on taking a Bowhead full of ships across null/lowsec unescorted, that's your choice. Common sense really. Want to PvP? That's fine too, and it's not hard to find solo PvP'ers in nullsec, and avoid large groups, except sometimes gate camps, but even those are avoidable and can be escaped easily enough if you know what you're doing and you're fitted properly. Seeing a single person in local and finding him is a pretty safe engagement, but if local starts filling fast, then it's time to GTFO. Want to PvP in larger engagements with fleets? Then find a fleet. There's even a built-in fleet finder in Eve itself... Eve has always been a multiplayer game where you can team up and (insert gameplay pastime here), so I don't know what the issue is with needing to play solo and ONLY solo. Fleets and Corps' are not new, and most MMORPG's have their own versions (Guilds or whatever). Using some software to help you control your own fleet in an easier way than doing it manually is pretty lame IMO, and has the same honor in killing as shooting someone in the back, or back stabbing, whichever you prefer. I also don't see why people who do this think they're superior in the game. Most boxers have all their characters look similar and have similar names, so it's quite obvious on the KB when you see all parties involved that killed a single guy, and it just makes them look like a coward. If you're really hard set on playing solo, there's plenty of other space games out there that aren't online and don't even require an internet connection. Then you can do what you want and you won't be bothered by other real players in the game, and vice versa.
You still didn't answer the question. Why is group play considered better. You seem to misunderstand solo player vs. solo character. I am talking about a solo player, not a solo character.
If I want to run 10 accounts(with 1 player) and go toe-to-toe with 10 other accounts(with 10 players), why should the 10 accounts each with a player behind them be better than the 10 accounts with just one player behind them.
Before this change the 10 solo accounts could compete with the 10 group accounts. Now the 10 group accounts are better, per CCP mandate.
I still have the question. WHY????
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
410
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 23:19:11 -
[4504] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Alright, if you want to nitpick, I shall acquiesce:
ISBoxer violates 6A2, but not in the way you think.
TS3 violates 6A2.
Mumble violates 6A2
Overwolf violates 6A2
Steam Overlay violates 6A2.
EVE-Online Preview violates 6A2.
Windows Aero violates 6A2.
PYFA violates 6A3.
EFT violates 6A3.
Fuzzworks violates 6A3.
That new market program violates 6A3.
I'm probably missing a bit, but this was what just came to me off the top of my head.
So now you are saying ISBoxer does violate the EULA. What on earth have you been moaning about for the past 200 pages for then?. Just so you know, you are wrong about them violating the EULA, they can be used to violate the EULA. Thats a vey important distinction you should remember. Does this mean I get the 1 Billion isk you promised earlier in the thread?
BINGO - Give that man a cookie..
"They can be used to violate" is the key phrase concerning ALL 3rd party programs.
ISBoxer is no more or less guilty of this than any other program, yet CCP have chosen to use less than scrupulous methods and interpretation of the EULA to ban players using this type of 3rd party software in a way that according to the EULA is not technically a breach. While allowing other 3rd party software in the same category to continue to be used, CCP is not so much policing their game to ensure players are within the EULA but playing hypocrite by banning players, they believe (with no other proof than, their belief) are somehow in breach.
Unfortunately the multibox community is divided in the game, some choosing to continue multiboxing within the stated guidlines and hoping not to draw attention to themselves, while others are prepared to speak up and try to get the current situation clarified. When a player can be banned for being too efficient at the game, there is a problem with those running the game.
When those running the game just ignore valid questions and concerns it shows a complete lack of regard for EVERY paying customer, who will they point the "I/we don't like how you play" ban stick to next?
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
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12590
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 02:15:51 -
[4505] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:When a player can be banned for being too efficient at the game, there is a problem with those running the game.
I'd be highly interested in seeing some actual proof of this happening, and not from those bot apologists at dualboxing.com, too.
Thus far, Nolak's only attempt at this, when I asked for it, was to show a guy who was clearly in violation by using macros. After that he kept blustering and refusing to post anything else for a serious attempt at proof.
Quote:When those running the game just ignore valid questions and concerns it shows a complete lack of regard for EVERY paying customer, who will they point the "I/we don't like how you play" ban stick to next?
They set that particular precedent some time ago, and people like you (possibly actually you, idk, the whole thread got deleted) cheered and applauded. I take great delight in twisting the knife now.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
412
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 03:13:58 -
[4506] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:When a player can be banned for being too efficient at the game, there is a problem with those running the game.
I'd be highly interested in seeing some actual proof of this happening, and not from those bot apologists at dualboxing.com, too. Thus far, Nolak's only attempt at this, when I asked for it, was to show a guy who was clearly in violation by using macros. After that he kept blustering and refusing to post anything else for a serious attempt at proof. Quote:When those running the game just ignore valid questions and concerns it shows a complete lack of regard for EVERY paying customer, who will they point the "I/we don't like how you play" ban stick to next? They set that particular precedent some time ago, and people like you (possibly actually you, idk, the whole thread got deleted) cheered and applauded. I take great delight in twisting the knife now.
Get CCP to relax the rules about posting Dev to player communications and I feel pretty confident, the "proof" is there. Although for absolute proof, you would need to be sitting in the same room as an accused individual.
Erring on the side of "everyone tells lies" is a useful strategy when you have nothing else.
The simple 'fact" CCP refuse to clarify their stance on multiboxing is enough reason for me to believe, they are hiding something, something important.
You choose to believe everyone on the multibox forums is telling lies, I'm not prepared to call them liars without proof. Which of course is unavailable due to CCP's threat to ban players for posting communications that could provide proof.
It is a shame those who have been banned can't access the forums, they could post what happened to them.
If i did at some time applaud something CCP did, it must have been a few years ago. They haven't done ANYTHING I would applaud, for a long time.
Sadly you are right, the precedent was set some time ago, and will continue affecting a lot of players who have been loyal to the game for many years.
I wonder, if Devs fixed Concord (and the joke called Faction Police) so it was not possible for gankers and -10's to manipulate them, how much of an outcry there would be.
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
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
11
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 06:44:06 -
[4507] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:Trakow wrote:Jason Xado wrote:Trakow wrote:
To those who say they can't defend themselves against groups of people: MAKE FRIENDS! In case you haven't noticed, there are other people playing Eve that you can interact with so you too can also join a fleet or corp. If you can't make friends, then that's your personal social issue that you need to work on.
O.K. finally someone who might be able to answer my question. Do you know why CCP now considered group play to be better than solo play and is trying to force solo players to join groups? You seem to have a good handle on why group play is morally superior to solo play, so please help me understand. Thanks. I don't see how you think that CCP considers group play to be better than solo play. You can still easily play solo. I have a couple characters that do, and aren't in corps with anyone. You can play solo and mine, or explore, refine and build, the options are many. However, if you plan to go into more hostile territory like mining in nullsec for example, it's probably best to go with some friends, but hey, that's your choice. If you decide to go mine in nullsec alone, then you're choosing to take that risk, and you should probably stab up. Same goes with anything else, like exploring wormholes for example. If you plan on doing so, it's best to have a fast and/or cloaky ship to minimize the risk. If you plan on taking a Bowhead full of ships across null/lowsec unescorted, that's your choice. Common sense really. Want to PvP? That's fine too, and it's not hard to find solo PvP'ers in nullsec, and avoid large groups, except sometimes gate camps, but even those are avoidable and can be escaped easily enough if you know what you're doing and you're fitted properly. Seeing a single person in local and finding him is a pretty safe engagement, but if local starts filling fast, then it's time to GTFO. Want to PvP in larger engagements with fleets? Then find a fleet. There's even a built-in fleet finder in Eve itself... Eve has always been a multiplayer game where you can team up and (insert gameplay pastime here), so I don't know what the issue is with needing to play solo and ONLY solo. Fleets and Corps' are not new, and most MMORPG's have their own versions (Guilds or whatever). Using some software to help you control your own fleet in an easier way than doing it manually is pretty lame IMO, and has the same honor in killing as shooting someone in the back, or back stabbing, whichever you prefer. I also don't see why people who do this think they're superior in the game. Most boxers have all their characters look similar and have similar names, so it's quite obvious on the KB when you see all parties involved that killed a single guy, and it just makes them look like a coward. If you're really hard set on playing solo, there's plenty of other space games out there that aren't online and don't even require an internet connection. Then you can do what you want and you won't be bothered by other real players in the game, and vice versa. You still didn't answer the question. Why is group play considered better. You seem to misunderstand solo player vs. solo character. I am talking about a solo player, not a solo character. If I want to run 10 accounts(with 1 player) and go toe-to-toe with 10 other accounts(with 10 players), why should the 10 accounts each with a player behind them be better than the 10 accounts with just one player behind them. Before this change the 10 solo accounts could compete with the 10 group accounts. Now the 10 group accounts are better, per CCP mandate. I still have the question. WHY????
I did answer your question, with a statement (see bolded underlined above) about how I don't know where you got the idea that group play is considered better. Who said that? Not me, and not CCP... And I WAS talking about solo players...
Also, you just admitted that "Before this change the 10 solo accounts could compete with the 10 group accounts.", therefore, there was an advantage since a single player could compete with 10 players, even more so if 10+ accounts run by a solo player were to engage a solo-character-solo-player. Thanks for proving the point. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12592
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 11:58:02 -
[4508] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
You choose to believe everyone on the multibox forums is telling lies, I'm not prepared to call them liars without proof.
It's not without cause. The fact that the video showing someone doing "nothing wrong" clearly violated the rules is my cause for doing so.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Jason Xado
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
208
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 12:38:27 -
[4509] - Quote
Trakow wrote:
I did answer your question, with a statement (see bolded underlined above) about how I don't know where you got the idea that group play is considered better. Who said that? Not me, and not CCP... And I WAS talking about solo players...
Also, you just admitted that "Before this change the 10 solo accounts could compete with the 10 group accounts.", therefore, there was an advantage since a single player could compete with 10 players, even more so if 10+ accounts run by a solo player were to engage a solo-character-solo-player. Thanks for proving the point.
No you still haven't answered the question, and your statement still shows a bias to group players (despite the underlined part above). Let me try a fill in the blank question.
10 identical ships being control by 10 players should have an advantage over 10 of the same identical ships being controlled by 1 player because _______________________?
I am trying to understand why you (and CCP) have a bias toward accounts controlled by multiple players vs. accounts controlled by only one player. I am trying to understand why all accounts are not treated equal. Here is the question in math form:
10 <> 10 because __________________?
Can you please answer the question? |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
744
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 13:58:09 -
[4510] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:
I am trying to understand why you (and CCP) have a bias toward accounts controlled by multiple players vs. accounts controlled by only one player. I am trying to understand why all accounts are not treated equal.
They don't.
The bias you see from CCP towards accounts controlled by only one player is all in your head. The way you word your ridiculous question shows you are incapable of rational thought.
All players, no matter how many accounts they have are all treated the same by CCP. |
|
|
Eve Solecist
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1496
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 14:06:39 -
[4511] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Jason Xado wrote:
I am trying to understand why you (and CCP) have a bias toward accounts controlled by multiple players vs. accounts controlled by only one player. I am trying to understand why all accounts are not treated equal.
They don't. The bias you see from CCP towards accounts controlled by only one player is all in your head. The way you word your ridiculous question shows you are incapable of rational thought. All players, no matter how many accounts they have are all treated the same by CCP.
What I like most about CCP is their capability to do things in a way
that makes people talk pointlessly, while making sure they keep having an account.
It's remarkable!
I wished I had CCPs ability to deal with immature adults like that!
....... but actually they don't even do that. They let them talk,
which makes them believe anyone cares and that's all there is to it.
It's brilliant!
This one is one of my better posts. You should see the others ....
"I've tried to give up making sexual innuendos. But it's hard, so hard." -RoAnnon
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
820
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 14:15:00 -
[4512] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
You choose to believe everyone on the multibox forums is telling lies, I'm not prepared to call them liars without proof.
It's not without cause. The fact that the video showing someone doing "nothing wrong" clearly violated the rules is my cause for doing so.
We already went over this ten times before, but I shall do it again:
Round Robin Broadcasting is the act of sending one command to one client for one click, and for each subsequent click, the command is sent to a different client. It was not banned by CCP as it only sends one action per click.
It is entirely possible to configure ISBoxer to change VideoFX sources once a player clicks on one. The route a command takes for a player using ISBoxer is thus:
OS>ISBoxer>EVE
Such that it can seem like a player is Round-Robin broadcasting when he indeed is not. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12592
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 14:16:30 -
[4513] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
We already went over this ten times before, but I shall do it again:
No one is listening to your excuses and your wild attempts at deflection.
Proof or stfu.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
820
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 14:31:28 -
[4514] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
We already went over this ten times before, but I shall do it again:
No one is listening to your excuses and your wild attempts at deflection. Proof or stfu.
Nobody's listening to your moving goalposts, fallacies, slander, and other lies.
I believe the function in ISBoxer is located in the KeyMaps section. In pseudocode:
OnClick
Send Action to client 1
Switch VideoFX Box1 to Box2
Now, where is your proof that RoundRobin was banned by CCP? |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
746
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 15:01:57 -
[4515] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:ISBoxer violates 6A2 (4078)
You've already admitted that ISBoxer can be used to break Eve's EULA/TOS & policies. Why are your here arguing with yourself?
Edit: Still waiting for that 1 bil isk you promised. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
820
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 15:34:18 -
[4516] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:ISBoxer violates 6A2 ( 4078) You've already admitted that ISBoxer can be used to break Eve's EULA/TOS & policies. Why are your here arguing with yourself? Edit: Still waiting for that 1 bil isk you promised.
Guns can be used to kill people. Are we going to ban those? Cars can be used to run over people. Will we ban those too? How about cigarettes? Alcohol? Do you know how many people die from preventable heart disease and clogged arteries?
PYFA and EFT can be used to violate 6A3. Let's ban people who use those. TS3, Mumble, and Overwolf's Overlay violate 6A2. Let's ban everyone who uses them too. EVE-O Preview definitely violates 6A2, so why is CCP working on it?
Either CCP enforces their EULA and Policy for every program, or they don't enforce it at all. |
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
179
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 15:52:28 -
[4517] - Quote
Is using a control surface such as the akai mpd32 permitted? By using such a control surface i mean assigning keyboard hotkeys to the drum pads, non macro'd, non repeating, single key assignment only, just another input device for simplified hotkeys.
Further clarification, I multibox, and the usage would still mean i manually switch between characters on screen, and individually use hotkeys. if it is not assignable to a hotkey it will still be done via mouse/touchscreen/trackball/tablet.
You are content to be content. This is not a jedi mind trick, its just a game
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
746
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 16:09:57 -
[4518] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Either CCP enforces their EULA and Policy for every program, or they don't enforce it at all.
Nope. CCP can enforce their EULA and Policy however they please. You don't get to tell CCP how to enforce their own policies, they've made it perfectly clear whats allowed.
Now that you admit ISBoxer can be used to break the EULA/TOS & policies and you have admitted that banning cheats is good for the game (3839), why don't you stop complaining about CCP doing what you agree with. |
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
82
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 17:22:07 -
[4519] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:ISBoxer violates 6A2 ( 4078) You've already admitted that ISBoxer can be used to break Eve's EULA/TOS & policies. Why are your here arguing with yourself? Edit: Still waiting for that 1 bil isk you promised.
Please don't quote 1/10'th of what he said to put it out off the context/situation/way it was used in.
I don't care what it's about. Doing that is not Cool. So please don't :)
Thank you :)
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
820
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 17:25:14 -
[4520] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Either CCP enforces their EULA and Policy for every program, or they don't enforce it at all.
Nope. CCP can enforce their EULA and Policy however they please. You don't get to tell CCP how to enforce their own policies, they've made it perfectly clear whats allowed. Now that you admit ISBoxer can be used to break the EULA/TOS & policies and you have admitted that banning cheats is good for the game ( 3839), why don't you stop complaining about CCP doing what you agree with.
You weren't here when T20 happened. Neither was I, but I managed to track down someone who was and obtained some of the story. A CCP Dev had violated the separation of his job and his EVE character, and spawned T2 BPOs for his alliance and spied on his alliance's enemies, among other actions. The Internal Affairs dept. was created to ensure that stuff like that didn't happen, and that they enforced their EULA uniformly so as to not favor one group over another. Right now, that is not happening. CCP is regressing to the time of T20 where changes are being made not as balancing factors, or QoL improvements, or anything of the nature, but as to favor one group over another whilst ignoring other violations of the EULA. |
|
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
746
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 17:31:15 -
[4521] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:ISBoxer violates 6A2 ( 4078) You've already admitted that ISBoxer can be used to break Eve's EULA/TOS & policies. Why are your here arguing with yourself? Edit: Still waiting for that 1 bil isk you promised. Please don't quote 1/10'th of what he said to put it out off the context/situation/way it was used in. I don't care what it's about. Doing that is not Cool. So please don't :) Thank you :)
Why do you think I provided the link, it was so people could see it wasn't taken out of context or situation it was used in. That guy has constantly lied and abused CCP's devs in this thread and now he has started arguing with himself. He is a joke and needs to be exposed as such. He is responsible for telling people that certain functions of programs (like ISBoxer) are ok to use, whilst stopping using them himself. I dread to think how many people have ended up banned because they believe the nonsense he has been spouting. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
11
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 18:40:58 -
[4522] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:Trakow wrote:
I did answer your question, with a statement (see bolded underlined above) about how I don't know where you got the idea that group play is considered better. Who said that? Not me, and not CCP... And I WAS talking about solo players...
Also, you just admitted that "Before this change the 10 solo accounts could compete with the 10 group accounts.", therefore, there was an advantage since a single player could compete with 10 players, even more so if 10+ accounts run by a solo player were to engage a solo-character-solo-player. Thanks for proving the point.
No you still haven't answered the question, and your statement still shows a bias to group players (despite the underlined part above). Let me try a fill in the blank question. 10 identical ships being control by 10 players should have an advantage over 10 of the same identical ships being controlled by 1 player because the fleet of 10 players only have to control one ship while the player controlling 10 ships needs to alt-tab or switch boxes to control each ship and can't monitor and control them simultaneously unless using software which violates the EULA. Using software to help control the 10 ships gives the single player an advantage since he can simultaneously lay all fire on a single ship and once destroyed, switch to the next, etc. 10 Players need to coordinate with each other (likely via an FC) which takes extra time and they lose valuable time. Whereas the single player ISBoxing has no delay between decision making and taking action. So the advantage is different depending on if the single player is using software to help or not, which is against the EULA.I am trying to understand why you (and CCP) have a bias toward accounts controlled by multiple players vs. accounts controlled by only one player. I am trying to understand why all accounts are not treated equal. Here is the question in math form: 10 <> 10 because Not a math question because 10 does in fact equal 10. 10 of what? That's likely your question which you can't express, so if that's the case, it depends what 10 things you're comparing. 10 players vs 10 accounts controlled by one player are not equal, no. 10 players vs 10 players is 10=10Or perhaps a question with a more "feelings": If I am in a group of 10 players in a fleet of 10 ships flying through null and we run into another fleet of 10 identical ships, I feel different towards the 10 ships if they are controlled by only 1 player because a fleet of 10 players being destroyed by a single player that's using software which goes against the EULA to win a fight has no honor or merit in winning. Similarly, if the group of 10 players destroyed the single ISBoxer, I wouldn't call that a proper win either. Why? Take a single player from that group of 10, and take the single ISBoxer player and compare how they're playing. There's so much difference that they might as well be playing different games...Can you please answer the questions? I really want to understand.
There. I filled in your ridiculous blanks. And I don't see how my post showed bias towards group play when I explained many times how you can play solo. Now, answer me this. Why do YOU think that Eve is biased towards group play? Because you can't control a fleet by yourself anymore? Too bad for you, that's the rules. Why do YOU not want to make friends and play with others? Are you just not so good at the game and can't play with a single account at a time? Are you that afraid to lose a ship or get podded? Perhaps you're playing the wrong game. Like I said before, there are plenty of other games you can play, so go play those if you don't like how Eve is.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Jason Xado wrote:
I am trying to understand why you (and CCP) have a bias toward accounts controlled by multiple players vs. accounts controlled by only one player. I am trying to understand why all accounts are not treated equal.
They don't. The bias you see from CCP towards accounts controlled by only one player is all in your head. The way you word your ridiculous question shows you are incapable of rational thought. All players, no matter how many accounts they have are all treated the same by CCP.
Agreed 100%. Anyone can ask questions and refuse any answer given, and just say that the question wasn't answered. But I'm not sure at this point if he's trolling or really incapable of understanding logic. |
Helenetor
Caldari Fire Demons
The Southern Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 20:51:20 -
[4523] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:Trakow wrote:
I did answer your question, with a statement (see bolded underlined above) about how I don't know where you got the idea that group play is considered better. Who said that? Not me, and not CCP... And I WAS talking about solo players...
Also, you just admitted that "Before this change the 10 solo accounts could compete with the 10 group accounts.", therefore, there was an advantage since a single player could compete with 10 players, even more so if 10+ accounts run by a solo player were to engage a solo-character-solo-player. Thanks for proving the point.
No you still haven't answered the question, and your statement still shows a bias to group players (despite the underlined part above). Let me try a fill in the blank question. 10 identical ships being control by 10 players should have an advantage over 10 of the same identical ships being controlled by 1 player because _______________________? I am trying to understand why you (and CCP) have a bias toward accounts controlled by multiple players vs. accounts controlled by only one player. I am trying to understand why all accounts are not treated equal. Here is the question in math form: 10 <> 10 because __________________? Or perhaps a question with a more "feelings": If I am in a group of 10 players in a fleet of 10 ships flying through null and we run into another fleet of 10 identical ships, I feel different towards the 10 ships if they are controlled by only 1 player because _____________________? Can you please answer the questions? I really want to understand.
1 Player with 10 accounts has the advantage over 10 players with 10 accounts as that one player can give commands to 10 accounts simultaneously whereas 10 players with 10 accounts has the disadvantage of the time delay in the chat they are using and also the half a second it takes between hearing the command and pressing the button. The 1 player does not have that delay there thus giving HIM the advantage. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
820
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 21:18:54 -
[4524] - Quote
He was comparing 1 fleet of 1 player with 10 ships to 1 fleet of 10 players with 10 ships total. This was something I covered in the ISBoxer essay to some extent and I disproved it there. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
11
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 23:16:02 -
[4525] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:He was comparing 1 fleet of 1 player with 10 ships to 1 fleet of 10 players with 10 ships total. This was something I covered in the ISBoxer essay to some extent and I disproved it there.
That IS what we're all talking about! Helenetor said 1 player with 10 accounts vs 10 players with 10 accounts(total), not 10 accounts each, only one account each. So 10 accounts on either side of the fight. Seems you and Jason Xado are the only ones confused about what we're talking about.
As for your "essay" (Not sure which university would consider that an essay...) , you don't disprove anything. Besides, CCP's stance is likely 1 player vs 1 player. So how is it fair when 2 players fight, but one of the players is able to control 10+ ships simultaneously? If CCP wanted that ability, then it would have been integrated into the game, and it is not. That's not how the game is supposed to be played. Again, if you want to control multiple accounts, do it manually by either alt-tabbing or using multiple boxes, which by the way, you've said yourself is just as efficient as using ISBoxer, so then stop using ISBoxer if it's the same as doing it manually...
Also
Nolak Ataru wrote:We already went over this ten times before, but I shall do it again:
Round Robin Broadcasting is the act of sending one command to one client for one click, and for each subsequent click, the command is sent to a different client. It was not banned by CCP as it only sends one action per click.
It is entirely possible to configure ISBoxer to change VideoFX sources once a player clicks on one. The route a command takes for a player using ISBoxer is thus:
OS>ISBoxer>EVE
Such that it can seem like a player is Round-Robin broadcasting when he indeed is not.
I've bolded and underlined the part where you've even stated and admitted the EULA violation by changing how the input is received to the Eve client. The commands are coming from third-party software. They are being intercepted between the OS and the client, where it is redirected to different clients.
And:
Nolak Ataru wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
We already went over this ten times before, but I shall do it again:
No one is listening to your excuses and your wild attempts at deflection. Proof or stfu. Nobody's listening to your moving goalposts, fallacies, slander, and other lies. I believe the function in ISBoxer is located in the KeyMaps section. In pseudocode: OnClick Send Action to client 1 Switch VideoFX Box1 to Box2 Now, where is your proof that RoundRobin was banned by CCP?
See CCP Random's comments here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBD7CL9oQqE starting around 10:45 is where your proof is. Seems that my correspondence some time ago which got removed wasn't "proof" enough for you. Maybe now you can drop it, if you have any kind of maturity about it.
EDIT: And also at 13:35 he talks of using any third party software to activate modules, which I'm sure RR and VFX falls under as well, since you're not directly interacting with the client to activate the modules, you're interacting with VFX/ISBoxer, which in turn is activating modules. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
413
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 23:20:15 -
[4526] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
We already went over this ten times before, but I shall do it again:
No one is listening to your excuses and your wild attempts at deflection. Proof or stfu.
LOL.. so narrow minded so totally fixated on something ONLY CCP can provide but are unwilling to do.
CCP security team can't even get it together enough to publish accurate information relating to changes to the game. How do you expect players to be able to do it?
Kaaruos, you are still asking for proof from and individual of something you can't disprove, with proof.
Your only proof is your belief everyone tells lies but you.
- - - - - - - -
To all the trolls saying - See you admitted ISBoxer can be used to violate the EULA so those using it should be banned.
I say - YES DO IT - Ban every player using ISBoxer BUT you also need to ban EVERY player using any 3rd party software that "can be used" to violate the EULA, as ISBoxers overlay it seems is now not allowed, neither should any other program which provides overlays be allowed. After all, they "can" all be used to breach the EULA, whether they are by an individual should not be relevant, if it breaches the EULA, BAN IT.
Any program that enhances or modifies game play, EveMon, EFT, EveHq even EveOffline, all in a way enhance an individuals game play over someone who does not use them - Ban them all. (kill eve once and for all)
I so love when players advocate to destroy the game play of others, while at the same time risking their own game play style.
Is it any wonder Eve is in the current state it is.
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
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
413
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 23:55:53 -
[4527] - Quote
Trakow wrote:See CCP Random's comments here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBD7CL9oQqE starting around 10:45 is where your proof is. Seems that my correspondence some time ago which got removed wasn't "proof" enough for you. Maybe now you can drop it, if you have any kind of maturity about it. EDIT: And also at 13:35 he talks of using any third party software to activate modules, which I'm sure RR and VFX falls under as well, since you're not directly interacting with the client to activate the modules, you're interacting with VFX/ISBoxer, which in turn is activating modules.
Interesting, so in fact any overlay used in Eve can get you banned.
Also interesting is that CCP is choosing to police this on a very selective basis.
Funny but you don't need VFX to use RR, I've used RR for years but never with anything other than Windows. Yet I can still be banned for using RR, at the discretion of CCP (because my server tics exceed what they believe is "normal").
Round Robin in no way breaches CCP's EULA as long as it is not used in conjunction with 3rd party software.
VFX, does not breach the EULA, as long as it is not used to enhance game play.
That is something that is very subjective. What is considered "enhancing"?
I have a friend who uses VFX on his (pretty basic spec'd) laptop to allow him to move his titan around more safely, he can see what is happening with cynos and the titan without having to alt tab. His laptop would have trouble running more than 1 client without VFX. Should he be banned? Should he be forced to spend money he may not have so he can do it without the need for VFX?
CCP haven't changed the EULA. What they have changed is how CCP employees interpret it.
Leaving the door wide open to ban selectively, anyone (with multiple accounts) they choose to.
CCP really need to stop promoting (and making income from) multiboxing until such time as they have clear policies (written into the EULA) on multiboxing.
EDIT; According to the EULA, the OS could be considered 3rd party software as it, combined with shortcuts provided by the eve interface, allows a player to input commands as fast as his or her fingers can press keys.. Not a very clear definition.
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
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
820
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 00:27:58 -
[4528] - Quote
Trakow wrote:That IS what we're all talking about! Helenetor said 1 player with 10 accounts vs 10 players with 10 accounts(total), not 10 accounts each, only one account each. So 10 accounts on either side of the fight. Seems you and Jason Xado are the only ones confused about what we're talking about.
As for your "essay" (Not sure which university would consider that an essay...) , you don't disprove anything. Besides, CCP's stance is likely 1 player vs 1 player. So how is it fair when 2 players fight, but one of the players is able to control 10+ ships simultaneously? If CCP wanted that ability, then it would have been integrated into the game, and it is not. That's not how the game is supposed to be played. Again, if you want to control multiple accounts, do it manually by either alt-tabbing or using multiple boxes, which by the way, you've said yourself is just as efficient as using ISBoxer, so then stop using ISBoxer if it's the same as doing it manually...
1) The multiboxer must pay for each account, plan it's skills, pay for it's fit, and risks it every time he undocks.
2) Any competent player will kill the ISBoxer's fleet as the ISBoxer's only real option for PVP is "Approach n Pray". Slingshots, EWAR, Nos, Neuts, and manual piloting can and will cause havoc for an ISBoxer.
3) Here's what you're basically saying. Person A and Person B are fighting in a 1v1 Active Rokhs, no rules, last man standing wins. Person A brings out a deadspace X-L Booster, or mag stabs, or whatever. You're saying that Person A somehow cheated by putting more ISK on the poker table than the next guy. We're somehow at fault for putting more ISK on the poker table.
4) I said that a fleet of 10 players with 1 account each is just as efficient as a 10-boxer, even pre-ban.
Quote:Nolak Ataru wrote:We already went over this ten times before, but I shall do it again:
Round Robin Broadcasting is the act of sending one command to one client for one click, and for each subsequent click, the command is sent to a different client. It was not banned by CCP as it only sends one action per click.
It is entirely possible to configure ISBoxer to change VideoFX sources once a player clicks on one. The route a command takes for a player using ISBoxer is thus:
OS>ISBoxer>EVE
Such that it can seem like a player is Round-Robin broadcasting when he indeed is not. I've bolded and underlined the part where you've even stated and admitted the EULA violation by changing how the input is received to the Eve client. The commands are coming from third-party software. They are being intercepted between the OS and the client, where it is redirected to different clients.
So ban TS3 and Steam and Mumble overlay, as that turns the player's input to "OS>Program>EVE". Ban extra desktops as that turns the player's inputs to "OS>DesktopProgram>EVE". Ban Fraps and other similar software because..... need I go on?
Hell, even EVE-O Preview does nearly the same thing.
Quote:See CCP Random's comments here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBD7CL9oQqE starting around 10:45 is where your proof is. Seems that my correspondence some time ago which got removed wasn't "proof" enough for you. Maybe now you can drop it, if you have any kind of maturity about it. EDIT: And also at 13:35 he talks of using any third party software to activate modules, which I'm sure RR and VFX falls under as well, since you're not directly interacting with the client to activate the modules, you're interacting with VFX/ISBoxer, which in turn is activating modules.
At 13:35 he was talking about bots, and you and everyone else in this thread know it no matter how many times you attempt to twist it. ISBoxer/VFX is sending commands to the client that you dictate to ISBoxer to begin with. They're sending keystroke, nothing more. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
11
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 01:57:04 -
[4529] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Trakow wrote:See CCP Random's comments here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBD7CL9oQqE starting around 10:45 is where your proof is. Seems that my correspondence some time ago which got removed wasn't "proof" enough for you. Maybe now you can drop it, if you have any kind of maturity about it. EDIT: And also at 13:35 he talks of using any third party software to activate modules, which I'm sure RR and VFX falls under as well, since you're not directly interacting with the client to activate the modules, you're interacting with VFX/ISBoxer, which in turn is activating modules. Interesting, so in fact any overlay used in Eve can get you banned. Also interesting is that CCP is choosing to police this on a very selective basis. Funny but you don't need VFX to use RR, I've used RR for years but never with anything other than Windows. Yet I can still be banned for using RR, at the discretion of CCP (because my server tics exceed what they believe is "normal"). Round Robin in no way breaches CCP's EULA as long as it is not used in conjunction with 3rd party software. VFX, does not breach the EULA, as long as it is not used to enhance game play. That is something that is very subjective. What is considered "enhancing"? I have a friend who uses VFX on his (pretty basic spec'd) laptop to allow him to move his titan around more safely, he can see what is happening with cynos and the titan without having to alt tab. His laptop would have trouble running more than 1 client without VFX. Should he be banned? Should he be forced to spend money he may not have so he can do it without the need for VFX? CCP haven't changed the EULA. What they have changed is how CCP employees interpret it. Leaving the door wide open to ban selectively, anyone (with multiple accounts) they choose to. CCP really need to stop promoting (and making income from) multiboxing until such time as they have clear policies (written into the EULA) on multiboxing. EDIT; According to the EULA, the OS could be considered 3rd party software as it, combined with shortcuts provided by the eve interface, allows a player to input commands as fast as his or her fingers can press keys.. Not a very clear definition.
I never said RR and VFX were related or dependent on eachother, they are separate violations. And yes, using Round Robin in ISBoxer is in violation, I don't know how that's not clear to you. As for someone using VFX to enhance a slow laptop's performance, yes, it's still a violation regardless of why it's being used. Can I modify Eve's code to make it run on a really old computer? No. The fact that I'm modifying it so that I can play on old hardware doesn't negate the fact that I would violate the EULAs/policies.
You're right, they haven't changed the EULA's, they're just now enforcing things. And like I've said before, if someone doesn't like it, they don't have to play Eve. Play something else. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
11
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 02:07:32 -
[4530] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:1) The multiboxer must pay for each account, plan it's skills, pay for it's fit, and risks it every time he undocks.
2) Any competent player will kill the ISBoxer's fleet as the ISBoxer's only real option for PVP is "Approach n Pray". Slingshots, EWAR, Nos, Neuts, and manual piloting can and will cause havoc for an ISBoxer.
3) Here's what you're basically saying. Person A and Person B are fighting in a 1v1 Active Rokhs, no rules, last man standing wins. Person A brings out a deadspace X-L Booster, or mag stabs, or whatever. You're saying that Person A somehow cheated by putting more ISK on the poker table than the next guy. We're somehow at fault for putting more ISK on the poker table.
4) I said that a fleet of 10 players with 1 account each is just as efficient as a 10-boxer, even pre-ban.
1) So? That's the player's choice, like anyone else...
2) And what's the difference? All those things will cause havoc on any player, even with one account.
3) No, person A did not cheat. They're using in-game items and features created by CCP. There's nothing external to Eve here.
4) Ok, so then what's the big deal with not being able to use ISBoxer then? Do it manually.
Nolak Ataru wrote:So ban TS3 and Steam and Mumble overlay, as that turns the player's input to "OS>Program>EVE". Ban extra desktops as that turns the player's inputs to "OS>DesktopProgram>EVE". Ban Fraps and other similar software because..... need I go on?
Hell, even EVE-O Preview does nearly the same thing.
I'm fine with banning TS3 and those other things. The only thing I've ever used is TS3 because the corp uses it, but like I posted before, it's not being enforced currently. Might be in the future, but again, that's fine with me and I'll stop using it. Eve Voice is provided by CCP anyways. I have no issues playing a game the way it's supposed to be played, especially when everyone else is doing the same.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
At 13:35 he was talking about bots, and you and everyone else in this thread know it no matter how many times you attempt to twist it. ISBoxer/VFX is sending commands to the client that you dictate to ISBoxer to begin with. They're sending keystroke, nothing more.
Yes, and sending keystrokes is one of the problems. Besides, it doesn't matter what I and everyone else in this thread know or thinks, it's what CCP says and does that matters, and so far, I have no complaints.
I'm also at the point of realizing now that I think you're just trolling and you simply enjoy the argument, and refuse to believe that you were ever in violation. I came across this interesting blog post by The Nosy Gamer that even specifically names you
Quote:To which, Nolak Ataru (aka bugme143) added:
TL;DR: CCP's not following their own EULA, banning people for 2+ commands in three seconds even without ISBoxer installed.
(SNIP)
The problem is that CCP did not enforce the EULA on this matter for years and only openly declared the use of ISBoxer a EULA violation in April 2013. Worse, users like Nolak refused to believe that the practice ever violated the EULA.
Source : http://nosygamer.blogspot.ca/2015/01/input-broadcasting-bans-have-begun.html
So I really think at this point that debating with you is a waste of time because it all just keeps going in circles... Or for some reason, you just enjoy flying easily with 10+ ships because you're afraid of flying solo or manually boxing. |
|
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
413
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 02:59:05 -
[4531] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Trakow wrote:See CCP Random's comments here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBD7CL9oQqE starting around 10:45 is where your proof is. Seems that my correspondence some time ago which got removed wasn't "proof" enough for you. Maybe now you can drop it, if you have any kind of maturity about it. EDIT: And also at 13:35 he talks of using any third party software to activate modules, which I'm sure RR and VFX falls under as well, since you're not directly interacting with the client to activate the modules, you're interacting with VFX/ISBoxer, which in turn is activating modules. Interesting, so in fact any overlay used in Eve can get you banned. Also interesting is that CCP is choosing to police this on a very selective basis. Funny but you don't need VFX to use RR, I've used RR for years but never with anything other than Windows. Yet I can still be banned for using RR, at the discretion of CCP (because my server tics exceed what they believe is "normal"). Round Robin in no way breaches CCP's EULA as long as it is not used in conjunction with 3rd party software. VFX, does not breach the EULA, as long as it is not used to enhance game play. That is something that is very subjective. What is considered "enhancing"? I have a friend who uses VFX on his (pretty basic spec'd) laptop to allow him to move his titan around more safely, he can see what is happening with cynos and the titan without having to alt tab. His laptop would have trouble running more than 1 client without VFX. Should he be banned? Should he be forced to spend money he may not have so he can do it without the need for VFX? CCP haven't changed the EULA. What they have changed is how CCP employees interpret it. Leaving the door wide open to ban selectively, anyone (with multiple accounts) they choose to. CCP really need to stop promoting (and making income from) multiboxing until such time as they have clear policies (written into the EULA) on multiboxing. EDIT; According to the EULA, the OS could be considered 3rd party software as it, combined with shortcuts provided by the eve interface, allows a player to input commands as fast as his or her fingers can press keys.. Not a very clear definition. I never said RR and VFX were related or dependent on eachother, they are separate violations. And yes, using Round Robin in ISBoxer is in violation, I don't know how that's not clear to you. As for someone using VFX to enhance a slow laptop's performance, yes, it's still a violation regardless of why it's being used. Can I modify Eve's code to make it run on a really old computer? No. The fact that I'm modifying it so that I can play on old hardware doesn't negate the fact that I would violate the EULAs/policies. You're right, they haven't changed the EULA's, they're just now enforcing things. And like I've said before, if someone doesn't like it, they don't have to play Eve. Play something else.
It isn't that they are now enforcing certain parts of the EULA. The issue is "how" they are enforcing it.
As a proponent of 1 .exe per IP you would not understand. Many find the challenge of multi boxing more interesting and engaging than just using 1 character at a time.
CCP as far as I know have not banned use of VFX, unless it is used in conjunction with tools CCP provide. That is not to say they won't at some time - And that is the whole issue.
CCP have moved the line of "what we will turn a blind eye to" but not made clear where that line is.
As for "if you don't like it leave" - Typical troll response. If everyone who didn't agree with or like certain aspects of Eve left the game. There would be so few left, CCP would be forced to close up shop. Eve is not perfect for everyone, never will be but the "don't like it leave" attitude is just childish and nonsense.
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
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
821
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 14:05:58 -
[4532] - Quote
Trakow wrote:1) So? That's the player's choice, like anyone else...
2) And what's the difference? All those things will cause havoc on any player, even with one account.
3) No, person A did not cheat. They're using in-game items and features created by CCP. There's nothing external to Eve here.
4) Ok, so then what's the big deal with not being able to use ISBoxer then? Do it manually.
1) Because you're punishing players who have multiple accounts.
2) Yes, but it's even MORE effective against an ISBoxer. I outlined this to demonstrate that ISBoxer is not "one button win" despite all the whining occurring here.
3) You missed the point completely.
4) Again, missed the point.
Quote:I'm fine with banning TS3 and those other things. The only thing I've ever used is TS3 because the corp uses it, but like I posted before, it's not being enforced currently. Might be in the future, but again, that's fine with me and I'll stop using it. Eve Voice is provided by CCP anyways. I have no issues playing a game the way it's supposed to be played, especially when everyone else is doing the same.
Alright, now stop using PYFA, EFT, and Fuzzworks, as those violate 6A3.
Quote:Yes, and sending keystrokes is one of the problems. Besides, it doesn't matter what I and everyone else in this thread know or thinks, it's what CCP says and does that matters, and so far, I have no complaints. I'm also at the point of realizing now that I think you're just trolling and you simply enjoy the argument, and refuse to believe that you were ever in violation. I came across this interesting blog post by The Nosy Gamer that even specifically names you Source : http://nosygamer.blogspot.ca/2015/01/input-broadcasting-bans-have-begun.htmlSo I really think at this point that debating with you is a waste of time because it all just keeps going in circles... Or for some reason, you just enjoy flying easily with 10+ ships because you're afraid of flying solo or manually boxing.
I would like to first say "thank you" for not calling the Nosy Gamer a reputable news source, as it practices little to no actual journalistic practices. I was never contacted by them to explain why I said what I said, and I believe I had yet to read anything solid from them in the past year or so that isn't lip service to CCP or an attempt to grab clicks.
Secondly, explain in 3000 words or less how RoundRobin either breaks the EULA, or is bad for the game. I've personally seen more people quit because of alliances such as CODE and Space Warriors than an ISBoxer, but that may be because I'm both an ISBoxer and have friends in alliances like Space Warriors.
It is true, that I'm enjoying the argument, but that is due to the following facts:
1) Nobody has yet to give me or any other ISBoxer a solid reason why ISBoxer or it's functionalities should be banned or limited in any way.
2) Nobody has done the above without turning into a screeching monkey, flinging obscenities, fallacies, half-truths, insults, and lies at anything that moves.
3) Nobody has done the above without also including programs such as Pyfa, EFT, Fuzzworks, TS3, Mumble, Overwolf, and Steam in the list of programs that should be banned.
4) We are rapidly returning to the pre-Empyrian Age era where CCP devs ignore any criticism of a patch brought up by the players, and I am of the opinion that ISBoxer is simply the tip of the iceberg. |
Eve Solecist
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1729
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 21:42:20 -
[4533] - Quote
This is frightening.
Instead of letting it go and finding peace,
you pointlessly argue as if it changed anything.
You do not seem to realise that it won't,
or you take things way too personal.
Either way is it unavoidable to conclude that you
are far too emotionally invested and have lost sense for what matters.
RealityCheck.
Your argueing leads nowhere.
Trying to make people admit that you are right leads nowhere.
Trying to make people explain it to you leads nowhere.
There is absolutely no chance it will change.
Someone is considered insane when he keeps repeating the same thing ...
... over and over again ...
... expecting that the result will change.
That's what's happening here.
This one is one of my better posts. You should see the others ....
"I've tried to give up making sexual innuendos. But it's hard, so hard." -RoAnnon
Ron Gilbert made me cry.
|
Charadrass
Angry Germans
224
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 09:02:25 -
[4534] - Quote
this is my last posting here.
i decided to stop wasting my time writing here and trying to get ccp moved to make a clear statement.
sad to see how a game comes to an end by total ignorance of the publisher / programmer. |
Eve Solecist
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1783
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 11:41:53 -
[4535] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:this is my last posting here.
i decided to stop wasting my time writing here and trying to get ccp moved to make a clear statement.
sad to see how a game comes to an end by total ignorance of the publisher / programmer.
Good! But not only is the statement clear enough ...
... DON'T DO IT! ...
... you have found the light and can now live a better life!
Grats! :)
This one is one of my better posts. You should see the others ....
"I've tried to give up making sexual innuendos. But it's hard, so hard." -RoAnnon
Ron Gilbert made me cry.
|
Jason Xado
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
208
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 12:16:54 -
[4536] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:this is my last posting here.
i decided to stop wasting my time writing here and trying to get ccp moved to make a clear statement.
sad to see how a game comes to an end by total ignorance of the publisher / programmer.
I agree I am done as well.
I wasn't asking for it to change I was just asking for CCP to have the common courtesy to explain why the change occurred. No one has answered that question, all they say is that nothing has changed and it is simply against the rules. Well that simply isn't true. Something has changed and after spending thousands of dollars on this game playing in my own little sandbox for years without a peep that I was doing anything wrong, CCP suddenly decides that how I play the game is cheating and doesn't even say why.
Well I'm done trying to get a simple answer on why, as obviously CCP doesn't want anyone to know for some reason or other. Hay it's their call if they want to be rude to customers, it's a free world.
Biomass in 10 seconds...
Fly safe and don't forget to have fun :-) |
Eve Solecist
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1785
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 12:34:07 -
[4537] - Quote
*kinks* (:
Have a good one you two! :)
This one is one of my better posts. You should see the others ....
"I've tried to give up making sexual innuendos. But it's hard, so hard." -RoAnnon
Ron Gilbert made me cry.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
823
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 12:34:50 -
[4538] - Quote
Eve Solecist wrote:This is frightening.
Instead of letting it go and finding peace,
you pointlessly argue as if it changed anything.
You do not seem to realise that it won't,
or you take things way too personal.
Either way is it unavoidable to conclude that you
are far too emotionally invested and have lost sense for what matters.
Reality Check.
Your arguing leads nowhere.
Trying to make people admit that you are right leads nowhere.
Trying to make people explain it to you leads nowhere.
There is absolutely no chance it will change.
Someone is considered insane when he keeps repeating the same thing ...
... over and over again ...
... expecting that the result will change.
That's what's happening here.
Interesting how you attack the person instead of the idea, but I shall play your little game.
Why is it whenever another issue reaches 200 pages, people say "Oh that's good, they're discussing the issue completely and letting all the voices be heard", while here it's "pointless"? Why are we so much different from other players when it comes to issues that hit home? The WH mass spawn thread hit 100 pages after pruning. Entosis is 17 pages for thread #2 and chugging along nicely.
Your quote is not the medical nor criminal definition of insanity, nor is it correct. The original quote is "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results", not "mistake". There is a very clear difference between the two. I would like to counter your quote by saying "Mental illness is in the eye of the beholder". Some, myself included, may consider market trading to be dull, boring, and mindless. The "leveling my raven" crowd are astonished whenever their 25b raven gets ganked in Niarja or Osmon, always spouting obscenities regarding the aggressor's mental well-being, and their general attitude.
You say it won't change. I say, Why not? I was taught growing up to defend what I believe in. I came from a town that is very big on debates and similar competitions. I worked with one of the "coaches", for lack of a better term, and he told me that if I believe in something strongly enough, I should defend it. Well, I am. If that is seen as being a bad thing; if defending what someone's actions or beliefs is now considered a crime where you come from, then I really don't want to live where you are. |
Eve Solecist
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1785
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 12:42:03 -
[4539] - Quote
I am not going to read your drivel.
How about you have some standards and use paragraphs first.
Then how about understanding that i am not attacking anyone,
but it's you silly interpreting it as such.
This wall of text shows you are mad and proves me right.
There is no need for talk and discussion and I am glad I made two people,
who obviously are smarter than this, to see the light and leave.
Learn to understand. This thread is not for feedback.
It's for people who can't cope with it and keeps them busy.
This one is one of my better posts. You should see the others ....
"I've tried to give up making sexual innuendos. But it's hard, so hard." -RoAnnon
Ron Gilbert made me cry.
|
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 14:46:23 -
[4540] - Quote
Eve Solecist wrote:I am not going to read your drivel.
How about you have some standards and use paragraphs first.
Then how about understanding that i am not attacking anyone,
but it's you silly interpreting it as such.
This wall of text shows you are mad and proves me right.
There is no need for talk and discussion and I am glad I made two people,
who obviously are smarter than this, to see the light and leave.
Learn to understand. This thread is not for feedback.
It's for people who can't cope with it and keeps them busy.
Believing tha any talk about this will change this is nuts
and believing that every case is equal is not smart either.
Keep talking, you just waste your own time.
Your sentence structure reminds me of 12 grade english poetry class
I hated those classes |
|
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
363
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 16:50:11 -
[4541] - Quote
there is a new dev blog and comment section from Team Security, it was posted just to link their video from fanfest and twitter names
i asked them once again for clarification, hopefully they will respond
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=418471&find=unread
Legacy - An EVE Online Blog
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5324
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 18:11:33 -
[4542] - Quote
Trakow wrote:I'm also at the point of realizing now that I think you're just trolling and you simply enjoy the argument, and refuse to believe that you were ever in violation. I came across this interesting blog post by The Nosy Gamer that even specifically names you Quote:To which, Nolak Ataru (aka bugme143) added:
TL;DR: CCP's not following their own EULA, banning people for 2+ commands in three seconds even without ISBoxer installed.
(SNIP)
The problem is that CCP did not enforce the EULA on this matter for years and only openly declared the use of ISBoxer a EULA violation in April 2013. Worse, users like Nolak refused to believe that the practice ever violated the EULA. Source : http://nosygamer.blogspot.ca/2015/01/input-broadcasting-bans-have-begun.html The problem with this is that it's wrong. The EULA is designed to be broad and non-specific. What makes something "against the EULA" isn;t if the definitions within the EULA can be stretched to cover the activity, it's whether or not CCP class it as against the EULA. Strictly speaking any overlay software is against the EULA, as in against the wording. But CCP explicitly state that those are OK, so they aren't against the EULA, and if CCP ever change their minds it doesn't mean they were always against the EULA, it means that their enforcement has changed while the wording has not and they are now against the EULA.
ISBoxer is the same. For many years it wasn't just tolerated, it was explicitly allowed. Forum posts from CCP devs stated it, multiple support tickets also stated it as allowed as long as 1 click didn't perform multiple actions within any given client. So no, ISBoxer was not against the EULA, even if a popular blogger claims the wording might have covered it in the past.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16242
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 18:15:55 -
[4543] - Quote
But now, mutatum mutandis, it is. Let's get on with our lives.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Hector Skunk
Highsecberg.
25
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 19:26:00 -
[4544] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:But now, mutatum mutandis, it is. Let's get on with our lives. You have earned one of these "Like" from me for using "mutatum mutandis" in a sentence.
I am Hector Skunk. - "Tisiphone Dira > I feel bullied."
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
13
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:52:30 -
[4545] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Trakow wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Trakow wrote:See CCP Random's comments here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBD7CL9oQqE starting around 10:45 is where your proof is. Seems that my correspondence some time ago which got removed wasn't "proof" enough for you. Maybe now you can drop it, if you have any kind of maturity about it. EDIT: And also at 13:35 he talks of using any third party software to activate modules, which I'm sure RR and VFX falls under as well, since you're not directly interacting with the client to activate the modules, you're interacting with VFX/ISBoxer, which in turn is activating modules. Interesting, so in fact any overlay used in Eve can get you banned. Also interesting is that CCP is choosing to police this on a very selective basis. Funny but you don't need VFX to use RR, I've used RR for years but never with anything other than Windows. Yet I can still be banned for using RR, at the discretion of CCP (because my server tics exceed what they believe is "normal"). Round Robin in no way breaches CCP's EULA as long as it is not used in conjunction with 3rd party software. VFX, does not breach the EULA, as long as it is not used to enhance game play. That is something that is very subjective. What is considered "enhancing"? I have a friend who uses VFX on his (pretty basic spec'd) laptop to allow him to move his titan around more safely, he can see what is happening with cynos and the titan without having to alt tab. His laptop would have trouble running more than 1 client without VFX. Should he be banned? Should he be forced to spend money he may not have so he can do it without the need for VFX? CCP haven't changed the EULA. What they have changed is how CCP employees interpret it. Leaving the door wide open to ban selectively, anyone (with multiple accounts) they choose to. CCP really need to stop promoting (and making income from) multiboxing until such time as they have clear policies (written into the EULA) on multiboxing. EDIT; According to the EULA, the OS could be considered 3rd party software as it, combined with shortcuts provided by the eve interface, allows a player to input commands as fast as his or her fingers can press keys.. Not a very clear definition. I never said RR and VFX were related or dependent on eachother, they are separate violations. And yes, using Round Robin in ISBoxer is in violation, I don't know how that's not clear to you. As for someone using VFX to enhance a slow laptop's performance, yes, it's still a violation regardless of why it's being used. Can I modify Eve's code to make it run on a really old computer? No. The fact that I'm modifying it so that I can play on old hardware doesn't negate the fact that I would violate the EULAs/policies. You're right, they haven't changed the EULA's, they're just now enforcing things. And like I've said before, if someone doesn't like it, they don't have to play Eve. Play something else. It isn't that they are now enforcing certain parts of the EULA. The issue is "how" they are enforcing it. As a proponent of 1 .exe per IP you would not understand. Many find the challenge of multi boxing more interesting and engaging than just using 1 character at a time. CCP as far as I know have not banned use of VFX, unless it is used in conjunction with tools CCP provide. That is not to say they won't at some time - And that is the whole issue. CCP have moved the line of "what we will turn a blind eye to" but not made clear where that line is. As for "if you don't like it leave" - Typical troll response. If everyone who didn't agree with or like certain aspects of Eve left the game. There would be so few left, CCP would be forced to close up shop. Eve is not perfect for everyone, never will be but the "don't like it leave" attitude is just childish and nonsense.
Just saying that I would not understand is a cheap and easy way to try to win an argument. Besides, I never said that I've never multiboxed before, so you're just making uneducated assumptions.
Refusing to believe that things are changing, regardless of if it's just what CCP is now enforcing, is childish behavior and nonsense. If what's already been said, and people getting banned is not enough, then you are hopeless.
I still stand by "If you don't like it, then leave". Because no matter how much you complain, it's not going to change. So I suppose a better statement would be to say that if you can't adapt to the new enforcements, then leave, because your only other alternative is to deal with it and abide. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
13
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:56:37 -
[4546] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Trakow wrote:I'm also at the point of realizing now that I think you're just trolling and you simply enjoy the argument, and refuse to believe that you were ever in violation. I came across this interesting blog post by The Nosy Gamer that even specifically names you Quote:To which, Nolak Ataru (aka bugme143) added:
TL;DR: CCP's not following their own EULA, banning people for 2+ commands in three seconds even without ISBoxer installed.
(SNIP)
The problem is that CCP did not enforce the EULA on this matter for years and only openly declared the use of ISBoxer a EULA violation in April 2013. Worse, users like Nolak refused to believe that the practice ever violated the EULA. Source : http://nosygamer.blogspot.ca/2015/01/input-broadcasting-bans-have-begun.html The problem with this is that it's wrong. The EULA is designed to be broad and non-specific. What makes something "against the EULA" isn;t if the definitions within the EULA can be stretched to cover the activity, it's whether or not CCP class it as against the EULA. Strictly speaking any overlay software is against the EULA, as in against the wording. But CCP explicitly state that those are OK, so they aren't against the EULA, and if CCP ever change their minds it doesn't mean they were always against the EULA, it means that their enforcement has changed while the wording has not and they are now against the EULA. ISBoxer is the same. For many years it wasn't just tolerated, it was explicitly allowed. Forum posts from CCP devs stated it, multiple support tickets also stated it as allowed as long as 1 click didn't perform multiple actions within any given client. So no, ISBoxer was not against the EULA, even if a popular blogger claims the wording might have covered it in the past.
CCP has come out and said what they're enforcing now, regardless of if they tolerated or allowed it before or not. The fact is that it's now no longer tolerated/allowed, and they don't have to give you any reason why. CCP's interpretation of the EULA and policy and what they decide to enforce is all that matters.
If their statements and seeing other people getting banned for doing certain things isn't enough for you, then just be glad that the first offense isn't a permanent ban. At least you'll get the point on your first warning. Until then, rant all you want, good luck with your warning ban. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5328
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 07:18:20 -
[4547] - Quote
Trakow wrote:CCP has come out and said what they're enforcing now, regardless of if they tolerated or allowed it before or not. The fact is that it's now no longer tolerated/allowed, and they don't have to give you any reason why. CCP's interpretation of the EULA and policy and what they decide to enforce is all that matters.
If their statements and seeing other people getting banned for doing certain things isn't enough for you, then just be glad that the first offense isn't a permanent ban. At least you'll get the point on your first warning. Until then, rant all you want, good luck with your warning ban. I didn't say they did have to explain why they are doing it. My issue is that their detection sucks, meaning that people who manual multibox using no tools are at risk of being banned. They have no client side detection, so they can't tell the difference between someone using round robin and someone with their windows tiled clicking quickly between them for example.
And hey genius, I'm not an ISBoxer user (or a user of any other tools - though I'm considering eve-o preview as I can probably tick up to 30 accounts if I use that), so if I get a warning my point is proven. Either way, claiming that ISBoxer was always against their EULA is simply wrong. Regardless of whether the change is by wording or enforcement, it was not against the EULA until the recent change, so get off your high horse and stop acting like everyone that was using it was scum. They played in a way that was fully allowed by CCP and they contributed far more to this game than you ever will, not just in cash terms but in content too. CCP changed it because little whining crybabies complained that "their" ice was being taken. Now it's changed and they still whine to no end because it turns out a shockingly large number of players they were complaining about were manual multiboxers and actual fleets of players. So all in all CCP have kicked a very dedicated portion of the playerbase in the nuts for no benefit.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Dustpuppy
New Eden Ferengi
83
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 12:10:36 -
[4548] - Quote
208 pages and I still have no clue why some people complain about a change which happened 4.5 months ago.
If the change had no influence on the style of playing EVE (which is what they all pretend), why do you care so much about it?
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
834
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 12:20:26 -
[4549] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:208 pages and I still have no clue why some people complain about a change which happened 4.5 months ago.
If the change had no influence on the style of playing EVE (which is what they all pretend), why do you care so much about it?
1) Because it was a needless change that hurt the game's health and
2) Because people are getting banned for following the new interpretation of the EULA. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
747
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 13:58:10 -
[4550] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
1) Because it was a needless change that hurt the game's health and
2) Because people are getting banned for following the new interpretation of the EULA.
1) That's your opinion. CCP disagrees with you and given a choice of believing CCP, who have all the data available to them and someone who has consistently lied in this thread. I'd say CCP are better placed to make that judgement.
2) No there are not. They are getting banned for breaking the EULA because they are to pig-headed to accept what they are doing is breaking the EULA. As well as having people like you tell them its ok, when it clearly goes against the EULA/TOS & other policies. |
|
|
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 15:20:07 -
[4551] - Quote
Im confused are people just getting mad at the use of 3rd party program, or the use of mulitple accounts |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5330
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 15:31:55 -
[4552] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:1) That's your opinion. CCP disagrees with you and given a choice of believing CCP, who have all the data available to them and someone who has consistently lied in this thread. I'd say CCP are better placed to make that judgement. Actually, there's nothing to show there's been any improvements to the game following this, and CCP haven't claimed there have been. We know for certain they lost some income, but the collapse of PLEX prices and skyrocket of highsec mineral prices simply never happened. There's still multiboxed fleets everywhere and people are still crying about them. The truth is the vast majority of what people had a problem with was people using multiple accounts, and that will not change. They just wrongly assumed that everyone was using ISBoxer.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:2) No there are not. They are getting banned for breaking the EULA because they are to pig-headed to accept what they are doing is breaking the EULA. As well as having people like you tell them its ok, when it clearly goes against the EULA/TOS & other policies. Actually they are getting banned even when using zero tools. You're so arrogant you assume that everyone must be lying, but that's just not the case. You can get banned for using nothing but the client if you are too efficient at controlling it, as CCP have no method of detecting how the player is interacting with the client. Quite honestly though from what you've written I don't think you understand what the change affects, since you yourself keep linking out of date and incorrect information.
Lee Sin Priest wrote:Im confused are people just getting mad at the use of 3rd party program, or the use of mulitple accounts It's the 2nd, but people think it's the 1st.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
834
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 15:33:28 -
[4553] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:1) Because it was a needless change that hurt the game's health and
2) Because people are getting banned for following the new interpretation of the EULA. 1) That's your opinion. CCP disagrees with you and given a choice of believing CCP, who have all the data available to them and someone who has consistently lied in this thread. I'd say CCP are better placed to make that judgement. 2) No there are not. They are getting banned for breaking the EULA because they are to pig-headed to accept what they are doing is breaking the EULA. As well as having people like you tell them its ok, when it clearly goes against the EULA/TOS & other policies.
1) It's not just my opinion, and I would wager my alt accounts that if CCP released a poll tied to API keys right this instant with neutral wording that made a clear distinction between an ISBoxer and a botter, you would see that the first majority of people would be indifferent, and that the next largest percentage would be in favor of removing the ban on ISBoxer's functionalities. Additionally, you have failed to meet the bar for proving that I lied. You cherry-picked statements from me and attempted to both straw-man and outright twist what I said for your own use.
2) Yes, they are. That 5-boxer was not using any broadcasting tools and got banned. I've stopped giving advice to players other than fitting changes, and "Solo C5 Capital escalation fleet" (which, by the way, earns more money than any ISBoxer, including Bikkus's HQ fleet, after taking PLEX costs into account, and only takes 5 accounts, 4 if you dont mind spending a lot of ISK on Nanite Paste). |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
748
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 15:43:26 -
[4554] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
1) It's not just my opinion, and I would wager my alt accounts that if CCP released a poll tied to API keys right this instant with neutral wording that made a clear distinction between an ISBoxer and a botter, you would see that the first majority of people would be indifferent, and that the next largest percentage would be in favor of removing the ban on ISBoxer's functionalities. Additionally, you have failed to meet the bar for proving that I lied. You cherry-picked statements from me and attempted to both straw-man and outright twist what I said for your own use.
2) Yes, they are. That 5-boxer was not using any broadcasting tools and got banned. I've stopped giving advice to players other than fitting changes, and "Solo C5 Capital escalation fleet" (which, by the way, earns more money than any ISBoxer, including Bikkus's HQ fleet, after taking PLEX costs into account, and only takes 5 accounts, 4 if you dont mind spending a lot of ISK on Nanite Paste).
1) So, it is just your opinion. Unless you are a mind reader and can tell what the results of your imaginary poll are. You've lied consistently just go back and read your own posts.
2) Just because the guy wasn't using any broadcasts does not mean he wasn't breaking the EULA/TOS & other policies. If you have any evidence that your 5-boxer was banned and wasn't breaking the EULA/TOS & other policies then post that evidence. There is no reason why you can't post evidence of people doing nothing wrong. Otherwise you are just lying again. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5330
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 15:51:40 -
[4555] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:2) Just because the guy wasn't using any broadcasts does not mean he wasn't breaking the EULA/TOS & other policies. If you have any evidence that your 5-boxer was banned and wasn't breaking the EULA/TOS & other policies then post that evidence. There is no reason why you can't post evidence of people doing nothing wrong. Otherwise you are just lying again. Just FYI, it's pretty much impossible to post proof that nothing was being broken, and it's even more impossible to post it without breaking the EULA by posing it. As I've stated before though, I was there at fanfest and asked CCP questions directly to this, and there's no way they can view the client, they are banning from data analysis which is notorious for false positives. You're going with the classic "where there's smoke there's fire" argument here even though it's quite obvious that the detection methods are far below acceptable standards.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
748
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 15:53:29 -
[4556] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Actually, there's nothing to show there's been any improvements to the game following this, and CCP haven't claimed there have been. We know for certain they lost some income, but the collapse of PLEX prices and skyrocket of highsec mineral prices simply never happened. There's still multiboxed fleets everywhere and people are still crying about them. The truth is the vast majority of what people had a problem with was people using multiple accounts, and that will not change. They just wrongly assumed that everyone was using ISBoxer. We were talking about the health of Eve being hurt. You know the same way when botters get banned they claim it will hurt the game. (I'm not saying ISBoxer is the same as botting, It's just curious that both groups use the same defence of ' It will hurt Eve if we get banned')
Lucas Kell wrote:Actually they are getting banned even when using zero tools. You're so arrogant you assume that everyone must be lying, but that's just not the case. You can get banned for using nothing but the client if you are too efficient at controlling it, as CCP have no method of detecting how the player is interacting with the client. Quite honestly though from what you've written I don't think you understand what the change affects, since you yourself keep linking out of date and incorrect information.
I've never heard of a game company tell its player base exactly how they detect EULA (etc) violations. Its bad practice as it easier for those people who do cheat to avoid detection. The same way as if you do get banned you won't be told exactly what you did, just which part of the EULA you broke and a general statement. That is once again to make it harder for those people who want to cheat to work around the rules. CCP may have told you part of their detection process, but I doubt its all of it.
If you think me linking the EULA and CCP's other policies is out of date and incorrect information then I can see why you are having problems understanding why people are getting banned. |
Dana Goodeye
Quafe Commandos
Point Blank Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 16:09:09 -
[4557] - Quote
one of my friends, hathorflux for example got banned because he moved to an another place, and changed his creditcard, and the silly ccp ppl just banned him because they tought he sold his char. he logged in once with a new char to tell us abot what happened, and how disapointed he is, then left the game. i like eve, but still... banning somebody for nothing is silly -.- but about this multiboxing thing, im glad because there is no way to be able to compete with an isboxer fleet. am i spelling it correctly? oh well nvm. but ccp, stop banning ppl just because youre silly -.- |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5332
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 16:48:54 -
[4558] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:We were talking about the health of Eve being hurt. You know the same way when botters get banned they claim it will hurt the game. (I'm not saying ISBoxer is the same as botting, It's just curious that both groups use the same defence of ' It will hurt Eve if we get banned') Overall the health of the game is being hurt. The changes have no benefit to the actual game, but they do reduce the amount of income CCP receive as they are banning some of the more dedicated players and reducing the overall number of active accounts. That works out to be a net loss.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:I've never heard of a game company tell its player base exactly how they detect EULA (etc) violations. Its bad practice as it easier for those people who do cheat to avoid detection. The same way as if you do get banned you won't be told exactly what you did, just which part of the EULA you broke and a general statement. That is once again to make it harder for those people who want to cheat to work around the rules. CCP may have told you part of their detection process, but I doubt its all of it. CCP were quite open when we were speaking to them in the round table, and they explicitly stated that they have zero client side detection methods. I even clarified this by asking if that means they perform all of their detection through data analysis to which they stated yes. They are using server side data to determine what the likelihood is that your commands are being driven by third party tools and banning based on that, meaning that if you are too efficient compared to what they consider to be a "normal" player you will be flagged. The thing is, things like round robin are as manual (from a logging perspective) as a player with tiled windows, so either they will not be trapping round robin users, or more likely will be trapping users who are playing manually but with an efficient setup.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:If you think me linking the EULA and CCP's other policies is out of date and incorrect information then I can see why you are having problems understanding why people are getting banned. But you aren't just linking the EULA, you are linking flowcharts which when followed show things which we know for certain are against the EULA as OK.
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
5332
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 16:54:24 -
[4559] - Quote
Dana Goodeye wrote:but about this multiboxing thing, im glad because there is no way to be able to compete with an isboxer fleet Yes there is. Not only are you actually more efficient than the vast majority of ISBoxer users if you control your characters manually, they also suffer from the weakness that they are shockingly easy to disrupt. People who were unable to compete with ISBoxer fleets are simply terrible at EVE won't be able to compete with anyone who's remotely skilled, ISBoxer or not.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 17:04:43 -
[4560] - Quote
can't believe im saying this but i feel like CCP needs to take a leaf out of blizzards user handbook when it comes to how to handle customers |
|
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
749
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 17:14:29 -
[4561] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Overall the health of the game is being hurt. The changes have no benefit to the actual game, but they do reduce the amount of income CCP receive as they are banning some of the more dedicated players and reducing the overall number of active accounts. That works out to be a net loss. That is just your opinion. CCP's opinion differs (Read the EULA to see why I say that). You are using the same defense the people who runs bots use. It is not a valid argument for allowing people to break the EULA (etc).
Lucas Kell wrote:CCP were quite open when we were speaking to them in the round table, and they explicitly stated that they have zero client side detection methods. I even clarified this by asking if that means they perform all of their detection through data analysis to which they stated yes. They are using server side data to determine what the likelihood is that your commands are being driven by third party tools and banning based on that, meaning that if you are too efficient compared to what they consider to be a "normal" player you will be flagged. The thing is, things like round robin are as manual (from a logging perspective) as a player with tiled windows, so either they will not be trapping round robin users, or more likely will be trapping users who are playing manually but with an efficient setup. Using that data to flag possible breaches of the EULA is fine. Using data collected over a period of months seems a very sensible way to determine who is using third party software to help control their clients. If CCP were just monitoring people for a few days or a week or 2 then I would understand your concerns. But if its over months as you claim then it will be very accurate. I personally think the data that comes from someone using a round robin will look completely different than the data from a very fast player switching clients, when that data is collected and compared over multiple months.
Lucas Kell wrote:But you aren't just linking the EULA, you are linking flowcharts which when followed show things which we know for certain are against the EULA as OK.
Ok, the first time I linked that flowchart (which came from a CCP dev) it was pretty meaningless on its own. The second time it was posted as a supplement to the EULA/TOS that I linked. I thought since you were struggling with the written EULA a diagram might help you understand it better. It was never intended to convey exactly what is or isn't allowed. The EULA (etc) is for that. |
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
83
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 18:30:38 -
[4562] - Quote
Following Eula or not following Eula. I can pretty much guarantee that wrongly bans are going to occur and have occurred, Like in real life. People getting punished for something they didn't do. it happens, sadly. if you think in the big scale.. its going to happened either way. Nothing is perfect ... |
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
83
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 18:43:28 -
[4563] - Quote
Lee Sin Priest wrote:can't believe im saying this but i feel like CCP needs to take a leaf out of blizzards user handbook when it comes to how to handle customers
I do somewhat agree to that one. blizzard is an cluster ****, but I only have good and supportive experience with their customer support, they have all ways helped me if it was something. and that make me feel heard? valued? appreciated? I'm not sure... All I know is that it's an good thing :) (also they did indeed help/get to me in an short amount off time) they even have live support. :) and the games I played when I did needed help was not even subscription fee each month, but 1 time pay for the game, and no more. So, yeah. It is/was nice :) |
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
Great Blue Balls of Fire
93
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 18:50:06 -
[4564] - Quote
It's been a good many years since WoW ... but you are right. Blizzard support is there in support of customers. Not to say CCP has never helped me when something went wrong in the game but the general feeling of ccp support tickets is you are dealing with elitist jerks who dole out actual customer service only when they feel so inclined. Even when they do grand your request they pretty much say "you were lucky this time" which is not a tone I appreciate from people whose salaries I take part in providing.
I dont expect ccp support to be as fast as blizzard, but it would be good if they could be as supportive of their paying customers. |
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 19:26:48 -
[4565] - Quote
Lee Sin Priest wrote:Im confused are people just getting mad at the use of 3rd party program, or the use of mulitple accounts
Both really.
There's a vocal element on the forums that want multiboxing completely removed from Eve. I find that movement hilarious as WoW's response to the same people was HTFU. CCP doesn't seem to have the moxy to say the same thing as Blizzard though.
In game I would say most people don't care what I'm doing. Those that do care tend to be more fascinated or amazed while a small number are vocally against it.
So much like life the majority of players don't care either way until they have a "run in" with a boxer.
I've decided that the next time I run I'm going to have my ore dropper in a cloaked prospect so I can get some video of my fleet from an outsider's perspective. Bet it looks like I"m using a repeater :(
Dana Goodeye wrote:one of my friends, hathorflux for example got banned because he moved to an another place, and changed his creditcard, and the silly ccp ppl just banned him because they tought he sold his char. he logged in once with a new char to tell us abot what happened, and how disapointed he is, then left the game. i like eve, but still... banning somebody for nothing is silly -.- but about this multiboxing thing, im glad because there is no way to be able to compete with an isboxer fleet. am i spelling it correctly? oh well nvm. but ccp, stop banning ppl just because youre silly -.-
There have been nearly a hundred ways to defeat an isboxer listed in this very thread. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5332
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 22:34:47 -
[4566] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:That is just your opinion. CCP's opinion differs (Read the EULA to see why I say that). You are using the same defense the people who runs bots use. It is not a valid argument for allowing people to break the EULA (etc). How does CCPs opinion differ? They haven't claimed it's made the game any better either. And it's certainly not opinion that it's lost them income, since they've definitely lost account subs over it. And no, it's nothing like botters.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Using that data to flag possible breaches of the EULA is fine. Using data collected over a period of months seems a very sensible way to determine who is using third party software to help control their clients. If CCP were just monitoring people for a few days or a week or 2 then I would understand your concerns. But if its over months as you claim then it will be very accurate. I personally think the data that comes from someone using a round robin will look completely different than the data from a very fast player switching clients, when that data is collected and compared over multiple months. But there is no difference between someone using round robin and someone using tiled windows. From a server point of view it's indistinguishable, so either they are not banning round robin (which they claim to be) or they are banning legitimate manual multiboxers. You may personally think what you want, but you're wrong.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Ok, the first time I linked that flowchart (which came from a CCP dev) it was pretty meaningless on its own. The second time it was posted as a supplement to the EULA/TOS that I linked. I thought since you were struggling with the written EULA a diagram might help you understand it better. It was never intended to convey exactly what is or isn't allowed. The EULA (etc) is for that. I'm not struggling with the EULA, I'm pointing out flaws in enforcement. Look mate, I get that most of this is way over your head so seriously just stop digging. You obviously have very little idea what was changed or what the multiboxing tools in question even do. All you are doing is parroting other people and acting like it means something. That flowchart is wrong and that's according to CCP. Whatever you think your reason for linking it is, it's pointless, since it's wrong. It was posted very early in this thread as a quick guide to what the thread was stating and was later discarded as it gave the wrong information in multiple circumstances.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
749
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 02:21:50 -
[4567] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:How does CCPs opinion differ? They haven't claimed it's made the game any better either. And it's certainly not opinion that it's lost them income, since they've definitely lost account subs over it. And no, it's nothing like botters. Read the EULA and you'll see why CCP's opinion differs. The argument that it has hurt the game because subs have been lost, is the same argument you see when a load of botters get banned. Its no defence for them and its no defence for anyone else.
Lucas Kell wrote:But there is no difference between someone using round robin and someone using tiled windows. From a server point of view it's indistinguishable, so either they are not banning round robin (which they claim to be) or they are banning legitimate manual multiboxers. You may personally think what you want, but you're wrong. You can also think what you want, but you're wrong, if as you claim CCP are monitoring over a period of months. The data will be different. You may disagree but just like you don't understand the EULA (etc) and gave the wrong advice to people in this thread you are wrong about about this too.
Lucas Kell wrote:I'm not struggling with the EULA, I'm pointing out flaws in enforcement. Look mate, I get that most of this is way over your head so seriously just stop digging. You obviously have very little idea what was changed or what the multiboxing tools in question even do. All you are doing is parroting other people and acting like it means something. That flowchart is wrong and that's according to CCP. Whatever you think your reason for linking it is, it's pointless, since it's wrong. It was posted very early in this thread as a quick guide to what the thread was stating and was later discarded as it gave the wrong information in multiple circumstances. Sorry about the diagram Mate. I'll have a look for some pictures that will explain it to you. Do you happen to have a link to CCP saying the diagram was wrong? Looking through the Dev posts in this thread doesn't seem to come up with it, but its late and I may have missed it. Although I have to say it looks useful as a quick look guide to what the changes in this thread refer to as long as you use the EULA for the actual details.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5333
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 07:26:59 -
[4568] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Read the EULA and you'll see why CCP's opinion differs. The argument that it has hurt the game because subs have been lost, is the same argument you see when a load of botters get banned. Its no defence for them and its no defence for anyone else. Lol? the EULA does not state that it damages the game, eot does it say that there's been any improvement to the game from removing ISBoxer. In fact, the EULA says exactly the same as what it said when ISBoxer was allowed. And I've not seen botters making that excuse, but that still doesn't make it not true. Are you claiming CCP haven;t lost subs and thus haven't lost income over this? Prove it.
At this point I'm getting the impression you are just a troll.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:You can also think what you want, but you're wrong, if as you claim CCP are monitoring over a period of months. The data will be different. You may disagree but just like you don't understand the EULA (etc) and gave the wrong advice to people in this thread you are wrong about about this too. Obviously you have no experience with what we are talking about here. I'm a developer, I know how software works, I know a heck of a lot about data analysis, and I know how things like ISBoxer operate. There is no way possible for any program not installed on the clients machine to tell the difference between round robin and a tiled window setup. No way at all. It doesn't matter if you record years of data, the commands firing through from the client to the server will be the same. If they had client side detection like many anti-cheat systems, sure, but they don't, so there's simply no way. At most they can make a best guess which will still result in false positives with legitimate players being banned. Worse still, when they ban a legitimate player assuming they are cheating they update their detection profiles making it more likely to catch legitimate players later.
The thing is, you seem to be assuming I'm an ISBoxer user which is why I assume your so hostle. I'm not, I'm a completely manual multiboxer, and I don't want to end up targeted by stupid detection methods because CCP can't be bothered to enforce their rules effectively. My setup is as efficient if not slightly more efficient than any round robin setup, so I'm in that nice chunk of players likely to be banned for no reason.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Sorry about the diagram Mate. I'll have a look for some pictures that will explain it to you. Do you happen to have a link to CCP saying the diagram was wrong? Looking through the Dev posts in this thread doesn't seem to come up with it, but its late and I may have missed it. Although I have to say it looks useful as a quick look guide to what the changes in this thread refer to as long as you use the EULA for the actual details. Lol, troll confirmed. The diagram makes things we KNOW are banned show as legal if you follow it through. I mean not when you follow it through, because when you follow it through you think that global keybinds and voice software are banned too, but when a normal person follows it though. The EULA is the same. According to the EULA most overlay software is banned as is eve-o preview, yet we know for a fact those are not banned.
To be quite honest I'm done going in circles with someone like you. You refuse to even try to understand reality, you refuse to acknowledge other people. All I can assume is that you sit around crying while someone else steals all of "your" ice, and now you're so mad you want to come on the forum and cry until even manual multiboxers can't play. Let me know when you come up with something worth responding to, rather than the same condescending reused trolling you've been lobbing around.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Dustpuppy
New Eden Ferengi
83
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 11:44:19 -
[4569] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
1) Because it was a needless change that hurt the game's health and
2) Because people are getting banned for following the new interpretation of the EULA.
Forgive me but I don't understand this or your statements are simply speaking wrong. Again: A change which has no consequences on the way people play cannot have any influence on the player population or game's health. So either your statement about the main usage of ISboxer is wrong and the main usage was input broadcasting or the change simply had no effect on the players base.
Your first statement by the way is not logical and therefor wrong. Only if input broadcasting was important the change had an influence and those players relying on it left the game (see above). And I (just like many others) am absolutely convinced that the change wasn't needless and/or hurt the game but helped it. It wasn't loosing players but getting rid of people playing in a style which hurt the game.
Just like someone said: I don't have problems to loose against a fleet with 10 players. I hate to loose against a single player steering ten ships.
Last comment: if your correlation between health of the game and input broadcasting would be right then EVE would be broken/dead. 4.5 months are enough time to see what consequences a change has, and EVE is still alive.
Concerning 2)
Just because you found one who was banned by accident there is no reason to turn around. No matter what you do, no matter what is changed, you will always someone who feels he was or is treated in a wrong way. And there is always someone who doesn't like the change and who is using the first guy as example why the whole thing was a bad idea.
Now instead of fighting a lost war for this guy you could either settle down and continue playing or just search for another game. Why not WOW? i heard it also supports ISBoxer. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
834
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 12:33:15 -
[4570] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:Forgive me but I don't understand this or your statements are simply speaking wrong. Again: A change which has no consequences on the way people play cannot have any influence on the player population or game's health. So either your statement about the main usage of ISboxer is wrong and the main usage was input broadcasting or the change simply had no effect on the players base.
Your first statement by the way is not logical and therefor wrong. Only if input broadcasting was important the change had an influence and those players relying on it left the game (see above). And I (just like many others) am absolutely convinced that the change wasn't needless and/or hurt the game but helped it. It wasn't loosing players but getting rid of people playing in a style which hurt the game.
Except the change did have a consequence. It led to people who were following the new guideline to get banned, and it led to the banning of a player who was not using broadcasting in any form. Needless =/= no consequence.
Quote:Just like someone said: I don't have problems to loose against a fleet with 10 players. I hate to loose against a single player steering ten ships.
Would you have a problem if you won vs a 10-box fleet? Would you have a problem if you and your three friends won vs a 10-box fleet?
Quote:Last comment: if your correlation between health of the game and input broadcasting would be right then EVE would be broken/dead. 4.5 months are enough time to see what consequences a change has, and EVE is still alive.
I've already talked about this, but I'll repeat. I never said that EVE would die with this change. During the last Fountain War we regularly hit or broke 50k concurrent players. Right now, the maximum 24h from Chribba's website is 35k. When you have players who are living under the threat of being banned for being "too efficient" you start to see players not want to play. When you have devs who regularly refuse to talk to their playerbase, who refuse to use logic and reason with their changes, then you start to see players question why they're playing a game where the devs don't give a damn anymore.
Quote:Concerning 2)
Just because you found one who was banned by accident there is no reason to turn around. No matter what you do, no matter what is changed, you will always (be) someone who feels he was or is treated in a wrong way. And there is always someone who doesn't like the change and who is using the first guy as example why the whole thing was a bad idea.
Counter: Just because there's one who we know about who was banned by accident does not mean there are not more.
Do you know me personally? You seem to think you do, despite only ever really seeing me on this one issue. I've been active in a few subforums, and a good portion of the time I was happy with my interactions with the devs. For example, I was semi-active during the Marauder re-balance, and was quite happy with the Bastion Module. I was quite happy with the new Burner missions as well, not to mention the Bowhead. I wasn't happy with the HML nerf, agreed, because I was watching Tengus get sniped by Navy Apocs and achieve near-zero ISK efficiency. I didn't quite agree on the Tengu rebalance, but I understand why CCP did what they did, and I can live with it. So please don't pretend you know who I am.
I've made our points quite clear on the issue of ISBoxer. If you don't want to read it, fine.
I thought so. |
|
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 12:35:48 -
[4571] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:Concerning 2)
Just because you found one who was banned by accident there is no reason to turn around. No matter what you do, no matter what is changed, you will always someone who feels he was or is treated in a wrong way. And there is always someone who doesn't like the change and who is using the first guy as example why the whole thing was a bad idea. Just as long as that person isn't you.... right? |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
749
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 12:40:36 -
[4572] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Lol? the EULA does not state that it damages the game, eot does it say that there's been any improvement to the game from removing ISBoxer. In fact, the EULA says exactly the same as what it said when ISBoxer was allowed. And I've not seen botters making that excuse, but that still doesn't make it not true. Are you claiming CCP haven;t lost subs and thus haven't lost income over this? Prove it.
At this point I'm getting the impression you are just a troll. Good job I never said the EULA states that. I said read the EULA to understand why I can claim CCP disagrees with your opinion that these EULA enforcements harm the game. You seem to suffer from the same problem as Nolak, where you read one thing and presume the opposite is meant and you accuse me of being the troll. You are right the EULA hasn't changed, you claim to understand it yet seem oblivious to what it actually says. If you want me to explain it to you then just ask.
Lucas Kell wrote:Obviously you have no experience with what we are talking about here. I'm a developer, I know how software works, I know a heck of a lot about data analysis, and I know how things like ISBoxer operate. There is no way possible for any program not installed on the clients machine to tell the difference between round robin and a tiled window setup. No way at all. It doesn't matter if you record years of data, the commands firing through from the client to the server will be the same. If they had client side detection like many anti-cheat systems, sure, but they don't, so there's simply no way. At most they can make a best guess which will still result in false positives with legitimate players being banned. Worse still, when they ban a legitimate player assuming they are cheating they update their detection profiles making it more likely to catch legitimate players later. In your opinion. You don't know what data CCP collects and you don't know what it shows. You are just making wild accusations without a shred of proof and you accuse me of being the troll.
Lucas Kell wrote:The thing is, you seem to be assuming I'm an ISBoxer user which is why I assume your so hostle. I'm not, I'm a completely manual multiboxer, and I don't want to end up targeted by stupid detection methods because CCP can't be bothered to enforce their rules effectively. My setup is as efficient if not slightly more efficient than any round robin setup, so I'm in that nice chunk of players likely to be banned for no reason. I don't assume anything, I'll leave that sort of behavior to you. I do use ISBoxer. I used it years ago to rat and mine in null and have just recently got back into using to see what all the fuss is about. I have no worries about being caught up in any bannings because I use it in a way which doesn't break the EULA or any other policies. Although that eve-o-preview looks like it might work for me too.
Lucas Kell wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Sorry about the diagram Mate. I'll have a look for some pictures that will explain it to you. Do you happen to have a link to CCP saying the diagram was wrong? Looking through the Dev posts in this thread doesn't seem to come up with it, but its late and I may have missed it. Although I have to say it looks useful as a quick look guide to what the changes in this thread refer to as long as you use the EULA for the actual details. Lol, troll confirmed. The diagram makes things we KNOW are banned show as legal if you follow it through. I mean not when you follow it through, because when you follow it through you think that global keybinds and voice software are banned too, but when a normal person follows it though. The EULA is the same. According to the EULA most overlay software is banned as is eve-o preview, yet we know for a fact those are not banned. To be quite honest I'm done going in circles with someone like you. You refuse to even try to understand reality, you refuse to acknowledge other people. All I can assume is that you sit around crying while someone else steals all of "your" ice, and now you're so mad you want to come on the forum and cry until even manual multiboxers can't play. Let me know when you come up with something worth responding to, rather than the same condescending reused trolling you've been lobbing around.
So you don't have a link to a CCP dev saying that diagram is wrong or out-dated. If it was the same group of players claiming that, that have been incorrectly telling other people whats allowed in this thread whilst not doing those things themselves (That is you Lucas). Then I'll make my own mind up. That diagram is a useful if taken in the context it was meant, to help people understand the changes discussed by CCP in this thread. It was not meant to be an all encompassing way of understanding Eve's EULA/TOS or any other policies.
You can assume all you want. It doesn't change the reality of you whining about people who break Eve's EULA being banned. If you had any proof to back up your ridiculous claims that CCP is banning people unfairly then you would share them. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5334
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 13:48:45 -
[4573] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:Forgive me but I don't understand this or your statements are simply speaking wrong. Again: A change which has no consequences on the way people play cannot have any influence on the player population or game's health. So either your statement about the main usage of ISboxer is wrong and the main usage was input broadcasting or the change simply had no effect on the players base. Sure it can. It generated a fair amount of fear and contempt causing multiple players to quit. The game is no different than it used to be, multiboxing is still incredibly easy to do, but the income CCP generates is lower which in turn affects the health of the game.
Dustpuppy wrote:And I (just like many others) am absolutely convinced that the change wasn't needless and/or hurt the game but helped it. It wasn't loosing players but getting rid of people playing in a style which hurt the game. OK, so what benefit did it give? What part of the game is improved? Wherever I go I still see fleets of characters controlled by a single player. I see less videos of 40 multiboxed mining barges getting smartbombed however. So what is this mysterious benefit to the game?
Dustpuppy wrote:Just like someone said: I don't have problems to loose against a fleet with 10 players. I hate to loose against a single player steering ten ships. Which still happens. You don't need ISBoxer to control 10 ships, and if you are using them for PvP, they were more than likely controlled individually before the change too.
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
5334
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 13:59:39 -
[4574] - Quote
Cutting out all of the utter rubbish not worth a response in that post...
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:In your opinion. You don't know what data CCP collects and you don't know what it shows. Yes, I do. You could to if you wanted to. Not that CCP can only collect the data your computer sends, therefore if what your computer sends during a round robin and what if sends while playing with tiled windows is the same, you can in fact see that they can't possibly be getting the magical data you think they get.
If you actually understand what a round robin is, it's just pressing a button maually, just swapping clients between presses - exactly the same was what happens when you swap between clients on you screen and press the same button manually.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:I have no worries about being caught up in any bannings because I use it in a way which doesn't break the EULA or any other policies. It's a shame that's irrelevant, since they can't see how you are using it. I guarantee that if you are too efficient you will find yourself banned down the line.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:If you had any proof to back up your ridiculous claims that CCP is banning people unfairly then you would share them. Alas part of CCPs EULA covers you not being allowed to release information about bans so no, you won;t be luring me into breaking the EULA. the thing is though, nothing would satisfy you even if it could be released. You would just assume it's all made up. You've already made it pretty clear that you automatically think anyone who has been banned and done nothing wrong is a liar, and short of recording their historic play sessions, they can't prove otherwise. I really hope you end up on the other side of that situation, then I'll be the one here calling you a cheating liar.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
749
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 14:22:37 -
[4575] - Quote
Cutting out all of the utter rubbish not worth a response in that post...
Lucas Kell wrote:It's a shame that's irrelevant, since they can't see how you are using it. I guarantee that if you are too efficient you will find yourself banned down the line. I think you will find your guarantees are worth the same as your ability to understand the Eve's EULA/TOS & policies.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:If you had any proof to back up your ridiculous claims that CCP is banning people unfairly then you would share them. Alas part of CCPs EULA covers you not being allowed to release information about bans so no, you won;t be luring me into breaking the EULA. the thing is though, nothing would satisfy you even if it could be released. You would just assume it's all made up. You've already made it pretty clear that you automatically think anyone who has been banned and done nothing wrong is a liar, and short of recording their historic play sessions, they can't prove otherwise. I really hope you end up on the other side of that situation, then I'll be the one here calling you a cheating liar.[/quote]
So you have no proof, just your opinion based on data CCP may or may not have, data that CCP may or may not use, data that you haven't seen, but you know doesn't show CCP what CCP says it shows. I really hope you apologise to all the people who believed the nonsense you spouted earlier in the thread about what actions are allowed by the EULA (etc), when those actions clearly violated said EULA (etc). They may have been caught up in the bans because you lured them into breaking the EULA. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5335
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 14:40:17 -
[4576] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:I think you will find your guarantees are worth the same as your ability to understand the Eve's EULA/TOS & policies. I think it's fairly safe to say I understand the EULA. What part of it exactly do you think I'm confused about? How many times do I need to explain to you that my problem isn't with the EULA even remotely, it's to do with their detection and enforcement methodology? I understand fully what it is they are saying is against the rules, I simply don't believe that with zero client side detection they are able to enforce what they say they want to without banning perfectly EULA abiding players.
But that seems not to matter to you, You seem to just ignore what I'm actually saying and just assume I'm saying "HURR DURR HOW EULA WORK"? So either you're understanding of the English language is not too great or you are purposely trolling.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:If So you have no proof, just your opinion based on data CCP may or may not have, data that CCP may or may not use, data that you haven't seen, but you know doesn't show CCP what CCP says it shows. I really hope you apologise to all the people who believed the nonsense you spouted earlier in the thread about what actions are allowed by the EULA (etc), when those actions clearly violated said EULA (etc). They may have been caught up in the bans because you lured them into breaking the EULA. Dear lord man will you just read the posts before you respond. Explain to me exactly where I've lured anyone into anything? You are using more tools to assist your multiboxing than I use, so what exactly am I luring them into?
And dude, you have access to all of the data you send to CCP. How can you possibly not understand this? Do you know even on a basic level how computers work? I'll give you a clue, it's not magic.
Holy crap this is like having a discussion with a brick. I'm done with you.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
749
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 15:01:17 -
[4577] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:I think you will find your guarantees are worth the same as your ability to understand the Eve's EULA/TOS & policies. I think it's fairly safe to say I understand the EULA. What part of it exactly do you think I'm confused about? How many times do I need to explain to you that my problem isn't with the EULA even remotely, it's to do with their detection and enforcement methodology? I understand fully what it is they are saying is against the rules, I simply don't believe that with zero client side detection they are able to enforce what they say they want to without banning perfectly EULA abiding players. The part of the EULA you don't understand is the part that proves CCP disagrees with your claim that these changes hurt Eve. Or have you forgot that was what we were talking about regards to the EULA at this time.
Lucas Kell wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:If So you have no proof, just your opinion based on data CCP may or may not have, data that CCP may or may not use, data that you haven't seen, but you know doesn't show CCP what CCP says it shows. I really hope you apologise to all the people who believed the nonsense you spouted earlier in the thread about what actions are allowed by the EULA (etc), when those actions clearly violated said EULA (etc). They may have been caught up in the bans because you lured them into breaking the EULA. Dear lord man will you just read the posts before you respond. Explain to me exactly where I've lured anyone into anything? You are using more tools to assist your multiboxing than I use, so what exactly am I luring them into? Have you forgotten what you have written previously in this thread? You seem to have memory problems. Earlier in this thread you repeatedly claim actions which break Eve's EULA(etc) are allowed. Don't make me go back and search through all the nonsense you have previously posted to provide links, try and remember what you have posted by yourself.
Lucas Kell wrote:And dude, you have access to all of the data you send to CCP. How can you possibly not understand this? Do you know even on a basic level how computers work? I'll give you a clue, it's not magic.
Holy crap this is like having a discussion with a brick. I'm done with you. We do not have access to everyone else's data, if CCP is detecting exclusively from data analysis as you claim ( I'm taking your word for that) then your data or my data on its own is worthless. Its everyones data that makes each individual's data have meaning. How on earth can't you see that? If then as you claim CCP monitor for months then even the smallest variations become clear. You claim to now about data analysis yet think data from a single person (the data you have from your computer) somehow means everyone else's data is not accurate. CCP have everyone's data, you just have your own.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
834
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 15:06:00 -
[4578] - Quote
Archie is falling into the "absence of evidence" fallacy, but with a twist. We have invited him multiple times to ask for the proof on other forums that were not controlled by CCP, but he steadfastly stuck his head in the sand like an ostrich.
Please explain in 5000 words or less how RR breaks 6a2 that would exclude programs like Logitech Gaming Software and Razer Synapse. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
749
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 15:15:58 -
[4579] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Archie is falling into the "absence of evidence" fallacy, but with a twist. We have invited him multiple times to ask for the proof on other forums that were not controlled by CCP, but he steadfastly stuck his head in the sand like an ostrich. I searched the other forums for your proof and found non. All the people I could find on dual-boxing.com that claimed to be banned unfairly and tried to provide proof were in fact breaking Eve's EULA and those that posted correspondence were told exactly what part they were breaking.
Nolak Ataru wrote:Please explain in 5000 words or less how RR breaks 6a2 that would exclude programs like Logitech Gaming Software and Razer Synapse. Read Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies.
Why would users of Logitech Gaming Software and Razer Synapse be exempt from the EULA?
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5335
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 15:17:58 -
[4580] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:If then as you claim CCP monitor for months then even the smallest variations become clear. You claim to now about data analysis yet think data from a single person (the data you have from your computer) somehow means everyone else's data is not accurate. CCP have everyone's data, you just have your own. Except you don't seem to get it. A round robin and a tiled manual control produces the same data. It doesn't matter if you monitor it for a day, a month or a thousand years, you still aren't going to be able to tell which the player you are investigating is using without seeing the actual client side detection data which does not exist. They may be able to compare it to others and say "oh he's more efficient - must be tools - BAN!" but it won't make it accurate.
Seriously now, done with you. Go ahead and get the last word in if it makes you feel better about yourself, but I have no interest in continuing to circle around with an obvious troll alt.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Marsha Mallow
2074
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 17:30:41 -
[4581] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:All I can assume is that you sit around crying while someone else steals all of "your" ice, and now you're so mad you want to come on the forum and cry until even manual multiboxers can't play.
You're addressing someone with the corp name The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners. Doesn't sound like a person likely to be sobbing that 'their' ice is being stolen by botters does it?
Btw I like how the goalposts in this debate keep shifting. Now we're onto 'people may be banned simply for multiboxing too efficiently'. When that happens, and if you can gather sufficient evidence from the individual, why not submit it to one of the news tabloids or a reasonably well known blogger?
It's interesting that no one with any credibility within the EvE community has taken up this campaign on behalf of the players with a grievance. Why is that?
Benny Ohu wrote:
fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4323
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 20:38:58 -
[4582] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.
The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Rastafarian God
76
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 04:46:52 -
[4583] - Quote
I am very confused by a lot of responses in this thread. I fully understood everything from the first post.
Once the client is loaded, you can not use IsBoxer (or however its spelled) or programs like it at all anymore. You also cant use software that automates complicated tasks although a simple Macro (binded on a keyboard) that uses an in came shortcut is fine. Honest multi boxing is also fine.
The only good question I remember reading was about controlling more then one PC with 1 keyboard and mouse with splitters, but they may have been answered, Ive started to skim.
As for normal multi boxing goes, I dont know where the debate is coming from. I run 3 clients at once on one PC some times. Because I have to do everything manually, it limits what I can do and how well I can do it. People trying to do 2 or more things at once are distracted and easier to kill. I NEVER have more then 1 client running during PVP unless the others are cloaked scouts not doing anything.
Allowing people to do this but forcing them to do it manually does not hurt the game for anyone else and helps generate revenue for CCP. If I want to pay 45 bucks a month to have a scout on a couple of gates on the other monitor from time to time, or have an orca haul something to me, why not? It just lets smaller groups of people do more giving everyone else more to shoot at adding to the game while at the same time, not working as well if all ships where flown by different people balancing the benefits and risk.
Not sure why this had gotton so crazy.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5157
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 12:17:36 -
[4584] - Quote
Rastafarian God wrote:The only good question I remember reading was about controlling more then one PC with 1 keyboard and mouse with splitters, but they may have been answered, Ive started to skim.
If you're meaning, click with the mouse and multiple computers receive that click, that's against the published rules. 'We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware'
If you're meaning a kvm, where you can select which computer the output goes to, but it only interacts with one at a time, that's fine.
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
834
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 16:43:53 -
[4585] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Rastafarian God wrote:The only good question I remember reading was about controlling more then one PC with 1 keyboard and mouse with splitters, but they may have been answered, Ive started to skim.
If you're meaning, click with the mouse and multiple computers receive that click, that's against the published rules. 'We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware' If you're meaning a kvm, where you can select which computer the output goes to, but it only interacts with one at a time, that's fine.
We have a built-in software KVM switch with ISBoxer where it only sends one output to one computer per input, and it got a player banned, so clearly either you or CCP is misinformed. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
414
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 23:45:52 -
[4586] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
1) Because it was a needless change that hurt the game's health and
2) Because people are getting banned for following the new interpretation of the EULA.
Forgive me but I don't understand this or your statements are simply speaking wrong. Again: A change which has no consequences on the way people play cannot have any influence on the player population or game's health. So either your statement about the main usage of ISboxer is wrong and the main usage was input broadcasting or the change simply had no effect on the players base. 1) Your first statement by the way is not logical and therefor wrong. Only if input broadcasting was important the change had an influence and those players relying on it left the game (see above). And I (just like many others) am absolutely convinced that the change wasn't needless and/or hurt the game but helped it. It wasn't loosing players but getting rid of people playing in a style which hurt the game. 2) Just like someone said: I don't have problems to loose against a fleet with 10 players. I hate to loose against a single player steering ten ships. 3) Last comment: if your correlation between health of the game and input broadcasting would be right then EVE would be broken/dead. 4.5 months are enough time to see what consequences a change has, and EVE is still alive. 4)Concerning 2) Just because you found one who was banned by accident there is no reason to turn around. No matter what you do, no matter what is changed, you will always someone who feels he was or is treated in a wrong way. And there is always someone who doesn't like the change and who is using the first guy as example why the whole thing was a bad idea. 5) Now instead of fighting a lost war for this guy you could either settle down and continue playing or just search for another game. Why not WOW? i heard it also supports ISBoxer.
1) Some left, many have just modified the way they play and or are using less characters.
2) I love that little quote - I could land on him at anytime with my little fleet and he would have no way of knowing if it was 1 person or 10. He would be guessing and more than likely get it wrong.
3) One year ago, av online per day 39k. Six months, 36k. Three months, 29k. Last month, 25k. A game doesn't have to shutdown to be dead, it just has to continue to see less and less players online. 14K less players per day is not a small number.
4) No-one is asking for the changes to be reverted, we are asking for the changes to be clarified - How efficient can a multi boxer be before he gets banned? If CCP's method of detection leads to the banning of even one innocent player, then it is a bad method of detection.
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
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5341
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 09:40:07 -
[4587] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:You're addressing someone with the corp name The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners. Doesn't sound like a person likely to be sobbing that 'their' ice is being stolen by botters does it? And if naming a corporation bound you to an activity that might be a point, but it's a solo corp with what appears to be no history of miner prevention. It's probably one of those "bump my competitor" corps.
Marsha Mallow wrote:Btw I like how the goalposts in this debate keep shifting. Now we're onto 'people may be banned simply for multiboxing too efficiently'. When that happens, and if you can gather sufficient evidence from the individual, why not submit it to one of the news tabloids or a reasonably well known blogger? My main issues with the changes have always been at least in part down to enforcement. You can even see a post of mine from early December outlining the same issue There's no way for them to reliably enforce the rules they've made without capturing false positives. Attending fanfest and asking CCP directly on their approach to detection and finding out they have zero client side detection running for it has raised even more red flags. And as I've said before, as far as I'm concerned if even a single person gets banned unfairly then that's one too many.
As for submitting it to news sites, that may happen if someone doesn't mind the fact that they will be sealing their fate with a permaban for releasing information about their ban, but whether or not it will even be entertained or will just simply be disregarded as lies (they must have been breaking the EULA and lying about it, right?) is yet to be seen. Much like how people's preconceptions prevent known scammers from being treated fairly, I doubt a multiboxer would come off well in the court of public opinion.
Marsha Mallow wrote:It's interesting that no one with any credibility within the EvE community has taken up this campaign on behalf of the players with a grievance. Why is that? Because as of yet very few people have been affected and it's likely that only a small portion will be false positives. Add to that the fact that talking public about your banning is also against the EULA, it's not likely to be something we're likely to see from people who want their accounts back.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12648
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 09:47:14 -
[4588] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
We have a built-in software KVM switch with ISBoxer where it only sends one output to one computer per input, and it got a player banned, so clearly either you or CCP is misinformed.
Or, third option. Whomever said that is lying to cover their cheating, and hoping to stir up controversy and reverse their ban.
Which is pretty much the TL;DR for the last hundred and fifty pages of this thread. Well, that and blatant smokescreen and shifting goalposts by the ISBotters.
No one wants to ban all multiboxing, alt tab is fine and always will be. People want to ban cheating, where you control twenty different accounts with robotic precision.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5341
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 10:57:17 -
[4589] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Or, third option. Whomever said that is lying to cover their cheating, and hoping to stir up controversy and reverse their ban. They "they are obviously all lying, CCP can do no wrong" argument.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:No one wants to ban all multiboxing, alt tab is fine and always will be. People want to ban cheating, where you control twenty different accounts with robotic precision. Except we know for a fact that it's not alright, since they have no way to tell if you are alt tabbing or using round robin. If you alt tab and are too efficient consistently, you will find yourself getting banned. Then when you try to get yourself unbanned everyone will call you a liar, because obviously if you got banned you were using tools.
Oh, and you certainly can't say "no one", since there's definitely a group of people who think multiboxing is bad regardless of method and would like to see it gone.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
417
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 11:01:51 -
[4590] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
We have a built-in software KVM switch with ISBoxer where it only sends one output to one computer per input, and it got a player banned, so clearly either you or CCP is misinformed.
Or, third option. Whomever said that is lying to cover their cheating, and hoping to stir up controversy and reverse their ban. Which is pretty much the TL;DR for the last hundred and fifty pages of this thread. Well, that and blatant smokescreen and shifting goalposts by the ISBotters. No one wants to ban all multiboxing, alt tab is fine and always will be. People want to ban cheating, where you control twenty different accounts with robotic precision.
Of course they are lying, everyone except you tells lies. Paranoia is treatable.
So Multiple screens should be banned. Why because you can't afford them? Or should everyone be restricted to one monitor while playing Eve, to make it "fair"?
I used to run up to 11 accounts, tiled across 4 monitors. No need for alt tab, (never used IsBoxer or anything like it) I set up keybinds using tools provided by CCP.
You are wrong in fact, there is a small lobby group calling for the removal of all multi boxing. They want Eve to go, one .exe per IP.
The only individuals attempting to shift the goal posts are those trying to say IsBoxer is a bot. Trying to compare something that requires a large amount of human input to something completely automated?
You argument has no foundation and is inaccurate, CCP have already banned what you describe (input multicasting and broadcasting via 3rd party software).
The ongoing problem is, with no real method of detection other than human interpretation of server logs, innocent players are equally at risk of being banned as the few who may choose to break the new rules.
150 pages on and you haven't bothered to find out how IsBoxer and other software like it works. Instead, stick to posting your uninformed biased opinion. CCP themselves made a very clear distinction between a 'bot" and "IsBoxer". If in fact IsBoxer was a bot there would have been no need for CCP to change how the EULA is now interpreted.
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
|
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12649
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 11:39:12 -
[4591] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
So Multiple screens should be banned.
Couldn't even make it a full paragraph before throwing up another smokescreen.
Quote:
Why because you can't afford them?
This sentence reveals more than you intended it to. You think that you should receive an in game advantage based on an out of game purchase. That purchase being ISBoxer. You attempt to deflect this by claiming hardware peripherals, but the truth of the matter is that you're just trying to defend your having paid for ISBoxer.
Quote:
The ongoing problem is, with no real method of detection other than human interpretation of server logs, innocent players are equally at risk of being banned as the few who may choose to break the new rules.
Show me one. Nolak tried, and he accidentally revealed yet another macro cheater. Got a better attempt? Maybe one that doesn't come from those bot-apologists at dualboxing.com, better yet?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5341
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 12:22:57 -
[4592] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You think that you should receive an in game advantage based on an out of game purchase. We do gain that advantage. I have a top of the line gaming machine with multiple monitors running on a beast of an internet connection in the UK (where CCP hosts their servers). I can run more clients than I have accounts (which is a lot) in the highest quality on the single machine without slowdown and without lag. Through buying this I have an advantage over a player with a 7 year old laptop in the ass end of nowhere connecting though mobile internet. People can pay for an advantage, that's a fact that will never change.
Now CCP have decided that paying for ISBoxer isn't something they want to support, so they've removed that as an option. That's fair enough, but their detection method means it's impossible for them to tell the difference between someone with a decent manual setup and a player using banned tools such as ISBoxer, meaning that players are now at risk of being banned for playing legitimately. That's where the problem lies.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Show me one. Nolak tried, and he accidentally revealed yet another macro cheater. Got a better attempt? Maybe one that doesn't come from those bot-apologists at dualboxing.com, better yet? It's impossible to prove. Even if someone were to come forward with a video of manual multiboxing you'd just say that they must have recorded that separately and were cheating when they got banned. This is the problem you seem to fail to understand - there is no way to prove it one way or the other. With the exception of obvious multiplexing and people who record themselves breaching the EULA, you cannot tell the difference between an efficient manual multiboxer and a well hidden ISBoxer user. If you could reliably prove it one way or the other, there wouldn't be a problem with CCPs detection.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4344
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 12:43:26 -
[4593] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.
The Rules:
31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.
CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, GÇ£outingGÇ¥ of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.
Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
835
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 13:40:34 -
[4594] - Quote
I revealed a player using RoundRobin, which by Steve's OWN ADMISSION IS FINE. If anyone's moving goalposts, it's you, as you keep shying away from providing any evidence or proof that ISBoxer magically makes a player more efficient than an identical fleet. But hey, if CCP doesn't want me to be a productive member of this game, I'll happily afk-rat all day long, creating zero content. |
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
85
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 16:06:07 -
[4595] - Quote
I just have to say that having an good computer is an advantage, I don't know what I should've done without the computer I have now compare to the old one :P Suffering lag would've been 1 thing on the old computer witch would be an huge disadvantage. also having good internet is an really nice advantage. (I had an bad internet for some months) and I cant even count the amount off times I died because off it. lol. also an good gaming mouse. or keyboard or whatever. multiple screens is in the end an advantage over people who cant afford getting it like (buying a good computer etc) it helps a lot :) so, somewhat an advantage I suppose. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
190
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 18:05:22 -
[4596] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:I revealed a player using RoundRobin, which by Steve's OWN ADMISSION IS FINE. If anyone's moving goalposts, it's you, as you keep shying away from providing any evidence or proof that ISBoxer magically makes a player more efficient than an identical fleet. But hey, if CCP doesn't want me to be a productive member of this game, I'll happily afk-rat all day long, creating zero content.
as long as you sub they dont care. what has made you think otherwise. |
ashley Eoner
470
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 21:45:24 -
[4597] - Quote
Rastafarian God wrote:
As for normal multi boxing goes, I dont know where the debate is coming from. I run 3 clients at once on one PC some times. Because I have to do everything manually, it limits what I can do and how well I can do it. People trying to do 2 or more things at once are distracted and easier to kill. I NEVER have more then 1 client running during PVP unless the others are cloaked scouts not doing anything.
That was true with an isboxer user the repeater. Even simple actions required greater care and concentration than needed for a single client.
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1548
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 22:03:19 -
[4598] - Quote
There's an interesting subtext to this discussion, which is the general distrust of human referees, who are, of course, going to be imperfect. But they're also going to be able to catch things that mechanical enforcement can't--and the sort of playstyle at issue here is all about maximally exploiting mechanical enforcement, in the form of in-game mechanics. Human referees are kryptonite to that approach.
Lucas Kell wrote:Now CCP have decided that paying for ISBoxer isn't something they want to support, so they've removed that as an option. That's fair enough, but their detection method means it's impossible for them to tell the difference between someone with a decent manual setup and a player using banned tools such as ISBoxer, meaning that players are now at risk of being banned for playing legitimately. That's where the problem lies.
Hidden in there is the case where someone uses a tool other than ISBoxer to gain some sort of advantage. CCP can't, doesn't and shouldn't care how you get that advantage. Whether it's from some fancy mouse, or from overlaying software, or from dowels and duct tape simply doesn't matter.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
418
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 22:24:33 -
[4599] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
So Multiple screens should be banned.
Couldn't even make it a full paragraph before throwing up another smokescreen. Quote:
Why because you can't afford them?
This sentence reveals more than you intended it to. You think that you should receive an in game advantage based on an out of game purchase. That purchase being ISBoxer. You attempt to deflect this by claiming hardware peripherals, but the truth of the matter is that you're just trying to defend your having paid for ISBoxer. Quote:
The ongoing problem is, with no real method of detection other than human interpretation of server logs, innocent players are equally at risk of being banned as the few who may choose to break the new rules.
Show me one. Nolak tried, and he accidentally revealed yet another macro cheater. Got a better attempt? Maybe one that doesn't come from those bot-apologists at dualboxing.com, better yet?
You don't actually read posts before you respond do you. Just skim for what you believe is pertinent to your perception.
Either that or you think interpreting what is said as something else is a good idea.
For the 3rd or 4th time, "I HAVE NEVER USED ISBOXER" (had you bothered to read my previous post you would have known that, or am I telling lies?) and yes if you have good internet and a top line gaming machine whether you run 20 clients or just 1, you will have a huge advantage over someone with equipment of a lesser quality.
Like another uninformed poster in this thread, you believe everyone tells lies - Except you.
As I have said before, the only ones with the "proof" you seek are the ones keeping it a tight lipped secret - CCP. Try asking them how many false positives they have had. Ask them what the margin of error with their detection method is.
Just stop relying on the "everyone tells lies, prove it to me", it really makes you look foolish.
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
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
835
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 12:31:55 -
[4600] - Quote
Interesting conversation with CSM Steve Ronuken
This is mildly disturbing.... If the people who are supposed to represent us to CCP weren't informed of the full features of the program, how are they supposed to make informed decisions about it? |
|
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
368
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 17:04:12 -
[4601] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Interesting conversation with CSM Steve RonukenThis is mildly disturbing.... If the people who are supposed to represent us to CCP weren't informed of the full features of the program, how are they supposed to make informed decisions about it?
Steve has a narrative, he doesnt want multiboxing in EVE on the level that CCP pushed for years and years.
He's a smart guy, good developer and a good CSM member on the topics he wants to talk about....
but is being willfully ignorant and obtuse on multiboxing issues, probably jocking for a position with CCP's Team Security and is just practicing for his future position, assuming the company survives decisions such as this.
You should read some of the convos we had on ISBoxer etc.
Legacy - An EVE Online Blog
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5167
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 18:46:22 -
[4602] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Interesting conversation with CSM Steve RonukenThis is mildly disturbing.... If the people who are supposed to represent us to CCP weren't informed of the full features of the program, how are they supposed to make informed decisions about it? Steve has a narrative, he doesnt want multiboxing in EVE on the level that CCP pushed for years and years. He's a smart guy, good developer and a good CSM member on the topics he wants to talk about.... but is being willfully ignorant and obtuse on multiboxing issues, probably jocking for a position with CCP's Team Security and is just practicing for his future position, assuming the company survives decisions such as this. You should read some of the convos we had on ISBoxer etc.
Why do people think I want a job with CCP?
I'm a /linux/ sysadmin. They're a windows shop. While my skillset isn't entirely inapplicable, it's not what I do.
Now, as for round robin, Round robin isn't a KVM. A kvm is where you can use the same keyboard, video and mouse for controlling multiple computers, switching the input between them (as a seperate action. For a software based one like synergy, that can be 'move the mouse between the monitors), but not sharing any input.
As far as I've seen with round robin, it's for sending the same input to multiple processes, switching which process it goes to per keystroke. Similar, but not the same.
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
368
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 19:02:02 -
[4603] - Quote
so if someone used a KVM w/ a software switch, had 15 PC's running (one client each) and performed (to the outside observer) the same function as running 15 clients they would be "in the clear" (until you start talking about that completely comical definition of an "unfair advantage").
but somehow using round-robin (or lets be frank shall we, alt-tabbing too quickly) to hit the same button on 15 clients one after another, they are somehow breaking the EULA.
the real issue is all the vague rulings aside, the MAIN problem is CCP is unwilling to draw a line and say you CANNOT under ANY circumstances send more then x commands per second to x clients.
It would immediately give everyone a clear definition of what is and what is not allowed.
Instead we are operating in the fog, watching multiboxers using nothing but windowed clients getting petitioned by jealous people and banned by CCP for being "too good" at multiboxing, lets not even dive into people using isboxer or other software / hardware to multibox.
Legacy - An EVE Online Blog
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
835
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 19:06:43 -
[4604] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Now, as for round robin, Round robin isn't a KVM. A kvm is where you can use the same keyboard, video and mouse for controlling multiple computers, switching the input between them (as a seperate action. For a software based one like synergy, that can be 'move the mouse between the monitors), but not sharing any input.
As far as I've seen with round robin, it's for sending the same input to multiple processes, switching which process it goes to per keystroke. Similar, but not the same.
Actually, for Synergy, you can define certain commands that you input on computer 1 and that are "processed" on computer 2, and you can tell it to focus certain computers after a command has been issued and processed.
Round Robin is nothing more than an electronic active KVM switch.
Seriously, you're arguing automatic transmission vs manual transmission on a current-gen car and then attempting to define paddle-shifting manuals as something completely different. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12664
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 19:16:26 -
[4605] - Quote
I love the insinuation that Steve is the one with an agenda here.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
368
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 19:20:54 -
[4606] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I love the insinuation that Steve is the one with an agenda here.
he doesnt have an agenda as much as he as had a bias and narrative
Legacy - An EVE Online Blog
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12664
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 19:27:32 -
[4607] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I love the insinuation that Steve is the one with an agenda here. he doesnt have an agenda as much as he as had a bias and narrative
But you guys definitely dont, no sir.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
835
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 19:32:54 -
[4608] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I love the insinuation that Steve is the one with an agenda here. he doesnt have an agenda as much as he as had a bias and narrative But you guys definitely dont, no sir.
Neither do you, of course. I handed to you on a silver platter the easiest way to get me to switch sides, but you so far have not even come close to providing what I asked for, instead falling back to slinging slurs and insults as if you were a monkey at a zoo when you realized you don't have any evidence to support what you or CCP said. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12664
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 19:38:35 -
[4609] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Neither do you, of course.
I absolutely do, I'm not going to be dishonest about it like you guys.
I am extremely glad that CCP finally decided to stand up to this cheating, it took them far too long to begin with.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
835
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 19:43:47 -
[4610] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Neither do you, of course.
I absolutely do, I'm not going to be dishonest about it like you guys.
Uh, we weren't dishonest about it either. We came out from the start opposed to this, and were pointing out from day 1 that there are multiple programs that also violate 6A2 and 6A3 that CCP has not touched.
Quote:I am extremely glad that CCP finally decided to stand up to this cheating, it took them far too long to begin with.
You still have yet to prove that it is cheating without resorting to circular logic and fallacies. |
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12665
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 19:52:40 -
[4611] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Neither do you, of course.
I absolutely do, I'm not going to be dishonest about it like you guys. Uh, we weren't dishonest about it either. We came out from the start opposed to this, and were pointing out from day 1 that there are multiple programs that also violate 6A2 and 6A3 that CCP has not touched. Quote:I am extremely glad that CCP finally decided to stand up to this cheating, it took them far too long to begin with. You still have yet to prove that it is cheating without resorting to circular logic and fallacies.
And more smokescreens. Of course, it's not worth actually talking to you about this, because you will never admit to the truth.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
420
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 23:13:58 -
[4612] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Neither do you, of course.
I absolutely do, I'm not going to be dishonest about it like you guys. Uh, we weren't dishonest about it either. We came out from the start opposed to this, and were pointing out from day 1 that there are multiple programs that also violate 6A2 and 6A3 that CCP has not touched. Quote:I am extremely glad that CCP finally decided to stand up to this cheating, it took them far too long to begin with. You still have yet to prove that it is cheating without resorting to circular logic and fallacies. And more smokescreens. Of course, it's not worth actually talking to you about this, because you will never admit to the truth.
Truth according to Kaarous - Anything he chooses it to be.
Lies by omission are still lies.
- - - - - - - -
Cheat;
Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage.
The rules infringed may be explicit, or they may be from an unwritten code of conduct based on morality, ethics or custom, making the identification of cheating a subjective process.
NB; Are all scammers and gankers cheats? They act dishonestly and often unfairly to gain advantage, scammers post dishonest content in chat, gankers manipulate game mechanics to do their thing?
Bit subjective hey
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
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
17
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 23:56:21 -
[4613] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:but somehow using round-robin (or lets be frank shall we, alt-tabbing too quickly) to hit the same button on 15 clients one after another, they are somehow breaking the EULA.
Round-robin(isboxing) and alt-tabbing is nowhere near the same thing. With round robin you only need to hit the action trigger (F1 for example) 15 times in a row, where alt-tabbing you need to hit F1 AND THEN Alt+Tab, 15 times, which takes 2-3x longer. And don't even try to deny that hitting a single button 15 times takes half the time as hitting a sequence of 2 buttons 15 times does because that's just fact and common sense.
Nolak Ataru wrote:Actually, for Synergy, you can define certain commands that you input on computer 1 and that are "processed" on computer 2, and you can tell it to focus certain computers after a command has been issued and processed.
Round Robin is nothing more than an electronic active KVM switch.
Seriously, you're arguing automatic transmission vs manual transmission on a current-gen car and then attempting to define paddle-shifting manuals as something completely different.
SO wrong. Again, making ridiculous comparisons and telling lies. Round Robin is NOTHING LIKE an electronic/software OR hardware KVM switch. A KVM switch is MANUALLY SWITCHED from computer to computer using a hardware button or special keyboard combination, where Round Robin will automatically switch focus after a command has been issues, JUST LIKE YOU SAID. KVM's do not do this, hardware OR software ones. Lies and deceptions again...
As for automatic, manual and paddle-shifter cars, yes, they ARE completely different. Automatic is just automatic shifting controlled by the transmission. Manual transmission is completely controlled by the driver and can go from any gear into any gear, and also, the driver must use the clutch pedal disengage the clutch before shifting unless he is powershifting. Paddle-shifters are driven by using the paddles to switch gears SEQUENTIALLY, unlike a manual, and also does not have a clutch pedal like manuals do. Quit spouting BS to try to make a point by using things you know nothing about. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
835
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 00:27:15 -
[4614] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Round-robin(isboxing) and alt-tabbing is nowhere near the same thing. With round robin you only need to hit the action trigger (F1 for example) 15 times in a row, where alt-tabbing you need to hit F1 AND THEN Alt+Tab, 15 times, which takes 2-3x longer. And don't even try to deny that hitting a single button 15 times takes half the time as hitting a sequence of 2 buttons 15 times does because that's just fact and common sense.
Wrong. Windows Function "OnMouseOverFocus=True" means all you need to do is to tile your clients small enough or use enough monitors and you can move your mouse over each client and press F1 each time. So we ask you again: are multiple monitors considered a cheat / hack?
Quote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Actually, for Synergy, you can define certain commands that you input on computer 1 and that are "processed" on computer 2, and you can tell it to focus certain computers after a command has been issued and processed.
Round Robin is nothing more than an electronic active KVM switch.
Seriously, you're arguing automatic transmission vs manual transmission on a current-gen car and then attempting to define paddle-shifting manuals as something completely different. SO wrong. Again, making ridiculous comparisons and telling lies. Round Robin is NOTHING LIKE an electronic/software OR hardware KVM switch. A KVM switch is MANUALLY SWITCHED from computer to computer using a hardware button or special keyboard combination, where Round Robin will automatically switch focus after a command has been issued, JUST LIKE YOU SAID (underlined). KVM's do not do this, hardware OR software ones. Lies and deceptions again... As for automatic, manual and paddle-shifter cars, yes, they ARE completely different. Automatic is just automatic shifting controlled by the transmission. Manual transmission is completely controlled by the driver and can go from any gear into any gear, and also, the driver must use the clutch pedal disengage the clutch before shifting unless he is powershifting. Paddle-shifters are driven by using the paddles to switch gears SEQUENTIALLY, unlike a manual, and also does not have a clutch pedal like manuals do. Quit spouting BS to try to make a point by using things you know nothing about.
Not all KVMs are hardware. That's why I specifically said "Electronic KVM". Synergy is an electronic KVM. It uses the monitor borders to define it's switching. But let's take a look at a proposed RoundRobin setup by Charadrass. He would bind F1KeyDown as F1 in-game, and then F1KeyUp as the action that tells the KVM to switch to client n+1. That would be legal as it sends 1 action to the client (F1) for one input and 1 action to ISBoxer for the 2nd input. I believe he still has yet to receive a straight answer from CCP about it.
For my car analogy, I must apologize. I was referring more to the situation with NASCAR and the debate over automatic or paddle-shifting transmissions being allowed. Currently, automatic transmissions are much safer than manual transmissions whilst being much more efficient and "better" than a manual driver. Car and Driver I believe had an article about it that was a good read. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12672
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 00:40:04 -
[4615] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Truth according to Kaarous - Anything he chooses it to be.
No, I am simply accepting CCP's ruling on this one. I've long considered ISBoxer to be outright cheating, and finally CCP had the balls to do something about it.
Quote:
NB; Are all scammers and gankers cheats?
Nope. They play the game by the game's rules, not use a third party program or a macro setup to control twenty accounts simultaneously.
There's nothing subjective about it, and there is no moral equivalency either.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
421
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 04:45:29 -
[4616] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
Truth according to Kaarous - Anything he chooses it to be.
No, I am simply accepting CCP's ruling on this one. I've long considered ISBoxer to be outright cheating, and finally CCP had the balls to do something about it. Quote:
NB; Are all scammers and gankers cheats?
Nope. They play the game by the game's rules, not use a third party program or a macro setup to control twenty accounts simultaneously. There's nothing subjective about it, and there is no moral equivalency either.
OK, so by your explanation I can play multiple accounts as or more efficiently than a person using one account and I don't risk being banned.
I am not using software or hardware enhancements, just items everyone can go to the shop and purchase.
Yeah sorry but your wrong, CCP have no way of knowing and rely on a "best guess" made by human interpretation of a series of machine generated information.
- - - - - - - -
Ganking and scamming are both judgement calls on player morality that CCP have made. Doesn't make either right, just means the right lobby group hasn't got an ear with the right Dev.
Most of the recent changes in Eve have more to do with who wants the change than whether it is needed or good for the game.
Anyway, I am done here. Until CCP have clearly stated guidelines pertaining to multi boxing, all but two of my accounts shall remain inactive.
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
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
17
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 05:10:39 -
[4617] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Wrong. Windows Function "OnMouseOverFocus=True" means all you need to do is to tile your clients small enough or use enough monitors and you can move your mouse over each client and press F1 each time. So we ask you again: are multiple monitors considered a cheat / hack?
Well first, there is no such function as OnMouseOverFocus for Windows in any programming language. There is an Ease Of Access function of Windows which will focus windows on mouseover events, which in my opinion is a perfectly acceptable way of playing since you're still performing an input to switch the window in focus, you're just using the mouse instead of the keyboard to switch. But, this is likely to be slower and can cause problems by a wandering mouse accidentally being in the wrong window.
I also don't see multiple monitors as being a cheat or hack because it's pretty much a standard to have multiple monitors nowadays(I've been using dual monitors at work for over 5 years), and not only does the OS support/provide it, but Eve Online itself supports multiple monitors for a single client. I don't see a reason why you can't run a separate client on each monitor, regardless of how many monitors you have. If you want to shrink down each Eve client to be very small so they all fit on one monitor, I think that's ok as well. But, running such small windows will make it near impossible to use all the functionality of a full-screen or even half-screen client.
Nolak Ataru wrote:Not all KVMs are hardware. That's why I specifically said "Electronic KVM". Synergy is an electronic KVM. It uses the monitor borders to define it's switching. But let's take a look at a proposed RoundRobin setup by Charadrass. He would bind F1KeyDown as F1 in-game, and then F1KeyUp as the action that tells the KVM to switch to client n+1. That would be legal as it sends 1 action to the client (F1) for one input and 1 action to ISBoxer for the 2nd input. I believe he still has yet to receive a straight answer from CCP about it.
That's why I said above "electronic/software" and mentioned the special key combination. I have also used both hardware and software KVM's in order to image and setup mass amounts of new computers all at once without needing to hook up each to a monitor/kb/mouse.
As for binding F1KeyDown to F1, this can't be done within the Eve client. It only accepts a full button press and release, and doesn't differentiate a KeyDown from a KeyUp event. If you use something else to bind a F1KeyDown event to F1, then you're already getting yourself into trouble, especially if you're using third-party software to modify the keybindings (I know it exists and I wlil not name it). So, being that the Eve client doesn't differentiate a keydown from a keyup event, then the combination of keydown followed by keyup is "an input", or, a button press. Splitting the action into 2 inputs doesn't mean you're circumventing the rules, because the KeyUp is still part of the single input in Eve. So you're still activating a module and switching windows with a single input.
And I wouldn't hold my breath on waiting for an answer about that from CCP since they've clearly stated that they will not say what is allow and isn't, and they can't, because there's too many programs and ways to use them out there. They've been flooded the last 5 months with thousands of questions. And as new things come out, they would need to be addressed. So I don't blame them for not giving any answers as to what is allowed. Can you imagine the list of software that would be on allowed and not allowed lists? They would have to update them constantly and would be a nightmare.
As far as I'm concerned (and I'm sure CCP thinks the same), if you're using anything other than the Eve Client to play or interact with the game, you're in breach of EULA/Policy. This of course excludes the Operating System which is obviously needed to RUN the game, as well as any hardware drivers needed to run your hardware (Gfx cards, Monitors, keyboard/mouse etc), and anyone pointing to those and saying that it's third-party is obviously grasping at straws and showing immaturity. Eve does not run on a console (XBox/PlayStation etc) where nothing is needed to play it other than the hardware. They HAVE stated specifically some software use which will not be enforced(Mumble, Teamspeak) and I'm sure that will change in the future as well, but until then, I'll keep using TeamSpeak, although I still don't know how to use the overlays it supposedly has... But, once it's "banned", I'll happily stop using it and switch back to Eve Voice, no problems.
What I do see in the future is things getting much worse for multiboxers if people don't stop bugging CCP about using this software and that software and certain features of whatnot. They WILL get fed up, and they will come out with something nasty that'll be worth complaining about.
Nolak Ataru wrote:For my car analogy, I must apologize. I was referring more to the situation with NASCAR and the debate over automatic or paddle-shifting transmissions being allowed. Currently, automatic transmissions are much safer than manual transmissions whilst being much more efficient and "better" than a manual driver. Car and Driver I believe had an article about it that was a good read.
That's a matter of personal opinion. I personally learned to drive stick shift and drove manual cars for 20 years until a month ago when I bought a new F150, and they only make them with automatic transmissions. I really hate it but I'm getting used to it. Heck, even my wife's BMW is a manual transmission and that's what she wanted! I've been in zero accidents. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
17
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 05:30:43 -
[4618] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Yeah sorry but your wrong, CCP have no way of knowing and rely on a "best guess" made by human interpretation of a series of machine generated information.
The servers use 1-second ticks.
I've tried several times, and within one second, I can mash a button 7-8 times.
But, by pressing a button, then pressing Alt+Tab before pressing it again in another window, I can only do it 2-3 times. And yes this is using left hand to Alt+Tab and right hand to press the button.
So someone who activates 5,6,7,8,9 or more modules on different accounts within a second are likely using round-robin software (ISBoxer or whatever 3rd PS).
Anyone saying they can activate modules on 7 or more accounts within one second by Alt+Tabbing should either post up a video of them doing it to prove it, or STFU.... And I don't mean a screencapture, I mean real video with keyboard and screen shown.
Also, I'm sure they have more information server-side than just button-presses. Window focus/activation events can also be sent to the server, as well as sources of keypresses and mouseclicks. Yes, you can detect if a keypress comes from hardware, or if it was triggered by something sent by other software using things like WScript.shell's SendKeys, or JS's initKeyboardEvent etc etc etc... Not rocket science. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5342
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 08:23:45 -
[4619] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Round-robin(isboxing) and alt-tabbing is nowhere near the same thing. With round robin you only need to hit the action trigger (F1 for example) 15 times in a row, where alt-tabbing you need to hit F1 AND THEN Alt+Tab, 15 times, which takes 2-3x longer. And don't even try to deny that hitting a single button 15 times takes half the time as hitting a sequence of 2 buttons 15 times does because that's just fact and common sense. I have tiled windows (no software used), I don't need to hit alt tab. Should that be against the rules? Currently it is as there's no way to tell the difference between that and round robin.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:No, I am simply accepting CCP's ruling on this one. As are we, we just want clarification for where the line is drawn as manual multiboxers are definitely going to get caught up in the rules.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nope. They play the game by the game's rules, not use a third party program or a macro setup to control twenty accounts simultaneously. Which when it was done by players lasyt year was also within the rules. ISBoxer has been explicitly allowed for years, thus by your own logic, ISBoxer was not cheating.
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
5342
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 08:30:30 -
[4620] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Well first, there is no such function as OnMouseOverFocus for Windows in any programming language. There is an Ease Of Access function of Windows which will focus windows on mouseover events, which in my opinion is a perfectly acceptable way of playing since you're still performing an input to switch the window in focus, you're just using the mouse instead of the keyboard to switch. But, this is likely to be slower and can cause problems by a wandering mouse accidentally being in the wrong window.
I also don't see multiple monitors as being a cheat or hack because it's pretty much a standard to have multiple monitors nowadays(I've been using dual monitors at work for over 5 years), and not only does the OS support/provide it, but Eve Online itself supports multiple monitors for a single client. I don't see a reason why you can't run a separate client on each monitor, regardless of how many monitors you have. If you want to shrink down each Eve client to be very small so they all fit on one monitor, I think that's ok as well. But, running such small windows will make it near impossible to use all the functionality of a full-screen or even half-screen client. The problem is that CCPs detection means that being too efficient with a manual multibox setup which you have no problem with will also get you banned, since it's as efficient as a round robin, and from a data perspective looks no different.
Trakow wrote:The servers use 1-second ticks.
I've tried several times, and within one second, I can mash a button 7-8 times.
But, by pressing a button, then pressing Alt+Tab before pressing it again in another window, I can only do it 2-3 times. And yes this is using left hand to Alt+Tab and right hand to press the button.
So someone who activates 5,6,7,8,9 or more modules on different accounts within a second are likely using round-robin software (ISBoxer or whatever 3rd PS). I can use tiled windows and hover focus to press buttons on 8-10 with ease in a second. So should I be banned because I have multiple monitors?
Trakow wrote:Also, I'm sure they have more information server-side than just button-presses. Window focus/activation events can also be sent to the server, as well as sources of keypresses and mouseclicks. Yes, you can detect if a keypress comes from hardware, or if it was triggered by something sent by other software using things like WScript.shell's SendKeys, or JS's initKeyboardEvent etc etc etc... Not rocket science. They can indeed tell the source of the keypress (though that can be masked pretty easily) but in order to do that at all, they need client side detection which they do not have.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12676
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 08:56:02 -
[4621] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:As are we
You might want to talk to Nolak then, since he's blowing your cover with his ranting about Teamspeak and EveMon and stuff.
Quote: we just want clarification for where the line is drawn as manual multiboxers are definitely going to get caught up in the rules.
And thus far, the one time someone has tried to provide proof to me of that, they exposed another person using macros.
So I really don't buy that. No one ever got banned for alt tabbing, and no one ever will. This sneaky **** with keyboard macros, auto scrolling, and twenty client windows? I certainly won't miss anyone doing that.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
85
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 10:07:26 -
[4622] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:As are we
You might want to talk to Nolak then, since he's blowing your cover with his ranting about Teamspeak and EveMon and stuff. Quote: we just want clarification for where the line is drawn as manual multiboxers are definitely going to get caught up in the rules. And thus far, the one time someone has tried to provide proof to me of that, they exposed another person using macros. So I really don't buy that. No one ever got banned for alt tabbing, and no one ever will. This sneaky **** with keyboard macros, auto scrolling, and twenty client windows? I certainly won't miss anyone doing that.
No, No one did indeed ever get banned for alt tabbing (as the reason), (as far as I know) lol, but it doesn't mean that they were not banned for another reasoning like, Macro, Multiplexing Etc... even if they didnt do the multiplexing or macro, they might have just been alt tabbing or played really efficient, (like some people can be really quick/fast like.... (its amazing what some manage to do by just alt tabbing 'etc) |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5342
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 11:16:29 -
[4623] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You might want to talk to Nolak then, since he's blowing your cover with his ranting about Teamspeak and EveMon and stuff. That's a separate argument that other software also gives an advantage. I don't disagree with that, since without my trading tools I'd not make a 10th of the isk I make, but that's not really a concern for me. All I'm concerned with are manual multiboxers getting caught in bans for being overly efficient.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:And thus far, the one time someone has tried to provide proof to me of that, they exposed another person using macros.
So I really don't buy that. No one ever got banned for alt tabbing, and no one ever will. This sneaky **** with keyboard macros, auto scrolling, and twenty client windows? I certainly won't miss anyone doing that. That's because it's impossible to prove, especially if you want to keep your account as releasing info abut bans is a bannable offense. Using tiled windows or a tool like eve-o preview (which team security have stated is completely legal) is easily as efficient as round robin (with which by the way, it's still easily possible to control 20+ client windows), and since they are looking at it purely from server side logs with no client side detection there's no way for them to tell which is which. This will lead to false positives, which are impossible to prove as such, and so people will get banned for playing the game in the way they are being told is allowed.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
AnJuan Jackson
Original Sinners
The Bastion
61
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 13:32:38 -
[4624] - Quote
The question of advantage in a game like EvE Online is a slippery slope. I don't think another game exists that actively encourages owning and playing on multiple accounts, and is as worth doing so.
Everyone in life has advantages over other people, I've written before about this topic years ago that when you start getting internet chivalry over this dude has an advantage and we must execute him, turns into a witch hunt.
Anyone who is smarter than you has an advantage, anyone who has faster reflexes has an advantage. Anyone who is space rich or real life rich has an advantage. This isn't chess or call of duty, the variables and style of play is so much different than a traditional game, I believe it is hopeless to control who has "an advantage."
That being said, preventing people from injecting their own code into the game is a fair move.
Trying to dictate this foggy idea of "This method of controlling clients is not allowed, but if you are crazy good at manipulating key strokes, that's fine." is much less acceptable.
There is no definition of how fast is too fast, so we are left in the dark. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
836
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 15:18:51 -
[4625] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You might want to talk to Nolak then, since he's blowing your cover with his ranting about Teamspeak and EveMon and stuff. CCP wanted to look at a strict interpretation of the EULA, so I'm merely pointing out some programs that they may have missed. You may be surprised by it, but we want to play by the EULA as well. [quote=Kaarous Aldurald]And thus far, the one time someone has tried to provide proof to me of that, they exposed another person using macros. So I really don't buy that. No one ever got banned for alt tabbing, and no one ever will. This sneaky **** with keyboard macros, auto scrolling, and twenty client windows? I certainly won't miss anyone doing that.
Wrong. The person I "exposed", as you put it, was using either RoundRobin or VideoFX manipulation, both of which are allowed under the new EULA.
As for the "twenty clients", do you realize that Borg is still out in the fields with his 50-odd ships? We have entire fleets of similarly-named Procs down here, not even counting the guys with 10+ Thanatos running sites. If you want CCP to limit us to 1 client per IP or person, say it. There's already 2 CCP devs and at least 1 CSM member who supports the idea. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
750
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 15:39:20 -
[4626] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Wrong. The person I "exposed", as you put it, was using either RoundRobin or VideoFX manipulation, both of which are allowed under the new EULA.
There is no new EULA.
RoundRobin breaks Eve's EULA/TOS & policies.
VideoFX manipulation can be used to break Eve's EULA/TOS & policies, when for example it is used to create those dashboard set ups.
Stop incorrectly telling people what is allowed, you may end up getting them banned if they believe you.
|
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
85
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 16:11:20 -
[4627] - Quote
Anyway, in the end I suppose it should be per character basic. Eve is unfair, and if you think the people that used multiplexing or whatever before is ''unfair, op'' whatever. try to face the gfs blob, or **** you fleet. (celectians) (a lot off them) lol |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
836
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 16:20:39 -
[4628] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:There is no new EULA.
Now you're just arguing semantics because you have no real argument.
Quote:RoundRobin breaks Eve's EULA/TOS & policies.
One output for one input. How does it break the EULA/TOS? And more specifically, how does it break the EULA/TOS without including EVE-O Preview, Mumble, TS3, and Steam Overlay?
Quote:VideoFX manipulation can be used to break Eve's EULA/TOS & policies, when for example it is used to create those dashboard set ups.
VideoFX is using Windows Aero and as such does not fall under the purview of CCP, unless they magic-wanded $100B into existence to buy Microsoft. Additionally, there is no part of the EULA that would ban VideoFX that would not ban the aforementioned programs without disabling people from moving their UI around.
Quote:Stop incorrectly telling people what is allowed, you may end up getting them banned if they believe you.
Stop incorrectly telling people what isn't allowed. Just because you can't handle multiple clients doesn't mean everyone should not be able to. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12684
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 20:15:59 -
[4629] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:
Wrong. The person I "exposed", as you put it, was using either RoundRobin or VideoFX manipulation, both of which are allowed under the new EULA.
There is no new EULA. RoundRobin breaks Eve's EULA/TOS & policies. VideoFX manipulation can be used to break Eve's EULA/TOS & policies, when for example it is used to create those dashboard set ups. Stop incorrectly telling people what is allowed, you may end up getting them banned if they believe you.
+1. I honestly don't know why this self delusion persists.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
751
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 22:26:18 -
[4630] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
One output for one input. How does it break the EULA/TOS? And more specifically, how does it break the EULA/TOS without including EVE-O Preview, Mumble, TS3, and Steam Overlay?
Technically RoundRobin is 2 outputs for 1 input otherwise all the outputs would go to the same client. But thats not why it breaks Eve's EULA/TOS & policies. Read Eve's EULA/TOS & policies and I don't mean read the new imaginary version you seem to think exists. Read the one CCP provides. Specifically 6A.2 and 9.c (Found in the third party policies).
Nolak Ataru wrote:Quote:VideoFX manipulation can be used to break Eve's EULA/TOS & policies, when for example it is used to create those dashboard set ups. VideoFX is using Windows Aero and as such does not fall under the purview of CCP, unless they magic-wanded $100B into existence to buy Microsoft. Additionally, there is no part of the EULA that would ban VideoFX that would not ban the aforementioned programs without disabling people from moving their UI around.
VideoFX is not banned and I never claimed it was. It can however be used to break Eve's EULA/TOS & policies and that is what those dashboard type setups do.
Nolak Ataru wrote:Quote:Stop incorrectly telling people what is allowed, you may end up getting them banned if they believe you. Stop incorrectly telling people what isn't allowed. Just because you can't handle multiple clients doesn't mean everyone should not be able to.
What I can and can not do has no affect on what Eve's EULA/TOS & policies allow. Encouraging people to break Eve's EULA/TOS & policies is a bannable offence, so maybe you should stop doing it. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse for breaking them. |
|
|
Marsha Mallow
2078
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 00:31:34 -
[4631] - Quote
Relevant
Benny Ohu wrote:
fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
19
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 00:50:05 -
[4632] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Trakow wrote:The servers use 1-second ticks.
I've tried several times, and within one second, I can mash a button 7-8 times.
But, by pressing a button, then pressing Alt+Tab before pressing it again in another window, I can only do it 2-3 times. And yes this is using left hand to Alt+Tab and right hand to press the button.
So someone who activates 5,6,7,8,9 or more modules on different accounts within a second are likely using round-robin software (ISBoxer or whatever 3rd PS). I can use tiled windows and hover focus to press buttons on 8-10 with ease in a second. So should I be banned because I have multiple monitors?
Like I said here, if you really can do as you claim, to activate 8-10 modules on different accounts within one second, prove it, post up a video of you doing it with monitor(s), keyboard and mouse visible, because I don't believe you, because it can't be done, even if you're using hover focus. Until you can prove it, I think you're lying, and I stand by the fact that you can only activate modules on 8+ accounts within one second by using third party software, which is one thing that helps CCP find RR users by looking at server-side logs.
Lucas Kell wrote:Trakow wrote:Also, I'm sure they have more information server-side than just button-presses. Window focus/activation events can also be sent to the server, as well as sources of keypresses and mouseclicks. Yes, you can detect if a keypress comes from hardware, or if it was triggered by something sent by other software using things like WScript.shell's SendKeys, or JS's initKeyboardEvent etc etc etc... Not rocket science. They can indeed tell the source of the keypress (though that can be masked pretty easily) but in order to do that at all, they need client side detection which they do not have.
No, you can't easily mask the source of. Perhaps spoof it to make it look like it's coming from some other software, but you can't fake it to make it look like it's coming from hardware. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
20
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 01:05:16 -
[4633] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:There is no new EULA. Now you're just arguing semantics because you have no real argument.
He is right, there is no new EULA, they just changed what they're enforcing. See the first post in this thread and read it.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
One output for one input. How does it break the EULA/TOS? And more specifically, how does it break the EULA/TOS without including EVE-O Preview, Mumble, TS3, and Steam Overlay?
As I've mentioned before, they've specifically excluded Mumble and TS3 and it's within their right to. You can't compare their enforcement to other softwares, that's their choice.
Nolak Ataru wrote:Quote:VideoFX manipulation can be used to break Eve's EULA/TOS & policies, when for example it is used to create those dashboard set ups. VideoFX is using Windows Aero and as such does not fall under the purview of CCP, unless they magic-wanded $100B into existence to buy Microsoft. Additionally, there is no part of the EULA that would ban VideoFX that would not ban the aforementioned programs without disabling people from moving their UI around.
How quickly you forget the msg I got from Peligro that I posted and got removed. It was also quoted. VideoFX was specifically named as not allowed. |
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 04:01:21 -
[4634] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Like I said here, if you really can do as you claim, to activate 8-10 modules on different accounts within one second, prove it, post up a video of you doing it with monitor(s), keyboard and mouse visible, because I don't believe you, because it can't be done, even if you're using hover focus. Until you can prove it, I think you're lying, and I stand by the fact that you can only activate modules on 8+ accounts within one second by using third party software, which is one thing that helps CCP find RR users by looking at server-side logs. Ever watch one of my videos?
When I activate the gate I"m just pressing and holding D as I click through. You can get a similar effect with hotkeys and a nkey rollover keyboard.
I'm slow at it so I can only imagine what some kids are capable of. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5343
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 07:01:07 -
[4635] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Like I said here, if you really can do as you claim, to activate 8-10 modules on different accounts within one second, prove it, post up a video of you doing it with monitor(s), keyboard and mouse visible, because I don't believe you, because it can't be done, even if you're using hover focus. Until you can prove it, I think you're lying, and I stand by the fact that you can only activate modules on 8+ accounts within one second by using third party software, which is one thing that helps CCP find RR users by looking at server-side logs. Yeah, I'm not going to be installing recording software, recording videos and uploading them for you to see just so you can go "oh, you can hit 8 buttons in quick succession". And I realy don;t care whether or not you think it's possible. The fact is that it is. You can use tiled clients as fast as you can use a standard round robin, and most importantly far more efficiently than a regular player with a single screen. and that's what counts, because that's what they are comparing against. CCP are looking at whether or not you are significantly more efficient than the average and banning based on that.
Trakow wrote:No, you can't easily mask the source of. Perhaps spoof it to make it look like it's coming from some other software, but you can't fake it to make it look like it's coming from hardware. Yes you can. Irrelevant though since they don't have client side detection.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
20
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 17:13:51 -
[4636] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Trakow wrote:Like I said here, if you really can do as you claim, to activate 8-10 modules on different accounts within one second, prove it, post up a video of you doing it with monitor(s), keyboard and mouse visible, because I don't believe you, because it can't be done, even if you're using hover focus. Until you can prove it, I think you're lying, and I stand by the fact that you can only activate modules on 8+ accounts within one second by using third party software, which is one thing that helps CCP find RR users by looking at server-side logs. Yeah, I'm not going to be installing recording software, recording videos and uploading them for you to see just so you can go "oh, you can hit 8 buttons in quick succession". And I realy don;t care whether or not you think it's possible. The fact is that it is. You can use tiled clients as fast as you can use a standard round robin, and most importantly far more efficiently than a regular player with a single screen. and that's what counts, because that's what they are comparing against. CCP are looking at whether or not you are significantly more efficient than the average and banning based on that.
I said record with keyboard and mouse visible, as in, using a camera or cell phone and upload, no recording software required. And I don't think its not possible, I know its not possible. And that's how people will get caught. So unless someone proves me wrong with video proof, then just arguing is useless. I can also say that I can jump 20 feet straight up, or that I have a car that can drive on water, anyone can say anything, doesn't make it true unless they can prove it. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
20
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 17:18:56 -
[4637] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:Trakow wrote:Like I said here, if you really can do as you claim, to activate 8-10 modules on different accounts within one second, prove it, post up a video of you doing it with monitor(s), keyboard and mouse visible, because I don't believe you, because it can't be done, even if you're using hover focus. Until you can prove it, I think you're lying, and I stand by the fact that you can only activate modules on 8+ accounts within one second by using third party software, which is one thing that helps CCP find RR users by looking at server-side logs. Ever watch one of my videos? When I activate the gate I"m just pressing and holding D as I click through. You can get a similar effect with hotkeys and a nkey rollover keyboard. I'm slow at it so I can only imagine what some kids are capable of.
And that's my point. Until someone can prove they can do it, they can just stop saying that it's possible. You even said that you can't do it that fast, and I stand by my statement that nobody can until they prove me wrong with a video. And I'm making it easy by saying 8 clients within a second, because someone doing it with 15+ clients within a second or two is even more obvious. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
838
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 18:41:55 -
[4638] - Quote
Trakow wrote:And that's my point. Until someone can prove they can do it, they can just stop saying that it's possible. You even said that you can't do it that fast, and I stand by my statement that nobody can until they prove me wrong with a video. And I'm making it easy by saying 8 clients within a second, because someone doing it with 15+ clients within a second or two is even more obvious.
Burden of proof fallacy. You made the claim that nobody can do it that fast, you must provide the proof. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
754
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 19:39:25 -
[4639] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Trakow wrote:And that's my point. Until someone can prove they can do it, they can just stop saying that it's possible. You even said that you can't do it that fast, and I stand by my statement that nobody can until they prove me wrong with a video. And I'm making it easy by saying 8 clients within a second, because someone doing it with 15+ clients within a second or two is even more obvious. Burden of proof fallacy. You made the claim that nobody can do it that fast, you must provide the proof.
Just like you provide proof for all your claims. You do realise he is asking someone to back up their claim that they can swap clients just as quick manually as they can with a RoundRobin set up.?
When are you going to provide proof for your claim that CCP are banning people who are obeying the EULA?
You're doing it again Nolak, stop telling people to provide proof when you are unable or unwilling to do so yourself. Its not a very nice characteristic. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
838
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 20:14:46 -
[4640] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Just like you provide proof for all your claims. You do realise he is asking someone to back up their claim that they can swap clients just as quick manually as they can with a RoundRobin set up.? When are you going to provide proof for your claim that CCP are banning people who are obeying the EULA? You're doing it again Nolak, stop telling people to provide proof when you are unable or unwilling to do so yourself. Its not a very nice characteristic.
We gave you the proof. CCP removed said proof. We posted on the dual-boxing forum said proof and contact information for those who didn't post their proof. You keep saying "That doesn't count" every time we either give you the proof, or the means to obtain the proof yourself. You cannot continue to live your adult life simply by sticking your head in the sand like some prepubescent ostrich and scream "lalalala" whenever someone happens to speak an uncomfortable truth. Believe me, it doesn't work.
He first made the claim himself that no human player could match an ISBoxer. Pain Time used to 10-box PVP pre-ISBoxer. The WH corp is doing just fine without broadcasting. Kinete's doing just fine. And the fellow down in Deklein with 10+ ishtars is doing just fine. With practice, Kinete can easily trump whatever standard you have for being "too efficient", which is what we've been saying for ages now: That practice makes perfect. To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Or, in EVE terms, "Any sufficiently skilled and experienced EVE player is indistinguishable from a bot or macro". Leigh Brackett also had something to say: "Witchcraft to the ignorant; simple science to the learned". |
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12689
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 20:45:05 -
[4641] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
We gave you the proof. CCP removed said proof.
Bull. ****.
Quote:
We posted on the dual-boxing forum said proof and contact information for those who didn't post their proof.
That bot apologist website is only proof that you're trying to shield yourselves from being rightfully banned.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5344
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 21:03:11 -
[4642] - Quote
Trakow wrote:I said record with keyboard and mouse visible, as in, using a camera or cell phone and upload, no recording software required. And I don't think its not possible, I know its not possible. And that's how people will get caught. So unless someone proves me wrong with video proof, then just arguing is useless. I can also say that I can jump 20 feet straight up, or that I have a car that can drive on water, anyone can say anything, doesn't make it true unless they can prove it. Still no. I'm not planning on uploading videos of anything for you. And I really don't care if you believe it or not, it's a fact that clicking 8 buttons in quick succession is not hard.
Once again though, it's irrelevant because what it's compared again is a player with a single screen, and even with your limited ability to fire off input to your computer in good time you must know that someone with 12 windows tiled across 3 monitors is going to be significantly faster than a player on a single screen. So they will appear considerably more efficient than a "normal" player and thus appear to be using tools.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
16
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 23:09:45 -
[4643] - Quote
SO I submitted a new ticket this time with some links to my latest videos and asked if I was fine. The response said that windows 7 is a third party program and they strongly suggested I refrain from using the program."
I wish I was kidding....
To clarify this is the first time I've sent in a petition on this character asking about me running in windowed mode. The last time I sent in a petition was about videofx and that was in december on an entirely different account. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
20
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 23:25:05 -
[4644] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Trakow wrote:And that's my point. Until someone can prove they can do it, they can just stop saying that it's possible. You even said that you can't do it that fast, and I stand by my statement that nobody can until they prove me wrong with a video. And I'm making it easy by saying 8 clients within a second, because someone doing it with 15+ clients within a second or two is even more obvious. Burden of proof fallacy. You made the claim that nobody can do it that fast, you must provide the proof.
No, I do not, yourself and others have claimed that you can activate modules across multiple clients just as fast as using Round Robin by just Alt+Tabbing, or using a "Focus on MouseOver" feature.
This is YOUR post
In which you disputed my reply to ShadowandLight HERE (2nd paragraph) who claimed that Alt+Tabbing too fast means you're breaking the EULA, but it can't because you cannot switch clients and activate that quickly. And also challenging Sgt Ocker from several posts of his like THIS ONE where he claims that CCP cannot determine a Round Robin user from someone Alt+Tabbing or manually switching clients too fast. Therefore, I'm asking them, and anyone else who agrees with then, to prove that they can manually be as fast as a Round Robin user. And from the looks of it, nobody can prove their clams. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
20
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 23:32:48 -
[4645] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Trakow wrote:I said record with keyboard and mouse visible, as in, using a camera or cell phone and upload, no recording software required. And I don't think its not possible, I know its not possible. And that's how people will get caught. So unless someone proves me wrong with video proof, then just arguing is useless. I can also say that I can jump 20 feet straight up, or that I have a car that can drive on water, anyone can say anything, doesn't make it true unless they can prove it. Still no. I'm not planning on uploading videos of anything for you. And I really don't care if you believe it or not, it's a fact that clicking 8 buttons in quick succession is not hard. Once again though, it's irrelevant because what it's compared again is a player with a single screen, and even with your limited ability to fire off input to your computer in good time you must know that someone with 12 windows tiled across 3 monitors is going to be significantly faster than a player on a single screen. So they will appear considerably more efficient than a "normal" player and thus appear to be using tools.
It's not a fact until proven, it's just claims and hearsay. And I'm not talking about just clicking 8 buttons, I'm talking about activating modules on 8 different accounts within one second, which you say is not hard, so again, I say prove it. Show me. I say lifting up 800 pounds over my head only using my body strength is not hard, do you believe me?
Again, you bring up multiple monitors to change the subject... it doesn't matter if somebody has 100 monitors... I'm sure the majority of Eve players have more than one monitor, so those players fall well into the "normal" player statistics. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5344
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 06:50:22 -
[4646] - Quote
Trakow wrote:It's not a fact until proven, it's just claims and hearsay. And I'm not talking about just clicking 8 buttons, I'm talking about activating modules on 8 different accounts within one second, which you say is not hard, so again, I say prove it. Show me. I say bench pressing 800 pounds is not hard, do you believe me? It's 8 buttons on 3 screens, always visible. No swapping required. They may as well be one client, so yes, you are literally talking about pressing 8 buttons. I can even just swipe my pointer across the windows hammering F1 because focus can be set to hover. And no, I'm not going to sit here recording home videos for you, stop demanding I do, pervert. I don't care that you aren't very good at using PCs and think that it's impossible, I really do not care what you think, and since it's irrelevant there's no need for me to prove anything to you. You want to go off thinking I'm a liar? Go right ahead. I am done discussing this with you.
Trakow wrote:Again, you bring up multiple monitors to change the subject... it doesn't matter if somebody has 100 monitors... I'm sure the majority of Eve players have more than one monitor, so those players fall well into the "normal" player statistics. So you're saying that the majority do, and that the majority have enough screen space to multibox efficiently, and that most people use that space for multiple accounts rapidly performing multibox activities? The thing is, they don't, so no, a "normal" player won't be multiboxing that efficiently, and so manual multiboxers are definitely at risk.
The thing is, I have used both round robin and a manual setup. The manual setup is slightly more efficient possibly just because the round robin setup left screen you couldn't; see while the manual setup shows everything at all times). So if round robin is banned, so is a decent manual setup as the interaction speed with the clients is identical. I'm going from actual first hand experience with both here, while you are guessing based on what seems to be a crippling inability to use a PC.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4409
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 07:15:59 -
[4647] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post.
The Rules:
10. Posting of private CCP communication is prohibited.
The posting of private communication between the Game Masters, EVE Team members, Moderators, Administrators of the forums and forum users is prohibited. CCP respect the right of our players to privacy and as such you are not permitted to publicize private correspondence (including support ticket responses and emails) received from any member of CCP staff.aforementioned parties.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 07:26:07 -
[4648] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:I have removed a rule breaking post. The Rules:10. Posting of private CCP communication is prohibited.
The posting of private communication between the Game Masters, EVE Team members, Moderators, Administrators of the forums and forum users is prohibited. CCP respect the right of our players to privacy and as such you are not permitted to publicize private correspondence (including support ticket responses and emails) received from any member of CCP staff.aforementioned parties.
So you can't even talk about petitioning now?
I didn't post anything resembling the private conversation.
What's even the point of this thread now? When you petition anything regarding multiboxing you're sent here to discuss it but if you discuss it you get your post deleted.
Wut? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5344
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 07:34:55 -
[4649] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:I didn't post anything resembling the private conversation. At least that would seem to confirm it's authenticity, and remember, eve-search doesn't forget even when CCP does.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 08:32:44 -
[4650] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:I didn't post anything resembling the private conversation. At least that would seem to confirm it's authenticity, and remember, eve-search doesn't forget even when CCP does.
My hope is it was a copy paste response and that the GM just saw multibox and followed a script.
|
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
839
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 12:35:52 -
[4651] - Quote
Trakow wrote:No, I do not, yourself and others have claimed that you can activate modules across multiple clients just as fast as using Round Robin by just Alt+Tabbing, or using a "Focus on MouseOver" feature. There's also claims like THIS ONE (last para) from Lucas Kell which says that it's impossible to prove that someone is using Round Robin because they can tile windows etc, but it is, because of activations per second, for which I'm also asking for proof of ability to do the same as RR manually. This is YOUR postIn which you disputed my reply to ShadowandLight HERE (2nd paragraph) who claimed that Alt+Tabbing too fast means you're breaking the EULA, but it can't because you cannot switch clients and activate that quickly. And also challenging Sgt Ocker from several posts of his like THIS ONE where he claims that CCP cannot determine a Round Robin user from someone Alt+Tabbing or manually switching clients too fast. Therefore, I'm asking them, and anyone else who agrees with them, to prove that they can manually be as fast as a Round Robin user. And from the looks of it, nobody can prove their claims.
I was referring to your earlier posts where you made the claims regarding the speed, and where Kinete argued against it afterwards. So the burden of proof is still on you and CCP. Additionally, you're arguing guilty before proven innocent, something which no civilized society uses in court anymore. I wonder how big a proponent of "guilty before proven innocent" you would be if you got caught in a ban wave that was targeting, oh, lets say ISK buyers. And finally, CCP Peligro (I think) himself stated that they do not have a client-side detection method at Fanfest, and you can ask them yourself directly by submitting a ticket.
Check. Mate. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
190
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 19:06:21 -
[4652] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Trakow wrote:No, I do not, yourself and others have claimed that you can activate modules across multiple clients just as fast as using Round Robin by just Alt+Tabbing, or using a "Focus on MouseOver" feature. There's also claims like THIS ONE (last para) from Lucas Kell which says that it's impossible to prove that someone is using Round Robin because they can tile windows etc, but it is, because of activations per second, for which I'm also asking for proof of ability to do the same as RR manually. This is YOUR postIn which you disputed my reply to ShadowandLight HERE (2nd paragraph) who claimed that Alt+Tabbing too fast means you're breaking the EULA, but it can't because you cannot switch clients and activate that quickly. And also challenging Sgt Ocker from several posts of his like THIS ONE where he claims that CCP cannot determine a Round Robin user from someone Alt+Tabbing or manually switching clients too fast. Therefore, I'm asking them, and anyone else who agrees with them, to prove that they can manually be as fast as a Round Robin user. And from the looks of it, nobody can prove their claims. I was referring to your earlier posts where you made the claims regarding the speed, and where Kinete argued against it afterwards. So the burden of proof is still on you and CCP. Additionally, you're arguing guilty before proven innocent, something which no civilized society uses in court anymore. I wonder how big a proponent of "guilty before proven innocent" you would be if you got caught in a ban wave that was targeting, oh, lets say ISK buyers. And finally, CCP Peligro (I think) himself stated that they do not have a client-side detection method at Fanfest, and you can ask them yourself directly by submitting a ticket. Check. Mate.
ccp has no burden of proof they will do as they anyway. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
755
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 19:26:11 -
[4653] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Trakow wrote:No, I do not, yourself and others have claimed that you can activate modules across multiple clients just as fast as using Round Robin by just Alt+Tabbing, or using a "Focus on MouseOver" feature. There's also claims like THIS ONE (last para) from Lucas Kell which says that it's impossible to prove that someone is using Round Robin because they can tile windows etc, but it is, because of activations per second, for which I'm also asking for proof of ability to do the same as RR manually. This is YOUR postIn which you disputed my reply to ShadowandLight HERE (2nd paragraph) who claimed that Alt+Tabbing too fast means you're breaking the EULA, but it can't because you cannot switch clients and activate that quickly. And also challenging Sgt Ocker from several posts of his like THIS ONE where he claims that CCP cannot determine a Round Robin user from someone Alt+Tabbing or manually switching clients too fast. Therefore, I'm asking them, and anyone else who agrees with them, to prove that they can manually be as fast as a Round Robin user. And from the looks of it, nobody can prove their claims. I was referring to your earlier posts where you made the claims regarding the speed, and where Kinete argued against it afterwards. So the burden of proof is still on you and CCP. Additionally, you're arguing guilty before proven innocent, something which no civilized society uses in court anymore. I wonder how big a proponent of "guilty before proven innocent" you would be if you got caught in a ban wave that was targeting, oh, lets say ISK buyers. And finally, CCP Peligro (I think) himself stated that they do not have a client-side detection method at Fanfest, and you can ask them yourself directly by submitting a ticket. Check. Mate.
Have you noticed Trakow provides evidence to support the point he is making, whilst you do not.
Although it seems like you have " check mated " yourself. |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
370
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 19:32:35 -
[4654] - Quote
How can we prove anything?
There are guys who are hyper efficent (like this video from Tool of Society - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZz_5dI6fgM)
that are running multiple accounts using nothing more then a windowed client and I am sure will get petition. Other people have said they were banned for doing the same thing because they were deemed "too good".
the issue is CCP wont give us any metric, other then a off handed comment of 20% above the baseline. Let me tell you that anyone with some skill with hit 20% above the baseline easily.
Legacy - An EVE Online Blog
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
755
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 19:52:04 -
[4655] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:How can we prove anything? There are guys who are hyper efficent (like this video from Tool of Society - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZz_5dI6fgM)that are running multiple accounts using nothing more then a windowed client and I am sure will get petition. Other people have said they were banned for doing the same thing because they were deemed "too good". the issue is CCP wont give us any metric, other then a off handed comment of 20% above the baseline. Let me tell you that anyone with some skill with hit 20% above the baseline easily.
That guy took 5 seconds to activate the gate on all 8 accounts. He doesn't have to worry about anything. People in this thread have been claiming they can do 7-8 clients in 1 second.
Of course they won't tell you. Games companies (especially MMO's) don't divulge their detection methods as it makes it to easy for those players who do want to cheat to avoid detection.
The CSM member that looked at the whole detection and banning process can't tell you about it because of the NDA they signed. Lucas on the other hand seems to think he has been given full disclosure on CCP's detection methods.
There is nothing wrong with CCP using data analysis to flag accounts for a closer look and if you think that video shows someone being to good you definitely don't have to worry. Even I'm quicker than that. Although I also die a lot too. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5360
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 20:22:00 -
[4656] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:The CSM member that looked at the whole detection and banning process can't tell you about it because of the NDA they signed. Lucas on the other hand seems to think he has been given full disclosure on CCP's detection methods. None of the CSM members will have seen their full detection process either. And I don't know their whole process, I simply know that they will see no difference between a round robin input and a manual input without client side detection. Someone with even the most basic knowledge of software could tell you the same. You seem to get this impression that round robin means you are hammering a single butting at the speed of light producing several thousand input per second. It doesn't. Round robin produces about the same amount and frequency of input as a manual multiboxer does. Regardless of what CCPs metrics are, if they are not using client side detection they will not be able to tell the difference between the two. It really is that simple, whether you want to believe it or not.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
755
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 20:46:26 -
[4657] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:None of the CSM members will have seen their full detection process either. And I don't know their whole process, I simply know that they will see no difference between a round robin input and a manual input without client side detection. Someone with even the most basic knowledge of software could tell you the same. You seem to get this impression that round robin means you are hammering a single butting at the speed of light producing several thousand input per second. It doesn't. Round robin produces about the same amount and frequency of input as a manual multiboxer does. Regardless of what CCPs metrics are, if they are not using client side detection they will not be able to tell the difference between the two. It really is that simple, whether you want to believe it or not.
Earlier you said you could issue a command to 8 clients in 1 second by using a tiled set up and dragging your mouse across them with focus on hover. (correct?). Now as you have stated they monitor for months. How many times do you think you will miss one of your tiles and accidentally issue 2 commands to the next tile? Or just issue 2 commands to a client by mistake because you are just pressing F1(or other input) whilst dragging the mouse quickly across the screen.
Now compare to someone using a roundrobin, who just has to press F1 8 times. There will never be a case of issuing 2 commands to a client by accident.
Add to that what ever else the use for detection and the data will clearly show a difference between the 2. Maybe not over 1 or 2 play sessions but definitely when monitored over months.
Nobody is that accurate over extended periods of monitoring without using some sort of assistance. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5360
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 21:10:55 -
[4658] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Earlier you said you could issue a command to 8 clients in 1 second by using a tiled set up and dragging your mouse across them with focus on hover. (correct?). Now as you have stated they monitor for months. How many times do you think you will miss one of your tiles and accidentally issue 2 commands to the next tile? Or just issue 2 commands to a client by mistake because you are just pressing F1(or other input) whilst dragging the mouse quickly across the screen. Yes, using hover and hitting F1 you can do that with ease. The answer is never because I'm a competent PC user.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Now compare to someone using a roundrobin, who just has to press F1 8 times. There will never be a case of issuing 2 commands to a client by accident.
Add to that what ever else the use for detection and the data will clearly show a difference between the 2. Maybe not over 1 or 2 play sessions but definitely when monitored over months.
Nobody is that accurate over extended periods of monitoring without using some sort of assistance. Serious question, have you ever used round robin? It doesn't do everything. The most it really does is activate modules on each of your clients, one by one. Most of the input you give to your clients you will be doing manually, whether you use round robin or not. There really is no difference between a decent manual setup and a round robin setup.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 21:35:05 -
[4659] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:How can we prove anything? There are guys who are hyper efficent (like this video from Tool of Society - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZz_5dI6fgM)that are running multiple accounts using nothing more then a windowed client and I am sure will get petition. Other people have said they were banned for doing the same thing because they were deemed "too good". the issue is CCP wont give us any metric, other then a off handed comment of 20% above the baseline. Let me tell you that anyone with some skill with hit 20% above the baseline easily. That guy took 5 seconds to activate the gate on all 8 accounts. He doesn't have to worry about anything. People in this thread have been claiming they can do 7-8 clients in 1 second. Of course they won't tell you. Games companies (especially MMO's) don't divulge their detection methods as it makes it to easy for those players who do want to cheat to avoid detection. The CSM member that looked at the whole detection and banning process can't tell you about it because of the NDA they signed. Lucas on the other hand seems to think he has been given full disclosure on CCP's detection methods. There is nothing wrong with CCP using data analysis to flag accounts for a closer look and if you think that video shows someone being to good you definitely don't have to worry. Even I'm quicker than that. Although I also die a lot too. In my defense I intentionally slow the gate activation on the domis so I can insure the paladin (the first character) gets aggro first. I could activate the gates MUCH faster but all it did was create bouncing aggro which made my times slower as I have to start locking/repping much quicker. I didn't post any videos from the last couple times I've run as it's just the same thing but faster. I now run a different setup on the paladin and MUCH cheaper fits all over. The videos are what I call "average" runs meaning I can keep that up over the course of hours. Sure I could run faster but natural fatigue sets in after a while. The video posted in particular was after several hours of playing (hence the 2:30 am time).
There's also two screens I'm using that you can't see in that video. The secondary screen on the same computer (to the right) and a separate machine to the left with keyboard/mouse/monitor. http://i.imgur.com/7spamN0.jpg
Lets see video of you doing it then. I guarantee you're not as fast as you think you are.
I've been running this setup as my primary setup since Jan 1st but I first started running tests of it in December. So far I've lost one ship which was a dominix. I lost it because of a badly timed server going down notice. I didn't notice the pop up was still on the logi screen so my hotkeys didn't work (enter usually closes the pop up). Since I run armor the reps land on the end of the cycle and landed a few ms too slow. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
22
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 22:19:13 -
[4660] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Trakow wrote:It's not a fact until proven, it's just claims and hearsay. And I'm not talking about just clicking 8 buttons, I'm talking about activating modules on 8 different accounts within one second, which you say is not hard, so again, I say prove it. Show me. I say bench pressing 800 pounds is not hard, do you believe me? It's 8 buttons on 3 screens, always visible. No swapping required. They may as well be one client, so yes, you are literally talking about pressing 8 buttons. I can even just swipe my pointer across the windows hammering F1 because focus can be set to hover. And no, I'm not going to sit here recording home videos for you, stop demanding I do, pervert. I don't care that you aren't very good at using PCs and think that it's impossible, I really do not care what you think, and since it's irrelevant there's no need for me to prove anything to you. You want to go off thinking I'm a liar? Go right ahead. I am done discussing this with you.
Failure leading to childish insults, typical.
Lucas Kell wrote:Trakow wrote:Again, you bring up multiple monitors to change the subject... it doesn't matter if somebody has 100 monitors... I'm sure the majority of Eve players have more than one monitor, so those players fall well into the "normal" player statistics. So you're saying that the majority do, and that the majority have enough screen space to multibox efficiently, and that most people use that space for multiple accounts rapidly performing multibox activities? The thing is, they don't, so no, a "normal" player won't be multiboxing that efficiently, and so manual multiboxers are definitely at risk. The thing is, I have used both round robin and a manual setup. The manual setup is slightly more efficient possibly just because the round robin setup left screen you couldn't; see while the manual setup shows everything at all times). So if round robin is banned, so is a decent manual setup as the interaction speed with the clients is identical. I'm going from actual first hand experience with both here, while you are guessing based on what seems to be a crippling inability to use a PC.
Again, nothing proven and more immature insults. FYI, I've been using PC's since 386's were new, gaming on them for over 2 decades, and administering them as my career for almost 2 decades. So you can stop the childish insults as I'd probably think the same thing seeing you use one, except I'm a grown up and won't point and laugh at you. |
|
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
22
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 22:24:41 -
[4661] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Trakow wrote:No, I do not, yourself and others have claimed that you can activate modules across multiple clients just as fast as using Round Robin by just Alt+Tabbing, or using a "Focus on MouseOver" feature. There's also claims like THIS ONE (last para) from Lucas Kell which says that it's impossible to prove that someone is using Round Robin because they can tile windows etc, but it is, because of activations per second, for which I'm also asking for proof of ability to do the same as RR manually. This is YOUR postIn which you disputed my reply to ShadowandLight HERE (2nd paragraph) who claimed that Alt+Tabbing too fast means you're breaking the EULA, but it can't because you cannot switch clients and activate that quickly. And also challenging Sgt Ocker from several posts of his like THIS ONE where he claims that CCP cannot determine a Round Robin user from someone Alt+Tabbing or manually switching clients too fast. Therefore, I'm asking them, and anyone else who agrees with them, to prove that they can manually be as fast as a Round Robin user. And from the looks of it, nobody can prove their claims. I was referring to your earlier posts where you made the claims regarding the speed, and where Kinete argued against it afterwards. So the burden of proof is still on you and CCP. Additionally, you're arguing guilty before proven innocent, something which no civilized society uses in court anymore. I wonder how big a proponent of "guilty before proven innocent" you would be if you got caught in a ban wave that was targeting, oh, lets say ISK buyers. And finally, CCP Peligro (I think) himself stated that they do not have a client-side detection method at Fanfest, and you can ask them yourself directly by submitting a ticket. Check. Mate.
No it's not on me to prove as other were claiming that they can manually play and still be accused of using Round Robin because they can do it just as fast, therefore, I asked to prove it. Also, asking for proof has nothing to do with guilty before proven innocent, no idea where you came up with that one. But when someone says what they claim to do is a fact, they're wrong. Saying something doesn't make it a fact. A fact is something that is proven. As for ISK buyers, again, no idea where you came up with that. And lastly, the proof I'm asking for is things they will find server-side in the logs, I never said anything about client-side detection. You just keep coming up with random stuff to prove a lost point.
As for the checkmate comment, thanks, I needed the laugh |
Trakow
Beta Switch
22
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 22:29:17 -
[4662] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:How can we prove anything? There are guys who are hyper efficent (like this video from Tool of Society - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZz_5dI6fgM)that are running multiple accounts using nothing more then a windowed client and I am sure will get petition. Other people have said they were banned for doing the same thing because they were deemed "too good". the issue is CCP wont give us any metric, other then a off handed comment of 20% above the baseline. Let me tell you that anyone with some skill with hit 20% above the baseline easily.
That's not nearly as efficient as using Round Robin. You can count him doing actions in 2-3 clients within one second at the most, whereas a Round Robin user could do it much faster since all they have to do is press a single button repeatedly. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5360
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 22:38:12 -
[4663] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Again, nothing proven and more immature insults. FYI, I've been using PC's since 386's were new, gaming on them for over 2 decades, and administering them as my career for almost 2 decades. Then you should have no problem using them. Swipe your pointer across the screen, hit F1 8 times. It's really not hard. And there were no insults there, I legitimately believe if you are unable to input commands that quickly, it's a pretty crippling inability to use PCs. And again, I have nothing to prove to a random on the internet who seems to have an unnatural desire for me to send him home movies.
Besides which, it's still completely irrelevant since the comparison is against a "normal" player. So answer this very simple question. Can a player with 12 windows tiled across 3 monitors act and react faster to each window than a player with a single monitor having to alt tab between clients? If the answer is yes (hint hint, it is) then someone with multiple monitors is at risk of being seen as someone using tools. As I stated above, round robin and a decent manual multibox setup are practically identical in efficiency and use (manual is slightly more efficient as it forces you to use a screen layout which is slightly quicker to use, whereas round robin you tend to use thumbnails). If they are banning round robin, they will be banning manual multiboxers, guaranteed.
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
5360
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 22:41:57 -
[4664] - Quote
Trakow wrote:That's not nearly as efficient as using Round Robin. You can count him doing actions in 2-3 clients within one second at the most, whereas a Round Robin user could do it much faster since all they have to do is press a single button repeatedly. I'm guessing you've not actually used round robin? You won't be hammering the button like a crazy person. You need to be accurate in how many times you press it, it's limited in how quickly it can get between screens, so if you hit it too fast it'll skip clients. But for the most part, there's simply no point in hammering it that fast. You want your input to be slightly staggered anyway, so most round robin users will push it about as fast as that video, maybe a smidge faster. And using a tiled layout he'd skip out on the times his windows overlap in the wrong order and save a bit more time too then.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
22
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 23:04:56 -
[4665] - Quote
Keep on trollin Lucas. Your claims fall on deaf ears. And you haven't been in trouble for being as super fast as you claim to be so I don't know why you're complaining. Nobody has been banned for being too good. And anyone that does is a 1-in-a-million case and it will get resolved. Don't have to be all dramatic like as if thousands of players that are good at the game are being banned all of a sudden lol |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
756
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 06:28:10 -
[4666] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Earlier you said you could issue a command to 8 clients in 1 second by using a tiled set up and dragging your mouse across them with focus on hover. (correct?). Now as you have stated they monitor for months. How many times do you think you will miss one of your tiles and accidentally issue 2 commands to the next tile? Or just issue 2 commands to a client by mistake because you are just pressing F1(or other input) whilst dragging the mouse quickly across the screen. Yes, using hover and hitting F1 you can do that with ease. The answer is never because I'm a competent PC user. That would be more than just competent. You would need hand eye coordination skills that make NASA pilots look like toddlers putting a square peg into the round hole.
Lucas Kell wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Now compare to someone using a roundrobin, who just has to press F1 8 times. There will never be a case of issuing 2 commands to a client by accident.
Add to that what ever else the use for detection and the data will clearly show a difference between the 2. Maybe not over 1 or 2 play sessions but definitely when monitored over months.
Nobody is that accurate over extended periods of monitoring without using some sort of assistance. Serious question, have you ever used round robin? It doesn't do everything. The most it really does is activate modules on each of your clients, one by one. Most of the input you give to your clients you will be doing manually, whether you use round robin or not. There really is no difference between a decent manual setup and a round robin setup.
No, I haven't used roundrobin. It wasn't necessary the first time I used ISBoxer and as it breaks Eve's EULA/TOS & policies I won't use it now. It does exactly what I described above.
I have already described how CCP can tell the difference between a manual set up and a roundrobin set up. Just because you think you are a superhuman who never makes mistakes inputting commands to your clients over many months of monitoring, doesn't mean you actually are. You are just as normal as the rest of us and will make mistakes that a roundrobin user won't. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5360
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 06:35:14 -
[4667] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:[No, I haven't used roundrobin. It wasn't necessary the first time I used ISBoxer and as it breaks Eve's EULA/TOS & policies I won't use it now. It does exactly what I described above. So you've never used it, yet you claim to know all about it. Mate, I've used both. I know first hand what both round robin and a manual setup are like, and they are identical. Any small errors you make with a manul setup you will also make with round robin, because the vast majority of what you do is also manual.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
756
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 06:41:55 -
[4668] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:[No, I haven't used roundrobin. It wasn't necessary the first time I used ISBoxer and as it breaks Eve's EULA/TOS & policies I won't use it now. It does exactly what I described above. So you've never used it, yet you claim to know all about it. Mate, I've used both. I know first hand what both round robin and a manual setup are like, and they are identical. Any small errors you make with a manul setup you will also make with round robin, because the vast majority of what you do is also manual.
Pressing F1 8 times within a server tick of 1 second.
Pressing F1 8 times within a server tick of 1 second, whilst dragging your mouse across multiple monitors with 8 tiled accounts and making sure each client gets 1 and only 1 F1 command.
You think those 2 are identical?
Both are possible but only 1 of them can be done repeatedly without mistakes when monitored over a period of months. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5360
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 06:55:35 -
[4669] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Pressing F1 8 times within a server tick of 1 second.
Pressing F1 8 times within a server tick of 1 second, whilst dragging your mouse across multiple monitors with 8 tiled accounts and making sure each client gets 1 and only 1 F1 command.
You think those 2 are identical?
Both are possible but only 1 of them can be done repeatedly without mistakes when monitored over a period of months. While yes, they are identical, you will almost never be doing it that fast, and you will rarely be doing it. Take mining as an example as it's the most common use. You'll use it once to activate your defenses and once to activate your lasers when you enter a new field. That's it. After that you will be using each client individually. And when hammering it like a mental person you will be just as likely to hit it one too many or one too few times (or simply have one hit the same client twice which happens if you are hitting a round robin key too quickly) as you will be to do the same in a hover and push setup. In addition you'll generally want your screens slightly staggered anyway, so you'll usually actively pause between presses.
This is the problem, you might understand on a very basic level what a round robin does, but you have no idea how it's actually used in a working environment.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
756
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 07:13:05 -
[4670] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Pressing F1 8 times within a server tick of 1 second.
Pressing F1 8 times within a server tick of 1 second, whilst dragging your mouse across multiple monitors with 8 tiled accounts and making sure each client gets 1 and only 1 F1 command.
You think those 2 are identical?
Both are possible but only 1 of them can be done repeatedly without mistakes when monitored over a period of months. While yes, they are identical, you will almost never be doing it that fast, and you will rarely be doing it. Take mining as an example as it's the most common use. You'll use it once to activate your defenses and once to activate your lasers when you enter a new field. That's it. After that you will be using each client individually. And when hammering it like a mental person you will be just as likely to hit it one too many or one too few times (or simply have one hit the same client twice which happens if you are hitting a round robin key too quickly) as you will be to do the same in a hover and push setup. In addition you'll generally want your screens slightly staggered anyway, so you'll usually actively pause between presses. This is the problem, you might understand on a very basic level what a round robin does, but you have no idea how it's actually used in a working environment.
They are not identical.
One of them has a vastly higher level of accuracy than the other. Over an extended period of monitoring there will be a huge difference between the two.
Add CCP's other detection methods and it is a very good detection tool. |
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5363
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 07:56:30 -
[4671] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:They are not identical.
One of them has a vastly higher level of accuracy than the other. Over an extended period of monitoring there will be a huge difference between the two.
Add CCP's other detection methods and it is a very good detection tool. Sigh... It's almost like you don't even bother reading posts. When actually being used from EVE, round robin and a decent manual setup are identical. That is a fact. Neither is more accurate because the vast majority of what you do in both cases is manual. You don't understand how round robin works. You think you just sit there hammering the button as fast as you can and magic happens on the clients. It doesn't.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
756
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 08:42:53 -
[4672] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:They are not identical.
One of them has a vastly higher level of accuracy than the other. Over an extended period of monitoring there will be a huge difference between the two.
Add CCP's other detection methods and it is a very good detection tool. Sigh... It's almost like you don't even bother reading posts. When actually being used from EVE, round robin and a decent manual setup are identical. That is a fact. Neither is more accurate because the vast majority of what you do in both cases is manual. You don't understand how round robin works. You think you just sit there hammering the button as fast as you can and magic happens on the clients. It doesn't.
RoundRobin:
F1-F1-F1-F1-F1-F1-F1-F1.
Manual Inputs:
F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse.
I can't spell it out any simpler than that for you. They are not identical and over an extended period of time, they will look completely different in the data CCP collects.
It was you who made the claim you could issue a command to 7-8 clients within 1 second. If you wish to backtrack on that claim, you are free to do so. But until you tell me you have changed your mind, that is the metric I will use to show you RoundRobin and manual inputs into tiled clients will look different in the data, when monitored for months. (Which is your claim as well). |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5367
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 10:04:47 -
[4673] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:RoundRobin:F1-F1-F1-F1-F1-F1-F1-F1. Manual Inputs:F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse. I can't spell it out any simpler than that for you. They are not identical and over an extended period of time, they will look completely different in the data CCP collects. Lol, OK, if CCP are standing over your shoulder watching what you do, no, they are not identical. But from the detection they have (i.e. not client side), in the actual use cases for the methods, they are identical.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:It was you who made the claim you could issue a command to 7-8 clients within 1 second. If you wish to backtrack on that claim, you are free to do so. But until you tell me you have changed your mind, that is the metric I will use to show you RoundRobin and manual inputs into tiled clients will look different in the data, when monitored for months. (Which is your claim as well). I can, most people can. You swipe your mouse from left to right hitting a button at regular intervals. If you can rub your tummy and pat your head at the same time you have the necessary skills to do it. But it's irrelevant since there's no need to do it.
The problem is you're trying to take the theoretical maximum input rate and use that as the bar for measurement. But that's not the case. If round robin were needed to be used 8 times a second every 5 seconds, then yes, it would eventually show up differently to manual input. But it's not. It's used maybe twice an hour, staggered to leave a gap between your clients for all the other manual control you will need to do that isn't simply "pres butan". So there's no difference between the two.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
756
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 10:15:45 -
[4674] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:RoundRobin:F1-F1-F1-F1-F1-F1-F1-F1. Manual Inputs:F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse-F1-Move mouse. I can't spell it out any simpler than that for you. They are not identical and over an extended period of time, they will look completely different in the data CCP collects. Lol, OK, if CCP are standing over your shoulder watching what you do, no, they are not identical. But from the detection they have (i.e. not client side), in the actual use cases for the methods, they are identical. Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:It was you who made the claim you could issue a command to 7-8 clients within 1 second. If you wish to backtrack on that claim, you are free to do so. But until you tell me you have changed your mind, that is the metric I will use to show you RoundRobin and manual inputs into tiled clients will look different in the data, when monitored for months. (Which is your claim as well). I can, most people can. You swipe your mouse from left to right hitting a button at regular intervals. If you can rub your tummy and pat your head at the same time you have the necessary skills to do it. But it's irrelevant since there's no need to do it. The problem is you're trying to take the theoretical maximum input rate and use that as the bar for measurement. But that's not the case. If round robin were needed to be used 8 times a second every 5 seconds, then yes, it would eventually show up differently to manual input. But it's not. It's used maybe twice an hour, staggered to leave a gap between your clients for all the other manual control you will need to do that isn't simply "pres butan". So there's no difference between the two. Thank you for that Lucas. Its good to know you are able to see reason, when its put to you.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5368
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 10:38:03 -
[4675] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Thank you for that Lucas. Its good to know you are able to see reason, when its put to you. So we are in agreement that under normal use cases, round robin and manual control are identical, thus manual controlled multiboxers who are too efficient are at risk of being wrongfully banned. Glad to hear it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
756
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 12:51:04 -
[4676] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Thank you for that Lucas. Its good to know you are able to see reason, when its put to you. So we are in agreement that under normal use cases, round robin and manual control are identical, thus manual controlled multiboxers who are too efficient are at risk of being wrongfully banned. Glad to hear it.
No Lucas.
I've been saying CCP can tell the difference between someone using a RoundRobin and someone manual issuing commands through a tiled set up and if monitored over a period of months there will be enough data to do so accurately.
Lucas Kell wrote:The problem is you're trying to take the theoretical maximum input rate and use that as the bar for measurement. But that's not the case. If round robin were needed to be used 8 times a second every 5 seconds, then yes, it would eventually show up differently to manual input.But it's not. It's used maybe twice an hour, staggered to leave a gap between your clients for all the other manual control you will need to do that isn't simply "pres butan". So there's no difference between the two. The underlined sentence is you saying CCP can tell the difference between someone using a RoundRobin and manual input.
The difference in frequency someone uses the RoundRobin doesn't change the nature of the data collected, it just makes it easier to see. Someone using it 8 times a second every 5 seconds will get caught a lot quicker than someone using it 8 times a second every 30 minutes.
So you have admitted CCP can tell the difference between RoundRobin and someone manual inputting commands over a tiled set up. If you don't think monitoring someone over a period of months is long enough, how long do you think they should watch people for? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5369
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 13:54:05 -
[4677] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:No Lucas.
I've been saying CCP can tell the difference between someone using a RoundRobin and someone manual issuing commands through a tiled set up and if monitored over a period of months there will be enough data to do so accurately. Which they can't in any normal use case.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:The problem is you're trying to take the theoretical maximum input rate and use that as the bar for measurement. But that's not the case. If round robin were needed to be used 8 times a second every 5 seconds, then yes, it would eventually show up differently to manual input.But it's not. It's used maybe twice an hour, staggered to leave a gap between your clients for all the other manual control you will need to do that isn't simply "pres butan". So there's no difference between the two. The underlined sentence is you saying CCP can tell the difference between someone using a RoundRobin and manual input. That's me agreeing that if taken to a theoretical maximum you could tell the difference. But it's not taken to a theoretical maximum. What you seem to be unable to comprehend is that when round robin is in use it's the exact same actions being taken at the exact same rate as when you are doing it manually.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:The difference in frequency someone uses the RoundRobin doesn't change the nature of the data collected, it just makes it easier to see. Someone using it 8 times a second every 5 seconds will get caught a lot quicker than someone using it 8 times a second every 30 minutes. Nobody will be using it 8 times a second every 5 seconds. Nobody will be using it 8 times a second at all, because in reality you are staggering your clients. When I did use round robin back when it was allowed I'd press it once every two seconds for 8 presses, then I'd not do that again until the next time I fleet warped which could be anywhere from half an hour to a few hours. The key issue here is that there is a difference between what in theory a system can be used for an actual use cases which are supposedly banned.
Imagine 2 sets of speakers, one can hit 100db, the other 150db. Now imagine that a law is made that you cannot use speakers that can reach above 120db, even if you turn them down. If they were both playing at 80db and you weren't able to see the speakers and had to go only by noise, you'd not know which is which. That's what we have here. If you "turn up" round robin to 150db, which nobody does, then yes, you can tell the difference. But in a normal situation with normal gameplay there is no difference. Does that help you understand? Or are you going to just bang on about "but but but they check for months!"
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:So you have admitted CCP can tell the difference between RoundRobin and someone manual inputting commands over a tiled set up. If you don't think monitoring someone over a period of months is long enough, how long do you think they should watch people for? I think they should either use client side detection or give up on the idea of trying to ban people for using round robin without banning standard multiboxing. The problem is it's not just round robin, they've made it clear that if you are too efficient compared to some baseline, they'll assume you are using tools. If you continue to be that efficient, you will be banned.
And I am done discussing this with you. You either don't want to get it or you lack the capability for understanding, but in all honesty I couldn't care less what you think. You've admitted quite clearly that you don't actually have any experience with what you are talking about so everything you say is completely and utterly irrelevant.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
756
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 14:55:32 -
[4678] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:[That's me agreeing that if taken to a theoretical maximum you could tell the difference. But it's not taken to a theoretical maximum. What you seem to be unable to comprehend is that when round robin is in use it's the exact same actions being taken at the exact same rate as when you are doing it manually. It doesn't matter if someone takes it to the "theoretical maximum" or not. It doesn't change the data. It just makes it easier to see when CCP analyses it and its not the exact same actions either. With the RoundRobin you don't have to move the mouse between button presses. Which is where the discrepancies will show up, issuing 2 commands to 1 client or missing a client entirely etc.
Lucas Kell wrote:Nobody will be using it 8 times a second every 5 seconds. Nobody will be using it 8 times a second at all, because in reality you are staggering your clients. When I did use round robin back when it was allowed I'd press it once every two seconds for 8 presses, then I'd not do that again until the next time I fleet warped which could be anywhere from half an hour to a few hours. The key issue here is that there is a difference between what in theory a system can be used for an actual use cases which are supposedly banned. I used 8 times a second every 5 seconds because that is the metric you gave in your earlier post. Now you are saying 8 times every 2 secs. It doesn't change anything it will show up in the data over time. The more someone uses it the easier it is to pick them out of the data.
Lucas Kell wrote:Imagine 2 sets of speakers, one can hit 100db, the other 150db. Now imagine that a law is made that you cannot use speakers that can reach above 120db, even if you turn them down. If they were both playing at 80db and you weren't able to see the speakers and had to go only by noise, you'd not know which is which. That's what we have here. If you "turn up" round robin to 150db, which nobody does, then yes, you can tell the difference. But in a normal situation with normal gameplay there is no difference. Does that help you understand? Or are you going to just bang on about "but but but they check for months!" I thought you where concerned about people being banned incorrectly? If your example has any merit, then no-one will be getting banned. So whats the problem
Lucas Kell wrote:I think they should either use client side detection or give up on the idea of trying to ban people for using round robin without banning standard multiboxing. The problem is it's not just round robin, they've made it clear that if you are too efficient compared to some baseline, they'll assume you are using tools. If you continue to be that efficient, you will be banned.
And I am done discussing this with you. You either don't want to get it or you lack the capability for understanding, but in all honesty I couldn't care less what you think. You've admitted quite clearly that you don't actually have any experience with what you are talking about so everything you say is completely and utterly irrelevant. For what its worth I agree, they should use client side detection and I hope they actually do. It wouldn't be unheard of for a games company to say they don't use any client side detection, when they actually do. Players sometimes get upset if they think a games company is monitoring their equipment. Even though they agree to let them when they accept the EULA.
Oh and everything I say is as "completely and utterly irrelevant" as everything you say. They only people whose opinions actually matter is CCP's. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5370
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 15:31:03 -
[4679] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Which is where the discrepancies will show up, issuing 2 commands to 1 client or missing a client entirely etc. Which also happens wtih round robin because round robing is also executed manually per press! Pressing too quickly can cause it to do [switch client][F1][F1][Switch client].
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:I used 8 times a second every 5 seconds because that is the metric you gave in your earlier post. Now you are saying 8 times every 2 secs. It doesn't change anything it will show up in the data over time. The more someone uses it the easier it is to pick them out of the data. That's just a random figure pulled out of the air that everyone seems to be throwing around as "You must prove you can do this manually or you pinion is irrelevant". You'd know what is actually done if you'd ever bothered to use the mechanic you are complaining about.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:I thought you where concerned about people being banned incorrectly? If your example has any merit, then no-one will be getting banned. So whats the problem Except they will be getting banned because they will be above the "average player" efficiency threshold which seems to be the main factor. Say for example some genius though "well on average speakers play at 70db, so anything above that we'll ban as they are probably breaking the rules".
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:For what its worth I agree, they should use client side detection and I hope they actually do. It wouldn't be unheard of for a games company to say they don't use any client side detection, when they actually do. Players sometimes get upset if they think a games company is monitoring their equipment. Even though they agree to let them when they accept the EULA. I don't think it's going to happen. From what they said at fanfest it's something to do with European laws and privacy and all the usual tears that come with that making it a pain in the ass to do.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Oh and everything I say is as "completely and utterly irrelevant" as everything you say. They only people whose opinions actually matter is CCP's. Our opinions would matter if people with no knowledge of the subject wouldn't keep turning everything said into a massive argument over basic understanding of the system.
And that really is it. I'm not going on this roundabout again until something different comes up.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
756
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 16:32:48 -
[4680] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Which also happens wtih round robin because round robin is also executed manually per press! Pressing too quickly can cause it to do [switch client][F1][F1][Switch client] or any other number of random behaviours. You might press it 5 times it does the first two fine, the third one twice, the fourth fine and misses the fifth. Then those people won't get flagged by the data analysis. Just because guilty people slip through doesn't mean innocent people are getting caught.
Lucas Kell wrote:That's just a random figure pulled out of the air that everyone seems to be throwing around as "You must prove you can do this manually or you pinion is irrelevant". You'd know what is actually done if you'd ever bothered to use the mechanic you are complaining about. If you are going to pull random figures out of the air, you can't then complain when someone quotes those figures back to you. Maybe you should stop using random figures. Why would I try the mechanic when I know it would get me banned.
Lucas Kell wrote:Except they will be getting banned because they will be above the "average player" efficiency threshold which seems to be the main factor. Say for example some genius though "well on average speakers play at 70db, so anything above that we'll ban as they are probably breaking the rules". In your example they would set their detection to 120db and the only people who would get banned would be the ones breaking the rules.
Lucas Kell wrote:I don't think it's going to happen. From what they said at fanfest it's something to do with European laws and privacy and all the usual tears that come with that making it a pain in the ass to do. Other gaming companies seem to do it just fine. It would be strange if CCP couldn't find a way.
Lucas Kell wrote:Our opinions would matter if people with no knowledge of the subject wouldn't keep turning everything said into a massive argument over basic understanding of the system.
And that really is it. I'm not going on this roundabout again until something different comes up.
Agree completely. At the start of this thread CCP made a very clear statement. You (amongst others) wouldn't accept it and have been back tracking and changing what it actually is your complaining about. You start out claiming it won't make any difference, that multi-boxers will just use a work around. It turns out the work arounds break the EULA themselves, so you move on and start claiming CCP is interpreting their EULA wrongly. You get proven wrong, so you move on to claiming CCP's detection methods can't tell the difference between players breaking the EULA and those that are just good at the game. No evidence is provided at any time to back up your claims. You finally admit you don't know what CCP detection methods are (you only know about part of them) but still you claim CCP is wrong.
I'm not claiming CCP won't make mistakes, no system will be 100% accurate. There are always going to cases where a player/s get incorrectly banned. Even if CCP did employ a GM for every player and had them stand behind us watching what we do, there would still be the occasional mistake. But to try and make out its some sort of huge problem is, quite frankly ridiculous. Take hyperdunking. Players got banned for that. CCP looked into it and repealed the bans and made a nice statement about it. It doesn't mean the detection methods are fundamentally flawed. |
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5370
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 16:59:18 -
[4681] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I don't think it's going to happen. From what they said at fanfest it's something to do with European laws and privacy and all the usual tears that come with that making it a pain in the ass to do. Other gaming companies seem to do it just fine. It would be strange if CCP couldn't find a way. It's probably more to do with :effort:
How long did it take them to sort out alliance logos?
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:You (amongst others) wouldn't accept it and have been back tracking and changing what it actually is your complaining about. You start out claiming it won't make any difference, that multi-boxers will just use a work around. It turns out the work arounds break the EULA themselves, so you move on and start claiming CCP is interpreting their EULA wrongly. You get proven wrong, so you move on to claiming CCP's detection methods can't tell the difference between players breaking the EULA and those that are just good at the game. Actually I accepted what they were saying at the beginning even though I though it to be complete horseshit, but their original statements and diagrams showed that RR and VFX were not a problem. Later they clarified and since then I've questioned enforcement, know how difficult it can be to detect even with client side detection. I then went to fanfest and took the time to go and speak to the devs to ask them questions about it, at which point they informed me they had no client side detection making me increasingly worried about how they are going to eliminate false positives, because to be quite honest, there's no gameplay benefit to removing RR and VFX, so the tolerance on false positives should be zero.
The thing is, you are here attacking and trolling anyone against CCPs changes here, but you refsue to even learn what it is you are arguing about. I went out of my way before the ban came in to activate an ISBoxer subscription, try out multiple multibox setups, using VFX, using RR, using multiplexing as well as multiple forms of manual multiboxing using nothing, ISBoxer without controls and Eve-o preview. But no, that's not good enough. You want me to not have an opinion about CCPs ability to enforce their EULA fairly and when I do you insult me, as if I'm the one who hasn't jumped through every hoop to understand what's going on.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
756
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 18:00:50 -
[4682] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Agree completely. At the start of this thread CCP made a very clear statement. You (amongst others) wouldn't accept it and have been back tracking and changing what it actually is your complaining about. You start out claiming it won't make any difference, that multi-boxers will just use a work around. It turns out the work arounds break the EULA themselves, so you move on and start claiming CCP is interpreting their EULA wrongly. You get proven wrong, so you move on to claiming CCP's detection methods can't tell the difference between players breaking the EULA and those that are just good at the game. No evidence is provided at any time to back up your claims. You finally admit you don't know what CCP detection methods are (you only know about part of them) but still you claim CCP is wrong. Actually I accepted what they were saying at the beginning even though I though it to be complete horseshit, but their original statements and diagrams showed that RR and VFX were not a problem. Later they clarified and since then I've questioned enforcement, know how difficult it can be to detect even with client side detection. I then went to fanfest and took the time to go and speak to the devs to ask them questions about it, at which point they informed me they had no client side detection making me increasingly worried about how they are going to eliminate false positives, because to be quite honest, there's no gameplay benefit to removing RR and VFX, so the tolerance on false positives should be zero. I've put the quote back to the way I typed it.
You do not know CCP's detection methods, you only know part of it. The part you do know about is more than adequate for the task of finding people using third party programs to assist them in controlling multiple accounts. Its your opinion that there's no gameplay benefit to removing RR and VFX. CCP's opinion differs, I know this because they used to allow it and now they have changed their minds. You are using the same defense the people who bot use. Its is always beneficial to remove the people who won't obey Eve's EULA/TOS &policies from the game.
Lucas Kell wrote:but you refsue to even learn what it is you are arguing about. I went out of my way before the ban came in to activate an ISBoxer subscription, try out multiple multibox setups, using VFX, using RR, using multiplexing as well as multiple forms of manual multiboxing using nothing, ISBoxer without controls and Eve-o preview. But no, that's not good enough. You want me to not have an opinion about CCPs ability to enforce their EULA fairly and when I do you insult me, as if I'm the one who hasn't jumped through every hoop to understand what's going on. I've already stated I used ISBoxer when all its functions were allowed. I currently use IsBoxer in a manner which doesn't break Eve's EULA etc. When I stated this previously you dismissed it as irrelevant , but now its suddenly its an important part of being able to comment on the subject. Careful there Lucas you are starting to show similar characteristics to Nolak. You are free to have any opinion you want, we all are. Just for the record I haven't insulted you and it does you no credit to claim otherwise. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5377
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 18:08:05 -
[4683] - Quote
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
22
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 04:00:22 -
[4684] - Quote
So, you seem to make up a lot of claims like as if you're an inside man, or you can see in the future, or know what CCP will do and how they do it, all of which is false. Yet you keep spouting the same thing, based on absolutely nothing... You don't know what CCP does or how they do it, and even if you spoke with someone from CCP, they all don't know everything that's going on, and even if they do, they won't tell you.
So tell me, about all these claims of yours:
Lucas Kell's multiple snipped posts wrote:#4129 " My issue is that their detection sucks, meaning that people who manual multibox using no tools are at risk of being banned" #4134 "You can get banned for using nothing but the client if you are too efficient at controlling it" #4148 " From a server point of view it's indistinguishable, so either they are not banning round robin (which they claim to be) or they are banning legitimate manual multiboxers" #4150 "At most they can make a best guess which will still result in false positives with legitimate players being banned" #4156 " I guarantee that if you are too efficient you will find yourself banned down the line" #4167 " If you alt tab and are too efficient consistently, you will find yourself getting banned." #4170 " their detection method means it's impossible for them to tell the difference between someone with a decent manual setup and a player using banned tools such as ISBoxer, meaning that players are now at risk of being banned for playing legitimately" #4198 "The problem is that CCPs detection means that being too efficient with a manual multibox setup which you have no problem with will also get you banned" #4201 "they are looking at it purely from server side logs with no client side detection there's no way for them to tell which is which. This will lead to false positives, which are impossible to prove as such, and so people will get banned for playing the game in the way they are being told is allowed." #4213 "CCP are looking at whether or not you are significantly more efficient than the average and banning based on that." #4240 " Can a player with 12 windows tiled across 3 monitors act and react faster to each window than a player with a single monitor having to alt tab between clients? If the answer is yes (hint hint, it is) then someone with multiple monitors is at risk of being seen as someone using tools." #4252 "round robin and manual control are identical, thus manual controlled multiboxers who are too efficient are at risk of being wrongfully banned" #4254 " The key issue here is that there is a difference between what in theory a system can be used for an actual use cases which are supposedly banned"....... "I think they should either use client side detection or give up on the idea of trying to ban people for using round robin without banning standard multiboxing" ....... " If you continue to be that efficient, you will be banned." #4256 "Except they will be getting banned because they will be above the "average player" efficiency threshold which seems to be the main factor"
How do you supposedly know any of this? You don't, and like I said before, it's not like there's a huge mass banning going on so there's no need to be dramatic and try to start panic based off of your baseless statements that you pulled out of who knows where... You're basically just making stuff up, and honestly, I don't think anyone cares, especially CCP. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
22
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 04:13:33 -
[4685] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:When actually being used from EVE, round robin and a decent manual setup are identical. That is a fact. Neither is more accurate because the vast majority of what you do in both cases is manual. You don't understand how round robin works. You think you just sit there hammering the button as fast as you can and magic happens on the clients. It doesn't.
Again, facts are only facts after they have been proven, which you, or anyone else haven't been able to do.
Also here you said IN POST #4150:
Lucas Kell wrote:Obviously you have no experience with what we are talking about here. I'm a developer, I know how software works, I know a heck of a lot about data analysis, and I know how things like ISBoxer operate.
But earlier you said IN POST #4137
Lucas Kell wrote:As I've stated before though, I was there at fanfest and asked CCP questions directly to this, and there's no way they can view the client, they are banning from data analysis which is notorious for false positives.
Obviously you don't know "a heck of a lot about data analysis", or you would know how it can be done. I on the other hand do know a lot of about data analysis and it's part of my career (and I also develop software to use with databases), and no I don't mean just using our dozen sets of load-balanced SQL servers each with dozens of instances, which I do, but much more beyond that by analyzing the data itself which collected from seemingly "random" data. Similar to what CCP has access to. But using pattern recognition combined with linear discriminant analysis will show the likely violators, then apply the Probit Model to that, and more specifically probit regression, which will yield very little to no false positives, especially after analyzing logs over a length of time . So I don't know what you're worried about since you're a self-proclaimed expert on data analysis, otherwise you would know that there's nothing to worry about. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5387
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 06:54:27 -
[4686] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Where do you get these accusation towards CCP from? How do you supposedly know any of this? You don't, and like I said before, it's not like there's a huge mass banning going on so there's no need to be dramatic and try to start panic based off of your baseless statements that you pulled out of who knows where... You're basically just making stuff up, and honestly, I don't think anyone cares, especially CCP. Dude, I'm not going to go through this again. They have stated how their detection works and it does not exclude false positives. At no point did I say there's a huge mass banning, but people who manual multibox too well will get banned in error. I honestly don;t care what you think, and to be quite honest I'm fed up of discussing it. For some reason I'm not allowed to have the opinion that legitimate players will be banned, eve though CCP stated themselves they have no client side detection and that a large part of their detection is how efficient a player is, yet you, also with no evidence, claim that CCP are mystically able to avoid false positives, something nobody can ever realistically guarantee.
Trakow wrote:Obviously you don't know "a heck of a lot about data analysis", or you would know how it can be done. I on the other hand do know a lot of about data analysis and it's part of my career (and I also develop software to use with databases), and no I don't mean just using our dozen sets of load-balanced SQL servers each with dozens of instances, which I do, but much more beyond that by analyzing the data itself which is collected from seemingly "random" data. Similar to what CCP has access to. But using pattern recognition combined with linear discriminant analysis will show the likely violators, then apply the Probit Model to that, and more specifically probit regression, which will yield very little to no false positives, especially after analyzing logs over a length of time . So I don't know what you're worried about since you're a self-proclaimed expert on data analysis, otherwise you would know that there's nothing to worry about. So you're a DBA, good job. I too have experience, I've been a professional developer for over 10 years and a hobbyist developer a heck of a lot longer than that. I've worked with a number of languages including having been employed as a senior SQL developer. In addition I have experience in indie game development.
Now the trap you seem to have fallen into is the same one archibald has, which is where you are trying to talk about it from CCPs side. I'm not, I'm talking about what data we send to CCP when we take actions on our end. When we use round robin and when we use a manual setup, the data sent from us to the server is identical. So I don't care how good at analysis you think CCP are, if they aren't getting different data, they won't get different results.
Again I think the problem here is you have no idea how round robin is actually used, so you are looking at it as if RR is some super quick never makes mistakes control method. It's not, it's simply a manual method that doesn't require you to alt tab, which is exactly what tiling your windows is. In addition, when I use tiled windows, on each screen I can push F1+F2+F3+F4 simultaneously if I want to, using RR that would be a macro as you can't RR 4 keys simultaneously, so again, fully legal manual behaviour which when viewed without client side detection will appear to be a macro. Resulting from this, either RR players won't be getting banned, or manual players will, or more likely a mix of the two.
And respond if you like, but I'll be ignoring it because I'm done discussing this with you. Until you can categorically prove that false positives won't happen, you have nothing to say I care about.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
756
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 12:35:29 -
[4687] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
Now the trap you seem to have fallen into is the same one archibald has, which is where you are trying to talk about it from CCPs side. I'm not, I'm talking about what data we send to CCP when we take actions on our end. When we use round robin and when we use a manual setup, the data sent from us to the server is identical. So I don't care how good at analysis you think CCP are, if they aren't getting different data, they won't get different results.
Lucas Kell wrote:The problem is you're trying to take the theoretical maximum input rate and use that as the bar for measurement. But that's not the case. If round robin were needed to be used 8 times a second every 5 seconds, then yes, it would eventually show up differently to manual input. But it's not. It's used maybe twice an hour, staggered to leave a gap between your clients for all the other manual control you will need to do that isn't simply "pres butan". So there's no difference between the two.
You've said previously that CCP can tell the difference. The frequency of the event doesn't change the data, it just makes it easier to see.
Anyway CCP seem to be happy with their methods. If you have any evidence to support your claim innocent people are being banned, try posting it and maybe you can persuade CCP to allow RoundRobin and VideoFx in the same way they allow TS overlays etc. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5392
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 12:45:52 -
[4688] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:The frequency of the event doesn't change the data, it just makes it easier to see. Of course it does. If you are doing something more slowly yo uare able to be considerably more accurate than if you are racing the clock. The fact that in actual use cases the actions are taken quite slowly and at a much lower frequency reduces the chances of a competent computer user of making an error to pretty much zero.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Anyway CCP seem to be happy with their methods. If you have any evidence to support your claim innocent people are being banned, try posting it and maybe you can persuade CCP to allow RoundRobin and VideoFx in the same way they allow TS overlays etc. Posting regarding actual bans is an offense under the EULA. I doubt many people will be willing to risk a permanent ban. Besides which no evidence they can provide can prove they weren't using tools, that's what people like you would say. Just because this video shows you not using tools now doesn't mean you didn't before.
And mate, I get it, you don't believe CCP will ever make mistakes. I don't believe that's true and I think that any mistakes made with such a strong punishment (this isn't just a "you are banned", it's under the bot policy, so it's "you are banned, you have no assets and you may never trade characters") are unacceptable. Nothing you say will ever change my opinion, so stop trying to twist my words to fit what you want.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
756
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 13:11:37 -
[4689] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Of course it does. If you are doing something more slowly yo uare able to be considerably more accurate than if you are racing the clock. The fact that in actual use cases the actions are taken quite slowly and at a much lower frequency reduces the chances of a competent computer user of making an error to pretty much zero. If you are using third party programs to assist you, you will be considerably more accurate and even less likely to make a mistake. So it will still show up in the data CCP collect.
Lucas Kell wrote:Posting regarding actual bans is an offense under the EULA. I doubt many people will be willing to risk a permanent ban. Besides which no evidence they can provide can prove they weren't using tools, that's what people like you would say. Just because this video shows you not using tools now doesn't mean you didn't before. There is also no evidence on other forums either. I tried looking for it, used links provided by Nolak and the evidence simply wasn't there. They few people (that I found) that did provide videos and details they can't post here, were all breaking the EULA.
Lucas Kell wrote:And mate, I get it, you don't believe CCP will ever make mistakes. I don't believe that's true and I think that any mistakes made with such a strong punishment (this isn't just a "you are banned", it's under the bot policy, so it's "you are banned, you have no assets and you may never trade characters") are unacceptable. Nothing you say will ever change my opinion, so stop trying to twist my words to fit what you want.
You don't get it Lucas because you read a post and presume it means the exact opposite. (4257)Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
I'm not claiming CCP won't make mistakes, no system will be 100% accurate. There are always going to cases where a player/s get incorrectly banned. Even if CCP did employ a GM for every player and had them stand behind us watching what we do, there would still be the occasional mistake. But to try and make out its some sort of huge problem is, quite frankly ridiculous. Take hyperdunking. Players got banned for that. CCP looked into it and repealed the bans and made a nice statement about it. It doesn't mean the detection methods are fundamentally flawed.
How is that me saying "you don't believe CCP will ever make mistakes".? and you accuse me of twisting your words.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5394
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 13:26:52 -
[4690] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:If you are using third party programs to assist you, you will be considerably more accurate and even less likely to make a mistake. So it will still show up in the data CCP collect. Except you won't, because of the limited scope in which thrid party tools help you. Again this stems from you having not used them. They don't do everything for you, they don't even do a tenth of what you do for you, so tools or not you will still make mistakes, you'll still empty your cargo in different orders, you'll still have varied gaps between actions. I have done both, a lot, and I can absolutely guarantee you there are no more mistakes using manual than RR. In fact, I can look more like a tool user being manual, because without binding a macro keybind I can activate all of my defense at once, something which round robin can't do.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:There is also no evidence on other forums either. I tried looking for it, used links provided by Nolak and the evidence simply wasn't there. They few people (that I found) that did provide videos and details they can't post here, were all breaking the EULA. Posting details of bans outside of the forum again is against the EULA. People will post videos of what they are doing, mostly tool users with various use cases for tickets, but once you are banned if you run around going "I was banned and this is what I was doing", you'll find your ban extended to permanent.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:How is that me saying "you don't believe CCP will ever make mistakes".? and you accuse me of twisting your words. That post is out of line with your other posts, since I keep stating that there's the potential for error, and you keep telling me I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, then you must be stating there is no potential for error. So either I'm right and there is a potential for errors being made and legitimate players being banned, or you believe that CCP are infallible. Which is it?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
756
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 13:46:34 -
[4691] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:How is that me saying "you don't believe CCP will ever make mistakes".? and you accuse me of twisting your words. That post is out of line with your other posts, since I keep stating that there's the potential for error, and you keep telling me I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, then you must be stating there is no potential for error. So either I'm right and there is a potential for errors being made and legitimate players being banned, or you believe that CCP are infallible. Which is it?
...and you accuse me of twisting your words.
Does that mean you think no player should be banned then, no matter what they do? Lets leave all the bots alone as there might be a mistake. There will always be mistakes and CCP have a history of rectifying those mistakes when they make them. Look at the hyperdunking which I mentioned. Players were banned CCP looked into it and repealed the bans.
Just because the process is not 100% accurate doesn't mean the process is fundamentally flawed.
Lucas Kell wrote:Except you won't, because of the limited scope in which thrid party tools help you. Again this stems from you having not used them. They don't do everything for you, they don't even do a tenth of what you do for you, so tools or not you will still make mistakes, you'll still empty your cargo in different orders, you'll still have varied gaps between actions. I have done both, a lot, and I can absolutely guarantee you there are no more mistakes using manual than RR. In fact, I can look more like a tool user being manual, because without binding a macro keybind I can activate all of my defense at once, something which round robin can't do. You will be quicker and make fewer mistakes when using third party tools to help you. That is the whole point of them, just because you aren't particularly good at using them doesn't mean they don't help other players.Lucas Kell wrote:Posting details of bans outside of the forum again is against the EULA. People will post videos of what they are doing, mostly tool users with various use cases for tickets, but once you are banned if you run around going "I was banned and this is what I was doing", you'll find your ban extended to permanent.. There is also no evidence on other forums either. I tried looking for it, used links provided by Nolak and the evidence simply wasn't there. They few people (that I found) that did provide videos and details they can't post here, were all breaking the EULA. I know I'm posting the same thing again but people have tried to post evidence on other forums and it falls apart if anyone looks at it. Has it occurred to you that as of now, there has been no false positives as that would explain the lack of evidence. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5394
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 14:16:58 -
[4692] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Does that mean you think no player should be banned then, no matter what they do? Lets leave all the bots alone as there might be a mistake. There will always be mistakes and CCP have a history of rectifying those mistakes when they make them. Look at the hyperdunking which I mentioned. Players were banned CCP looked into it and repealed the bans.
Just because the process is not 100% accurate doesn't mean the process is fundamentally flawed. Except with other enforcement the methods of detection are far superior. Bots are easily detected, exploiters are easily detected, hell, even multiplexers are easily detected. The methods of detection should be designed to minimize false positives, so in the case of RR and VFX should be client side. But they aren't.
Hyperdunking was completely different. When those players were banned, it was done because CCP weren't sure if it was an exploit and their policy on exploits is to temporarily ban pending an investigation then decide if they need to ban and remove assets or remove the ban. In this case there is no "pending investigation", you're simply banned and all of your assets are seized, and that's that.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:You will be quicker and make fewer mistakes when using third party tools to help you. That is the whole point of them, just because you aren't particularly good at using them doesn't mean they don't help other players. But they make things faster compared to as single screen alt tabbing between windows. RR as an example does EXACTLY what tiling my windows does, it allows me to press less buttons to perform the same task. So compared to a standard user on a standard PC, yeah, it's faster and more accurate. Compared to an efficient manual setup, no, it's no different.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:There is also no evidence on other forums either. I tried looking for it, used links provided by Nolak and the evidence simply wasn't there. They few people (that I found) that did provide videos and details they can't post here, were all breaking the EULA. I know I'm posting the same thing again but people have tried to post evidence on other forums and it falls apart if anyone looks at it. Has it occurred to you that as of now, there has been no false positives as that would explain the lack of evidence. Only a very small number of players have posted anything at all, because most will not post anything as they like being an EVE player. I imagine the type of player willing to risk a permaban by posting up evidence is more likely to be the type of player who isn't clear on the rules, hence their willingness to risk a permaban.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
756
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 14:38:46 -
[4693] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
Except with other enforcement the methods of detection are far superior. Bots are easily detected, exploiters are easily detected, hell, even multiplexers are easily detected. The methods of detection should be designed to minimize false positives, so in the case of RR and VFX should be client side. But they aren't.
They use the same methods of detection, its all server side, its all data analysis (according to you) plus whatever else they use. Its is all not 100% accurate. So should CCP stop banning the bots and other exploiters because they might make the occasional mistake?
Lucas Kell wrote:Hyperdunking was completely different. When those players were banned, it was done because CCP weren't sure if it was an exploit and their policy on exploits is to temporarily ban pending an investigation then decide if they need to ban and remove assets or remove the ban. In this case there is no "pending investigation", you're simply banned and all of your assets are seized, and that's that. That was just an example of CCP repealing bans. Although they weren't temporary bans pending investigation. They were banned for breaking the EULA because it looked like they were using a variation of the warp away to avoid concord exploit (boomerang). They appealed with evidence and CCP repealed the bans.
Lucas Kell wrote:But they make things faster compared to as single screen alt tabbing between windows. RR as an example does EXACTLY what tiling my windows does, it allows me to press less buttons to perform the same task. So compared to a standard user on a standard PC, yeah, it's faster and more accurate. Compared to an efficient manual setup, no, it's no different. sigh...F1-F1-F1 etc is not the same as F1-move mouse-F1-move mouse- etc. One of those is simpler and quicker and easier to do. Those small differences get easier to pick out the longer you monitor.
Lucas Kell wrote:Only a very small number of players have posted anything at all, because most will not post anything as they like being an EVE player. I imagine the type of player willing to risk a permaban by posting up evidence is more likely to be the type of player who isn't clear on the rules, hence their willingness to risk a permaban. I imagine a player who won't try a prove their innocence is more likely to be guilty. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5396
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 14:55:51 -
[4694] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:They use the same methods of detection, its all server side, its all data analysis (according to you) plus whatever else they use. Its is all not 100% accurate. So should CCP stop banning the bots and other exploiters because they might make the occasional mistake? Do you seriously not understand what makes botting activity considerably easier to detect than round robin? In addition removing bots adds far more value to the game than removing someone that uses RR, since an RR user is only as efficient as a manual multiboxer, while a bot is ludicrously efficient.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:That was just an example of CCP repealing bans. Although they weren't temporary bans pending investigation. They were banned for breaking the EULA because it looked like they were using a variation of the warp away to avoid concord exploit (boomerang). They appealed with evidence and CCP repealed the bans. As far as anyone has been told they were temporary bans in line with standard procedure while they determined if the variant was banned, which they decided it wasn't.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:sigh...F1-F1-F1 etc is not the same as F1-move mouse-F1-move mouse- etc. One of those is simpler and quicker and easier to do. Those small differences get easier to pick out the longer you monitor. I'd be moving my mouse regardless and with manual multiboxing I get to see immediate feedback while with RR it's hidden. Seriously, in practice there's no difference. If you want to prove there is, go log 10 accounts onto sisi and try both out for a decent amount of time to become proficient at it, and you'll realise that they are the same.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:I imagine a player who won't try a prove their innocence is more likely to be guilty. LOL. So players who don;t try to show evidence which is basically impossible to obtain once the ban is in effect is more likely to be guilty, while someone who does try to post evidence is less likely to be guilty, but that's irrelevant because they got a permaban for posting details of their ban anyway. Sounds legit.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
756
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 15:11:41 -
[4695] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Do you seriously not understand what makes botting activity considerably easier to detect than round robin? In addition removing bots adds far more value to the game than removing someone that uses RR, since an RR user is only as efficient as a manual multiboxer, while a bot is ludicrously efficient. Of course I know its easier to detect. The more these third party programs are used the easier it is for CCP to spot. I've been saying that from the start. So now you accept CCP can detect RR its just harder to detect than someone botting.
I agree removing bots has far more value to the game than removing someone that uses RR. It still has value removing RR users from the game, just less than removing the botters.
Lucas Kell wrote:As far as anyone has been told they were temporary bans in line with standard procedure while they determined if the variant was banned, which they decided it wasn't. I received something different but it doesn't matter. It was only mentioned to show CCP will repeal bans if they are given out in error.
Lucas Kell wrote:I'd be moving my mouse regardless and with manual multiboxing I get to see immediate feedback while with RR it's hidden. Seriously, in practice there's no difference. If you want to prove there is, go log 10 accounts onto sisi and try both out for a decent amount of time to become proficient at it, and you'll realise that they are the same. In the tiled setup you are moving your mouse between clients. There is a larger scope for making mistakes. Earlier you compared it to "Patting your head whilst rubbing your belly". Whats simpler, quicker and easier 'Patting your head whilst rubbing your belly' or 'Patting your head'? Which one are you going to make more mistakes doing? The differences may be only small but thats where the data analysis over an extended period of time is so useful.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:I imagine a player who won't try a prove their innocence is more likely to be guilty. LOL. So players who don;t try to show evidence which is basically impossible to obtain once the ban is in effect is more likely to be guilty, while someone who does try to post evidence is less likely to be guilty, but that's irrelevant because they got a permaban for posting details of their ban anyway. Sounds legit.[/quote]Its just as legit as your "I imagine" statement. To be fair sarcasm doesn't work in text format.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5396
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 15:46:06 -
[4696] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:So now you accept CCP can detect RR its just harder to detect than someone botting. I accept they can detect RR but they can't detect what is RR and what is an efficient manual multiboxer, thus they will either detect both or neither. My stance on this has not changed so I'm not sure why you are so confused over this.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:I agree removing bots has far more value to the game than removing someone that uses RR. It still has value removing RR users from the game, just less than removing the botters. What value does it add? And how does it add value if efficient manual multiboxers are the same as them? Does that mean manual multiboxers should be removed if they are too efficient as they are removing value from the game?
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:I received something different but it doesn't matter. It was only mentioned to show CCP will repeal bans if they are given out in error. Which it failed to do as these bans were not applied and repealed, they were temporary, and I've seen a direct quote from an affected player attesting to this. I don't deny that CCP will reverse bans, but what evidence a normal player would have to give and how many hoops they'd have to jump through just to get listened to I really don't know.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:In the tiled setup you are moving your mouse between clients. There is a larger scope for making mistakes. Earlier you compared it to "Patting your head whilst rubbing your belly". Whats simpler, quicker and easier 'Patting your head whilst rubbing your belly' or 'Patting your head'? Which one are you going to make more mistakes doing? The differences may be only small but thats where the data analysis over an extended period of time is so useful.[/quote[ There really isn't any larger scope for making mistakes as both have a near zero chance of mistakes due to how infrequently you are doign them. Almost all mistakes you make will be outside of the RR/move and click process, affecting both types of player equally.
[quote=Archibald Thistlewaite III]Its just as legit as your "I imagine" statement. To be fair sarcasm doesn't work in text format. Not really if you understand what my statement was saying, if you are going to post information that is definitely and without a doubt against the EULA, it's more than likely you misunderstand the part of the EULA with is intentionally vague too.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
756
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 16:05:32 -
[4697] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I accept they can detect RR but they can't detect what is RR and what is an efficient manual multiboxer, thus they will either detect both or neither. My stance on this has not changed so I'm not sure why you are so confused over this. sigh...F1-F1-F1 etc is not the same as F1-move mouse-F1-move mouse- etc. One of those is simpler and quicker and easier to do. Those small differences get easier to pick out the longer you monitor.
Lucas Kell wrote:What value does it add? And how does it add value if efficient manual multiboxers are the same as them? Does that mean manual multiboxers should be removed if they are too efficient as they are removing value from the game? It always adds value to remove people who break the EULA/TOS & policies. You may want to play with the cheats, most people don't. Manual multi-boxers aren't breaking the EULA/TOS & policies why would they be banned.
Lucas Kell wrote: There really isn't any larger scope for making mistakes as both have a near zero chance of mistakes due to how infrequently you are doign them. Almost all mistakes you make will be outside of the RR/move and click process, affecting both types of player equally. The differences may be small but they are there.
Earlier you compared it to "Patting your head whilst rubbing your belly". Whats simpler, quicker and easier 'Patting your head whilst rubbing your belly' or 'Patting your head'? Which one are you going to make more mistakes doing? The differences may be only small but thats where the data analysis over an extended period of time is so useful.
Edit:
CCP's detection methods are never going to be 100% accurate. Mistakes will always happen. So should CCP stop banning the bots and other exploiters because they might make the occasional mistake? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5397
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 16:34:44 -
[4698] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:sigh...F1-F1-F1 etc is not the same as F1-move mouse-F1-move mouse- etc. One of those is simpler and quicker and easier to do. Those small differences get easier to pick out the longer you monitor. Oh good lord, you are talking about such a tiny difference which will nearly never (so close to never as to be indistinguishable in an reasonable timeframe) result in a higher error rate. You have an equal chance of messing up an RR keypress as you have of messing up a keypress while moving your mouse. If you don't believe it, log onto sisi, get used to doing both and test it out. I have done both and I guarantee you I do not make any more errors during that tiny part of my gameplay manually than with RR.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:It always adds value to remove people who break the EULA/TOS & policies. You may want to play with the cheats, most people don't. Manual multi-boxers aren't breaking the EULA/TOS & policies why would they be banned. Lol, no it doesn't, since the EULA can say literally anything. If though the EULA they banned anyone using voice chat, that wouldn't add value to the game. It adds no value to remove RR as there are legal and equally efficient ways to play. Unfortunately those methods put you at risk of being banned while breaking no rules.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: Earlier you compared it to "Patting your head whilst rubbing your belly". Whats simpler, quicker and easier 'Patting your head whilst rubbing your belly' or 'Patting your head'? Which one are you going to make more mistakes doing? The differences may be only small but thats where the data analysis over an extended period of time is so useful. These are equal. I can do both with just as much accuracy. Not to mention that when I used that as an example we were talking about theoretical max speed clicking, which wouldn't happen in practice. You would literally need to record someone's lifetime play to find a difference and would still be unlikely to find one and would find nearly all mistakes occurring outside of the RR/move and click process.
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:CCP's detection methods are never going to be 100% accurate. Mistakes will always happen. Right, then you agree that they will make mistakes and ban players who are manually multiboxing believing they are using RR. Good, that's the point I've been making all long and you agree, so discussion over.
I'm not being dragged back into circles with you. Undoubtedly you'll point by point respond with your usual "But tiny differences" etc, etc. Once you've gone off and actually experienced it, let me know. Until then, I'm done discussing this with you.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P
C C P Alliance
307
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 16:48:15 -
[4699] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I accept they can detect RR but they can't detect what is RR and what is an efficient manual multiboxer, thus they will either detect both or neither. My stance on this has not changed so I'm not sure why you are so confused over this.
This is based on what? Your extensive knowledge of CCP's backend systems, our logs and our detection code?
CCP Peligro - Team Security
|
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
Great Blue Balls of Fire
100
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 16:55:35 -
[4700] - Quote
CCP Peligro wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I accept they can detect RR but they can't detect what is RR and what is an efficient manual multiboxer, thus they will either detect both or neither. My stance on this has not changed so I'm not sure why you are so confused over this. This is based on what? Your extensive knowledge of CCP's backend systems, our logs and our detection code?
I think it's based on the knowledge that CCP provides no knowledge whatsoever. I sent a screenshot and detailed instructions of how I use ISBoxer and asked in my support ticket if what I am doing is against the EULA .. you know what I got? A link to the EULA which is NOT CLEAR. A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
On that same note why don't you share your detection methods ... put the suspicions and rumors to rest?
I've resigned to doing what I do and if it gets my 12 accounts banned then i'll just move along to another game because it's obvious those of us using ISBoxer will never get a straight answer because the whole thing about "changing the way the game is played" is such an open ended statement that there are 100 people in this thread alone with their own separate interpretation of it.
Support your paying customers and give us real answers. |
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5397
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 17:06:20 -
[4701] - Quote
CCP Peligro wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I accept they can detect RR but they can't detect what is RR and what is an efficient manual multiboxer, thus they will either detect both or neither. My stance on this has not changed so I'm not sure why you are so confused over this. This is based on what? Your extensive knowledge of CCP's backend systems, our logs and our detection code? This is based on the fact that a round robin setup sends the same data as someone manually pressing a button on each screen. Your logs may be the most accurate logs in the world, but I doubt they magic up data from the ether.
Might be worth you weighing in though if you're about. False positives will always happen, can I assume we agree that far? If so, how would one go about proving it was a false positive being that they are unlikely to record themselves playing constantly, and how receptive are CCP to queries from players banned under the botting policy when they appeal against a ban with only their word to go on?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3319
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 17:13:21 -
[4702] - Quote
I read the above two posts in one way:
"If we know CCP's detection methods, then we can program around them."
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5397
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 17:59:25 -
[4703] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:I read the above two posts in one way:
"If we know CCP's detection methods, then we can program around them." And you would be wrong. There is certainly no desire to program around them from me, I'm a legit player. If CCP were to state "we only want one account per person" I'd not like it but I'd obey it. Beside that, manual multiboxing allows the same level of efficiency, the question is whether or not achieving a high level of efficiency manually will also result in bans. Whether people agree or not, and whether people care or not, there are a fair number of people who are worried about losing their accounts over manual multiboxing and being treated like a liar when they appeal it. Instead of looking for a way to put those customers at ease however it seems CCP would rather pop in after several months with a sarcastic comment then most likely vanish without a trace once again.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
756
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 19:10:24 -
[4704] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Oh good lord, you are talking about such a tiny difference which will nearly never (so close to never as to be indistinguishable in an reasonable timeframe) result in a higher error rate. You have an equal chance of messing up an RR keypress as you have of messing up a keypress while moving your mouse. If you don't believe it, log onto sisi, get used to doing both and test it out. I have done both and I guarantee you I do not make any more errors during that tiny part of my gameplay manually than with RR. Finally!! You admit what is blatantly obvious, that there is a difference. Just because its a small difference just makes it harder to find in the data.
Lucas Kell wrote:Lol, no it doesn't, since the EULA can say literally anything. If though the EULA they banned anyone using voice chat, that wouldn't add value to the game. It adds no value to remove RR as there are legal and equally efficient ways to play. Unfortunately those methods put you at risk of being banned while breaking no rules. If you are happy to play with people who cheat thats your business. I prefer not to.
Lucas Kell wrote:These are equal. I can do both with just as much accuracy. Not to mention that when I used that as an example we were talking about theoretical max speed clicking, which wouldn't happen in practice. You would literally need to record someone's lifetime play to find a difference and would still be unlikely to find one and would find nearly all mistakes occurring outside of the RR/move and click process. Rubbish. It was your example, sorry you no longer want to use it.
Lucas Kell wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:CCP's detection methods are never going to be 100% accurate. Mistakes will always happen. So should CCP stop banning the bots and other exploiters because they might make the occasional mistake? Right, then you agree that they will make mistakes and ban players who are manually multiboxing believing they are using RR. Good, that's the point I've been making all long and you agree, so discussion over. I'm not being dragged back into circles with you. Undoubtedly you'll point by point respond with your usual "But tiny differences" etc, etc. Once you've gone off and actually experienced it, let me know. Until then, I'm done discussing this with you. I've put my quote back to the way I wrote it, again!.
You've claimed to be done discussing this with me about 7-8 times and you are still here. See none of your claims seem to have any merit.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5397
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 19:17:17 -
[4705] - Quote
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
Great Blue Balls of Fire
100
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 19:35:31 -
[4706] - Quote
CCPlease stop this pissing match and give everyone the information they are asking for. This thread became stupid and pointless 100 pages ago and there is no sign of it ending. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
23
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 19:52:44 -
[4707] - Quote
You still never answered this:
Lucas Kell's multiple snipped posts wrote:#4129 " My issue is that their detection sucks, meaning that people who manual multibox using no tools are at risk of being banned" #4134 " You can get banned for using nothing but the client if you are too efficient at controlling it" #4148 "From a server point of view it's indistinguishable, so either they are not banning round robin (which they claim to be) or they are banning legitimate manual multiboxers" #4150 "At most they can make a best guess which will still result in false positives with legitimate players being banned" #4156 " I guarantee that if you are too efficient you will find yourself banned down the line" #4167 " If you alt tab and are too efficient consistently, you will find yourself getting banned." #4170 " their detection method means it's impossible for them to tell the difference between someone with a decent manual setup and a player using banned tools such as ISBoxer, meaning that players are now at risk of being banned for playing legitimately" #4198 "The problem is that CCPs detection means that being too efficient with a manual multibox setup which you have no problem with will also get you banned" #4201 "they are looking at it purely from server side logs with no client side detection there's no way for them to tell which is which. This will lead to false positives, which are impossible to prove as such, and so people will get banned for playing the game in the way they are being told is allowed." #4213 "CCP are looking at whether or not you are significantly more efficient than the average and banning based on that." #4240 " Can a player with 12 windows tiled across 3 monitors act and react faster to each window than a player with a single monitor having to alt tab between clients? If the answer is yes (hint hint, it is) then someone with multiple monitors is at risk of being seen as someone using tools." #4252 "round robin and manual control are identical, thus manual controlled multiboxers who are too efficient are at risk of being wrongfully banned" #4254 "I think they should either use client side detection or give up on the idea of trying to ban people for using round robin without banning standard multiboxing" ....... " If you continue to be that efficient, you will be banned." #4256 "Except they will be getting banned because they will be above the "average player" efficiency threshold which seems to be the main factor"
To which I point out :
CCP Peligro wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I accept they can detect RR but they can't detect what is RR and what is an efficient manual multiboxer, thus they will either detect both or neither. My stance on this has not changed so I'm not sure why you are so confused over this. This is based on what? Your extensive knowledge of CCP's backend systems, our logs and our detection code?
Zing from Peligro! lol exactly what I've been saying. But you reply with
Lucas Kell wrote:Dude, I'm not going to go through this again. They have stated how their detection works and it does not exclude false positives. At no point did I say there's a huge mass banning, but people who manual multibox too well will get banned in error. I honestly don;t care what you think, and to be quite honest I'm fed up of discussing it. For some reason I'm not allowed to have the opinion that legitimate players will be banned, eve though CCP stated themselves they have no client side detection and that a large part of their detection is how efficient a player is, yet you, also with no evidence, claim tha... |
Trakow
Beta Switch
23
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 19:54:00 -
[4708] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:So you're a DBA, good job. I too have experience, I've been a professional developer for over 10 years and a hobbyist developer a heck of a lot longer than that. I've worked with a number of languages including having been employed as a senior SQL developer. In addition I have experience in indie game development...
No, I'm not a DBA, but that's the very basic requirement for my job so that you know how to manage large amounts of data and query it to get workable data. I have DBA's working for me. I can still write sql queries, manage the databases, restore data etc, but I analyze the data, find patterns and write probability algorithms which is beyong simple sql queries. And I'm very good at it. It's really not hard to take a large amount of data and put it up against sets of filters and nested queries that can sort out specific criteria in data sets, with each new step drilling down to more specific results. Then you have a much smaller set of extremely highly probable positives to which a human can then look at manually for further investigation. I told you before how it can be done and the methods that can be used, I was pretty specific (But I won't lay down exact query methods or pseudo code because CCP might not be happy with possibly posting how they get their data set results). There are many models and boolean queries that can be used for complex criteria no matter how many combining or negating conditions you need to get the end result, and I already stated some. Yet you just make claims and when you can't come up with anything concrete, you just say you're done discussing it.
Perhaps CCP Peligro can confirm that I have a clue what I'm talking about and that they're not just rolling dice to ban people. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5397
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 20:20:00 -
[4709] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Again, saying that people WILL be banned People WILL be banned (in error). If you are suggesting they won't that means you think CCP are infallible and will achieve a 0% false positive rate. Simple question, answer with a simple "Yes" or "No". Do you believe CCP will never ban a single player in error under this new EULA enforcement?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
23
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 21:16:19 -
[4710] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Trakow wrote:Again, saying that people WILL be banned People WILL be banned (in error). If you are suggesting they won't that means you think CCP are infallible and will achieve a 0% false positive rate. Simple question, answer with a simple "Yes" or "No". Do you believe CCP will never ban a single player in error under this new EULA enforcement?
It's not a simple yes or no answer when dealing with probabilities because "Yes" or "No" infers a 100% probability or improbability. Stating that, is there a chance that someone will get wrongly banned? Of course, albeit a very small chance. And no more than being falsely banned for anything else. Now moving onwards, will someone get permanently banned in error? That answer is no. Also, the new enforcement hardly changes the amount of bans that are done in error. I'm sure there are plenty that have been banned for things they did not do like griefing, baiting, exploits, illegal buying/selling, harassment, and so on. CCP staff are only human, and humans make mistakes. But it is also common to temporarily ban or suspend an account which is possibly violating TOS/EULA/Policy while they are being investigated, so that if the allegations are true, the actions are immediately stopped upon discovery. Just like being put under arrest while police get all the facts. Afterwards, if it's determined that it was a mistake, lost skills points can be awarded, or in lieu of that, possibly a partial refund for the lost time. And this isn't only in Eve, it happens in every single MMORPG out there. So your statements on saying that people will be banned, is an assumption that there is a 100% chance that everyone will get falsely banned, which is incorrect. Or, everyone who is playing with multiple monitors will get banned, or everyone who is good at the game will get banned, or whatever you keep saying, is incorrect. |
|
|
Marsha Mallow
2081
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 21:19:57 -
[4711] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Trakow wrote:Again, saying that people WILL be banned People WILL be banned (in error). If you are suggesting they won't that means you think CCP are infallible and will achieve a 0% false positive rate. Simple question, answer with a simple "Yes" or "No". Do you believe CCP will never ban a single player in error under this new EULA enforcement?
Why should the general playerbase give a FF about who CCP bans in their efforts to curb botting?
This is the question YOU cannot answer without resorting to personal insults or flailing about rolling your eyes and running off to slam a door after you've claimed repeatedly that you're 'done' with the discussion. It's not our job to tell devs how to detect bots. If you think you know more than they do, apply for a job. Or learn how to commuincate suggestions for improvements which are constructive. Even with coding experience (and that 'hobbyist' qualification really leaps out and suggests you're exaggerating a fair bit) you can't see how they operate. Despite advocating for manual multiboxers you can't guarantee that the people who claim that they've been banned unfairly weren't botting. So maybe you should leave it for them to resolve with CCP as and when there's an issue, rather than having hysterics in advance. Over a claim you will struggle to verify.
Frankly, this campaign you've attempted with shadow, Nolak and Chand is an utter failure because
a) nobody likes botters and a lot of us enjoy watching you cry
b) the group who are championing the issue are openly obnoxious towards fellow players, devs, the CSM and the wider playerbase
c) some of you (Chand esp) are known for ranting incoherently on a number of topics and are generally considered a blight on the community
Player bans have been reversed where there was a question over the legitimacy of the ban (see titan bumping from POS shields) but the people involved put their point across without descending into outright ranting. And the GMs involved were fair, and spent time writing up an answer.
Considering just how vitriolic and personally abusive some of you have been towards Falcon, coreblood, Mike and the security team in this thread - and the sheer animosity evident on your botting forums which anyone can read - some of you should be bloody grateful you haven't been banned already imo. That comment Peligro made wasn't sarcastic if read literally (I'm not sure how you expect a serious response when you're being so amazingly daft/entertaining). Tbh if CCP were to take the gloves off and permaban some of the worst offenders in this topic (here and in other threads) it would be supported by majority of the community. Openly lying, misrepresenting dev comments, a calculated campaign to smear this game and the utter contempt you hold your fellow players in being the least of it. I'm really considering writing this up and launching a campaign to have some of you removed for personal toxicity and for lying on forums like steam to try to cause a riot.
You haven't been banned yet, and apparently neither have the rest of the people screeching here. You've been inconvenienced. GOOD. I'm also a paying customer, and I expect Team HairBear to do everything possible to make things difficult for botters who think they're above everyone else and should be entitled to special treatment.
Benny Ohu wrote:
fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5397
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 21:51:25 -
[4712] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Trakow wrote:Again, saying that people WILL be banned People WILL be banned (in error). If you are suggesting they won't that means you think CCP are infallible and will achieve a 0% false positive rate. Simple question, answer with a simple "Yes" or "No". Do you believe CCP will never ban a single player in error under this new EULA enforcement? It's not a simple yes or no answer Yes it is, it really is that simple. I'm claiming people will get banned in error and am of the opinion that a single person banned in error for something like RR is too many. You are claiming I'm wrong and that nobody will be getting banned in error, so it's really simple: Do you believe CCP will never ban a single player in error under this new EULA enforcement?
Marsha Mallow wrote:Why should the general playerbase give a FF about who CCP bans in their efforts to curb botting? Because this is the game we all play and we obviously all have a great amount of passion for. We all should care when players are getting unfairly treated and we should all push for CCP to communicate with sections of the playerbase that are concerned. in this instance there's clearly a lot of concerned players and to be quite honest they seem to have been widely ignored. When null changes are coming in, players are speaking directly to CCP, discussions are open and things move forward to a positive place. With this, when players have tried to open a dialog CCP have simply ignored them, when they've asked for clarity, they've been given none, even following what they've said in this thread doesn't help, since the thread says "any questions raise a ticket" and the response to tickets is "post in the thread".
And nobody here is botting or defending botters.
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
5397
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 22:10:18 -
[4713] - Quote
To be quite honest, I really am done with this discussion now. It's impossible to have a serious discussion over something like this because some people simply have so much hatred for the idea of someone multiboxing too well that all reason goes out of the window. Automatically everyone with something to say in support of people not getting banned for simply multiboxing manually is a liar and evil and to be quite honest it's tiring going around in circle with people like you, since there's simply no reasoning with trolls. So congratulations, you win. I'm done.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
23
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 22:23:02 -
[4714] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Yes it is, it really is that simple. I'm claiming people will get banned in error and am of the opinion that a single person banned in error for something like RR is too many. You are claiming I'm wrong and that nobody will be getting banned in error, so it's really simple: Do you believe CCP will never ban a single player in error under this new EULA enforcement?
What about the multiple people who have been wrongly banned for other things that turned out to be false? That's ok? No, it's acceptable because it rarely happens, and it's reversible.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that nobody will be getting banned in error. I've said extremely improbable, and one-in-a-million. I never said anything definite, it is you claiming 100% that people will get banned in error. I also said that even if someone gets banned in error, it's temporary during investigation, and can be reversed if found to be false, it's not like if they suspect that you're violating the EULA that you get permanently banned forever, no questions asked and no way to refute it or have your say considered.
Now I ask you, have YOU been banned or flagged in any way for being "too good at mutliboxing" or seeming like you're using RR? Has anyone you personally know been banned permanently and you know 100% that they were just manually multiboxing? So what's your problem?
There's likely the same probability that a plane will fall out of the sky and crash into your house. You better get in touch with every airline that flies over your house to complain and rant to them that it might happen because they're not doing a good enough job, and mistakes can happen. See where that gets you. |
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 23:04:08 -
[4715] - Quote
CCP Peligro wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I accept they can detect RR but they can't detect what is RR and what is an efficient manual multiboxer, thus they will either detect both or neither. My stance on this has not changed so I'm not sure why you are so confused over this. This is based on what? Your extensive knowledge of CCP's backend systems, our logs and our detection code?
So I have absolutely nothing to fear if I switch back to my nightmare fleet for a bit? Keep in mind I'll be rolling through clients hitting f1 f2 f3 all at the same time as I'm doing this (god bless nkey rollover). I'm expecting to be able to utilize 3 hotkeys on at least 3 clients in one second.
In case you didn't see this is what I'm talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4bZm2-gTwE
I have a video of me doing it with the nightmares but it's really old and slow compared to what I can do now. |
Marsha Mallow
2081
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 23:16:54 -
[4716] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:And nobody here is botting or defending botters.
That's either a blatant lie or you really haven't been paying attention. There have been pages of discussion in this topic from disgruntled botters whining that other games allow extensive macro use and EvE will dieGäó without it.
Lucas Kell wrote:To be quite honest, I really am done with this discussion now. It's impossible to have a serious discussion over something like this because some people simply have so much hatred for the idea of someone multiboxing too well that all reason goes out of the window. Automatically everyone with something to say in support of people not getting banned for simply multiboxing manually is a liar and evil and to be quite honest it's tiring going around in circle with people like you, since there's simply no reasoning with trolls. So congratulations, you win. I'm done.
Another shameful attempt to inflame multiboxers and redirect the discussion. How can you multibox so well that you look like a bot, for christ's sake? You can't even win an argument on a forum, despite pumping out several thousand words a day. Doesn't suggest superhuman abilities.
There's never been any meaningful animosity towards people who mine with a few accounts (as long as they don't go insane if anyone plays with them). But there is massive resentment towards 90 man mining fleets and 25 man incursion runners, which is entirely justified in a game which revolves around competition for resources. The scale of fleets like that only became viable when ISBotter was allowed. The botters involved abuse safety mechanics to stick two fingers up at the playerbase, and they've made themselves into a niche of contempt. So don't expect any support from us about your unfair treatment after years of smacking about how better you are than everyone else. CCP are genuinely at fault here for allowing tramps from other games who rely on botting software to come in and start flouncing about, but w/e, they can flounce off now.
Neither you or Nolak have been able to answer any of the reasoned counterarguments raised about the credibility of the people complaning, the spirit of limiting macro use and you have completely undermined your position by being so consistently obnoxious across multiple platforms.
BTW, the only sensible reason that some of the people moaning have to be so angry about a change in policy and so concerned is that their next offence will be a perma ban. Meaning they've been issued a temp ban already and are on a last warning. We can all make wild accusations can't we? But some are more plausible than others.
Benny Ohu wrote:
fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread
|
AayJay Crendraven
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
31
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 15:32:42 -
[4717] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:That's either a blatant lie or you really haven't been paying attention. There have been pages of discussion in this topic from disgruntled botters whining that other games allow extensive macro use and EvE will dieGäó without it.
The only ones who are actually defending AFK, down-at-the-local-bar-while-ratting botters, are botters themselves. ISBoxers are not botters even under the loosest definition of the term "botter" and it has been proven to you at least twenty pages back, so I would say it is you who has not been paying attention.
Quote:Another shameful attempt to inflame multiboxers and redirect the discussion. How can you multibox so well that you look like a bot, for christ's sake? You can't even win an argument on a forum, despite pumping out several thousand words a day. Doesn't suggest superhuman abilities.
It is quite easy to multibox efficiently. Simply because you cannot does not mean others cannot. Starcraft 2 players comes to mind. I cannot reach the 1200 APM that Idra or Minime have hit, but that's just a matter of practice and skill. You still have yet to prove that multiboxers have an advantage over an identical fleet with identical fits. Additionally, you have done nothing but argue in circles while providing no proof of your own, so I would say it is *you* who has failed to win the argument in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Quote:There's never been any meaningful animosity towards people who mine with a few accounts (as long as they don't go insane if anyone plays with them). But there is massive resentment towards 90 man mining fleets and 25 man incursion runners, which is entirely justified in a game which revolves around competition for resources.
What an interesting thing to say. There has never been any animosity towards these multiboxers that does not fall under these catagories:
1) People whining about stealing publicly-available resources. The asteroids in the belt don't have anyone's name on it, and neither do incursion sites, let alone anomalies. These people can generally be described as "entitled".
2) People whining about not being able to control multiple accounts. These are the same people who look at a Starcraft 2 Diamond League player's APM and cry foul.
3) People whining about 3rd party programs. These are the people who
Quote:The scale of fleets like that only became viable when ISBotter was allowed. The botters involved abuse safety mechanics to stick two fingers up at the playerbase, and they've made themselves into a niche of contempt. So don't expect any support from us about your unfair treatment after years of smacking about how much better you are are than everyone else. CCP are genuinely at fault here for allowing tramps from other games who rely on botting software to come in and start flouncing about, but w/e, they can flounce off now.
Wait, are you talking about the Russian carrier bots that automatically warp off and cloak when a neutral enters local? Because we want those gone too. As for "safety mechanics", name one safety mechanic that an ISBoxer "abuses". We're still vulnerable to gankers and wars if we're in highsec, and we can still get caught by interceptor gangs or covert ops hotdrops in nullsec. For both mining fleets and incursion fleets, I can move everyone to safety with exactly two mouse-clicks on a single screen, no broadcasting or round-robin needed.
You're projecting here, when you talk about people talking about how much better boxers are than others, and I love how you take a snipe at CCP.
Quote:Neither you or Nolak have been able to answer any of the reasoned counterarguments raised about the credibility of the people complaining, the spirit of limiting macro use and you have completely undermined your position by being so consistently obnoxious across multiple platforms.
I was under the impression that we did somewhere in the last 50 pages. If you feel we didn't, you are perfectly welcome to mail me and I shall address them if not to your satisfaction, then to the fullest of my ability, on the condition that I ask you similar questions.
For the credibility of people complaining, it has been independently verified by multiple people for most of the temp bans and setups. Fun fact about ISBoxer: You can export your settings so other people can look at it or use it.
For the "spirit of limiting macro use", we are with CCP in banning complex macros that imitate bots in the regard of AFK playing. However we oppose CCP's limiting of macros that are considered "simple", i.e. typing a simple phrase ("fofofofo" comes to mind) in a chat box, or pressing F1-F8 with a key. |
Marsha Mallow
2083
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 19:26:46 -
[4718] - Quote
AayJay Crendraven wrote:ISBoxers are not botters even under the loosest definition of the term "botter" and it has been proven to you at least twenty pages back, so I would say it is you who has not been paying attention.
Macro users are included in the statistics for botting by CCP. Source. As per the OP, macroing is commonly referred to as botting.
AayJay Crendraven wrote:You still have yet to prove that multiboxers have an advantage over an identical fleet with identical fits. Additionally, you have done nothing but argue in circles while providing no proof of your own, so I would say it is *you* who has failed to win the argument in the face of overwhelming evidence.
If it provides no benefit you wouldn't be fighting so hard to retain the right to use macros. We don't need to win the argument btw - we won when this ruling was announced. But it is important to signal to CCP over the tearful wailing that most of us support this new policy. I don't think it's appropriate that devs and CSM members should be subjected to a tirade of personal abuse over a decision which was made in response to general community feedback, and we should comment in support if we feel it is appropriate. If that means engaging in a lengthy argument and looking like a berk in doing so, so be it. You're not turning GD into an echo chamber without a fight, you can do that perfectly well on dual-botting/isabotter/multibotter forums. It's crossing the line to post disinformation on sites like steam/reddit to discourage people from subscribing with blatant lies, and posting macro workarounds is just dumb - which is why some of you have already been banned on external sites for attempting it. I do think some of the more aggressive posters here should be banned for a variety of reasons.
AayJay Crendraven wrote:1) People whining about stealing publicly-available resources. The asteroids in the belt don't have anyone's name on it, and neither do incursion sites, let alone anomalies. These people can generally be described as "entitled".
2) People whining about not being able to control multiple accounts. These are the same people who look at a Starcraft 2 Diamond League player's APM and cry foul.
3) People whining about 3rd party programs.
A dialogue about gameplay balance and unfair vs fair advantages should be part of any game. It's generally branded 'whining' by people seeking to preserve an advantage. Sometimes the whining on both sides can be labelled 'entitled'. But to be fair, some of you have been attempting to argue that any third party tool (which clearly does not modify the ingame client) provides an advantage which is similar to a macro. I don't recall ever seeing anyone argue that pen and paper is an advantage, but the botters here did.
AayJay Crendraven wrote:As for "safety mechanics", name one safety mechanic that an ISBoxer "abuses". We're still vulnerable to gankers and wars if we're in highsec, and we can still get caught by interceptor gangs or covert ops hotdrops in nullsec. For both mining fleets and incursion fleets, I can move everyone to safety with exactly two mouse-clicks on a single screen, no broadcasting or round-robin needed.
ISBotters in highsec use safety mechanics to dodge wardecs and operate with minimal risk, then claim that they can be killed 'easily'. Everywhere else they are treated exactly like botters, i.e. kill them if you can, but good luck catching one that isn't blue and can be caught.
AayJay Crendraven wrote:You're projecting here, when you talk about people talking about how much better boxers are than others, and I love how you take a snipe at CCP.
I was under the impression that we did somewhere in the last 50 pages. If you feel we didn't, you are perfectly welcome to mail me and I shall address them if not to your satisfaction, then to the fullest of my ability, on the condition that I ask you similar questions.
Umm, I'm not projecting in the slightest. Lucas is 'done with this thread' because he's apparently decided that mailing 400 word posts littered with personal attacks and swearing works better by evemail - and he explicitly told me he's better than me. Just as you did earlier when you commented 'It is quite easy to multibox efficiently. Simply because you cannot does not mean others cannot.' It's not a snipe at CCP btw, it's measured criticism - there's a difference. I'd rather not engage in evemail discussions with people who are clearly intent upon bypassing forum rules so that they can sperge in private mails. Having said that, feel free - if I do present all of this evidence to Detective Teg, evidence of a bit of harassment and cyberbullying will certainly help.
Benny Ohu wrote:
fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 20:49:29 -
[4719] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Macro users are included in the statistics for botting by CCP. Source. As per the OP, macroing is commonly referred to as botting. Yes and when the FBI or police talk about crime increasing or decreasing they don't separate murder from theft. You're declaring that there's no difference between stealing a candy bar and bludgeoning someone to death after raping them. It's a silly position that doesn't allow for nuances at all.
No one except you and a few other fanatics/trolls/uneducated types consider a macro (a dumb series of inputs that never change) to be exactly the same as a bot (a limited AI capable of responding to changes in it's operating area while completing a complex set of tasks).
Marsha Mallow wrote:If it provides no benefit you wouldn't be fighting so hard to retain the right to use macros. A repeater isn't a macro, Videofx isn't a macro, DX nothing isn't a macro, cpu cycle management isn't a macro, window management isn't a macro (CCP agrees as they support EVE-O). The only part of isboxer you can honestly argue is a macro would be the round robin's ability to change client focus when you hit a hotkey. Sure it's as simple as you can get but it still can count. I can replicate the same result of round robin by tiling eve in windowed mode along with window's ease of access mouse over function. Just roll the mouse over the clients as I hit the hotkeys. Do you believe we should start banning people for using ease of use functions available to all when playing eve?
Marsha Mallow wrote:ISBotters in highsec use safety mechanics to dodge wardecs and operate with minimal risk, then claim that they can be killed 'easily'. Everywhere else they are treated exactly like botters, i.e. kill them if you can, but good luck catching one that isn't blue and can be caught. Your statement here applies to every single person that plays eve. To hold it up as evidence against just boxers is to be incredibly dishonest. |
Marsha Mallow
2085
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 21:19:10 -
[4720] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:Yes and when the FBI or police talk about crime increasing or decreasing they don't separate murder from theft. You're declaring that there's no difference between stealing a candy bar and bludgeoning someone to death after raping them. It's a silly position that doesn't allow for nuances at all.
It's nice that you made that link to crime and appropriate punishment. It's almost like you know this topic hinges upon the legality of actions and the scope of justice. When I am King you will be first against the wall, fyi.
Kinete Jenius wrote:No one except you and a few other fanatics/trolls/uneducated types consider a macro (a dumb series of inputs that never change) to be exactly the same as a bot (a limited AI capable of responding to changes in it's operating area while completing a complex set of tasks).
No-one except you and a few other fanatics consider macroing legitimate and worth fighting over. See the Sec presentation graph showing the decline in usage after the announcement (which peaked after someone announced an illegal workaround, and then continued to dip). The vast majority of ISBoxer users have accepted the change, it's a minority who refuse to. I've never been all that arsed about botting or macroing in general tbh, although I've run into it a few times. This thread has made me hardline. Well played. You could engage in a debate with people with actual techie experience here, but I notice you only come crawling out to attack what you consider weaker a target - presumably so you can attempt to bludgeon them with jargon.
Kinete Jenius wrote: A repeater isn't a macro, Videofx isn't a macro, DX nothing isn't a macro, cpu cycle management isn't a macro, window management isn't a macro (CCP agrees as they support EVE-O). The only part of isboxer you can honestly argue is a macro would be the round robin's ability to change client focus when you hit a hotkey. Sure it's as simple as you can get but it still can count. I can replicate the same result of round robin by tiling eve in windowed mode along with window's ease of access mouse over function. Just roll the mouse over the clients as I hit the hotkeys. Do you believe we should start banning people for using ease of use functions available to all when playing eve?
ISBoxer wasn't banned, just the macro functionality. I'm not going to engage in a debate over the various pseudo botting/macro tools available, because I don't need them and can't be arsed with it. Traklow and a couple of other posters have more experience in this arena, but you won't get into a debate with them, because it's pretty obvious they'll eat you alive.
Kinete Jenius wrote:Your statement here applies to every single person that plays eve. To hold it up as evidence against just boxers is to be incredibly dishonest.
Well, I wouldn't worry. CCP are invading you with roleplaying NPCs, ostensibly for content. Personally I think it's to burn highsec. Which is good too. I wonder if Drifters will learn how to bubble highsec incursion fleets?
Benny Ohu wrote:
fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread
|
|
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 21:42:40 -
[4721] - Quote
Well thanks for making it clear that you have no intention of responding to me or having a civil discussion. Have fun continuing to beat on the strawmen you've created. |
Marsha Mallow
2085
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 21:47:53 -
[4722] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:Well thanks for making it clear that you have no intention of responding to me or having a civil discussion. Have fun continuing to beat on the strawmen you've created.
gf o7
Benny Ohu wrote:
fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
1013
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 00:19:12 -
[4723] - Quote
In an effort do de-escalate this thread i would like to remind all miners and similar bot-aspirants who are buthurrt because they can no longer cheat to calm down and accept that eve is a better game now. Thank you.
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
AayJay Crendraven
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 00:39:10 -
[4724] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Macro users are included in the statistics for botting by CCP. Source. As per the OP, macroing is commonly referred to as botting.
And again, writing a complex macro to automate gameplay is measurably in violation of the EULA. One of the CCP devs used to define banned complex macros by saying "If your macro has any sort of "if then" statement, it's banned." Obviously, that's a very simple way to look at it, but even broadening it's scope will only ban people who intend to go down to the corner store for a beer and a scratch ticket while the game will keep playing, and it will ignore those who use it as nothing more than a method of typing long complex phrases in a chat, or for hitting F1-F8 without the possibility, however remote, of damage to fingers.
Quote:If it provides no benefit you wouldn't be fighting so hard to retain the right to use macros.
OK, so we limit everyone to a standard PS/2 100 key keyboard and 2-button mouse. We limit everyone to a 800x600 monitor with a refresh rate of 30hz. We limit everyone to precisely 30 FPS. We ban anything remotely related to PYFA, EFT, EVEMon, TS3, TS2, Mumble, and Fuzzworks. We limit players to only play on a 56k modem. We limit players to only use a pair of cheapo Dollar Store earbuds. After all, if all the new technology really did provide no advantage, then people would not mind giving up their souped-up computers and vox software, right? /s
And yes, that is exactly how you sound to us.
Quote:We don't need to win the argument btw - we won when this ruling was announced. But it is important to signal to CCP over the tearful wailing that most of us support this new policy. I don't think it's appropriate that devs and CSM members should be subjected to a tirade of personal abuse over a decision which was made in response to general community feedback, and we should comment in support if we feel it is appropriate. If that means engaging in a lengthy argument and looking like a berk in doing so, so be it. You're not turning GD into an echo chamber without a fight, you can do that perfectly well on dual-botting/isabotter/multibotter forums. It's crossing the line to post disinformation on sites like steam/reddit to discourage people from subscribing with blatant lies, and posting macro workarounds is just dumb - which is why some of you have already been banned on external sites for attempting it. I do think some of the more aggressive posters here should be banned for a variety of reasons.
I have done nothing but point out inconsistencies in their policy, their application of said policy, their lack of communication over valid concerns raised by players, their promises, and their attitudes. If that is considered "abuse", then might I suggest subscribing to the radical feminist viewpoints where reasonable discourse and criticisms are in fact harassment, abuse, and death threats hidden in plain sight.
Quote:A dialogue about gameplay balance and unfair vs fair advantages should be part of any game. It's generally branded 'whining' by people seeking to preserve an advantage. Sometimes the whining on both sides can be labelled 'entitled'. But to be fair, some of you have been attempting to argue that any third party tool (which clearly does not modify the ingame client) provides an advantage which is similar to a macro. I don't recall ever seeing anyone argue that pen and paper is an advantage, but the botters here did.
Except you never participated in such a dialogue, ignoring carefully constructed arguments in favor of flinging insults and abuse as if you were a monkey flinging ***** at a zoo. We have been arguing that CCP must either enforce all of their EULA, or not at all. Most of the previously-mentioned programs would violate 6A3, the "accelerated gameplay" clause. Some violated 6A2, the "client modification" clause. A careful re-read of 6A2 prohibits any modification or "interaction" by 3rd party programs whatsoever, and "accelerated gameplay" can be interpreted widely.
Quote:ISBotters in highsec use safety mechanics to dodge wardecs and operate with minimal risk, then claim that they can be killed 'easily'. Everywhere else they are treated exactly like botters, i.e. kill them if you can, but good luck catching one that isn't blue and can be caught.
If you believe a player is dodging wardecs by corp-hopping, that is not allowed and can be petitioned to put a stop to that. If you have a lack of targets to hunt, you are welcome to dual-train another account for a gank toon, or you can drop your corp and shoot. Marmite and other merc corps are more than happy to hunt miners if you pay them, so don't blubber on the forums that there are no ways. I've yet to see a hulk fit that can tank a 1200 DPS Talos in a 0.5 system that did not include the word "officer". And no, the local null boxminers were treated better than ratters at times because of ozone and fuel production from ice, not to mention mercoxit and day-tripping into WHs for gas. **** off a ratter, you'll have an angry nerd outside your POS field in an interceptor yelling obscenities in local. **** off a miner, or worse, an industry toon, and your next Nyx or Avatar may experience "unexpected delays".
There are too many quotes in the post |
Trakow
Beta Switch
24
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 03:55:25 -
[4725] - Quote
AayJay Crendraven wrote:
And again, writing a complex macro to automate gameplay is measurably in violation of the EULA. One of the CCP devs used to define banned complex macros by saying "If your macro has any sort of "if then" statement, it's banned." Obviously, that's a very simple way to look at it, but even broadening it's scope will only ban people who intend to go down to the corner store for a beer and a scratch ticket while the game will keep playing, and it will ignore those who use it as nothing more than a method of typing long complex phrases in a chat, or for hitting F1-F8 without the possibility, however remote, of damage to fingers.
OK, so we limit everyone to a standard PS/2 100 key keyboard and 2-button mouse. We limit everyone to a 800x600 monitor with a refresh rate of 30hz. We limit everyone to precisely 30 FPS. We ban anything remotely related to PYFA, EFT, EVEMon, TS3, TS2, Mumble, and Fuzzworks. We limit players to only play on a 56k modem. We limit players to only use a pair of cheapo Dollar Store earbuds. After all, if all the new technology really did provide no advantage, then people would not mind giving up their souped-up computers and vox software, right? /s
And yes, that is exactly how you sound to us.
I have done nothing but point out inconsistencies in their policy, their application of said policy, their lack of communication over valid concerns raised by players, their promises, and their attitudes. If that is considered "abuse", then might I suggest subscribing to the radical feminist viewpoints where reasonable discourse and criticisms are in fact harassment, abuse, and death threats hidden in plain sight.
Except you never participated in such a dialogue, ignoring carefully constructed arguments in favor of flinging insults and abuse as if you were a monkey flinging ***** at a zoo. We have been arguing that CCP must either enforce all of their EULA, or not at all. Most of the previously-mentioned programs would violate 6A3, the "accelerated gameplay" clause. Some violated 6A2, the "client modification" clause. A careful re-read of 6A2 prohibits any modification or "interaction" by 3rd party programs whatsoever, and "accelerated gameplay" can be interpreted widely.
If you believe a player is dodging wardecs by corp-hopping, that is not allowed and can be petitioned to put a stop to that. If you have a lack of targets to hunt, you are welcome to dual-train another account for a gank toon, or you can drop your corp and shoot. Marmite and other merc corps are more than happy to hunt miners if you pay them, so don't blubber on the forums that there are no ways. I've yet to see a hulk fit that can tank a 1200 DPS Talos in a 0.5 system that did not include the word "officer". And no, the local null boxminers were treated better than ratters at times because of ozone and fuel production from ice, not to mention mercoxit and day-tripping into WHs for gas. **** off a ratter, you'll have an angry nerd outside your POS field in an interceptor yelling obscenities in local. **** off a miner, or worse, an industry toon, and your next Nyx or Avatar may experience "unexpected delays".
There are too many quotes in the post
Judging from your comments with immature comments like "why isn't this banned and why isn't that banned?" which has been discussed several times (almost as bad as the claims like the OS being third-party software, or what hardware you use), I am thinking you haven't even read the last few pages of this thread. Therefore, go back, read, and see that your post was just an echo and already dismissed. The EULA states exactly what it states, and CCP even stated at Fanfest 2015 (which is online in various formats) that you use third-party software at your own risk. REGARDLESS of how you use it, they warned you. They can enforce whatever they want, and in some cases like Mumble and TS3, choose NOT to enforce it. This has all been made very clear. So if you used third-party software and got banned, it's your own fault. But you are free to dispute it.
Now, that being said, I would like to clarify that I do not think that botting and using ISBoxer/Round Robin are the same thing. I just want to clear that up now because I never did say anything of the sort but some posts make it seem like I may be one that said such things.
Again, one last time, because this seems to be really hard to get into people's heads : IF YOU USE THIRD-PARTY SOFTWARE, IT IS AS YOUR OWN RISK. AKA, you are in murky waters.... If you don't want to worry about it, then just use Eve on its own. Multiple monitors, resolutions, keyboards and mice (minus macro-enabled ones), window arrangements, IN-GAME SETTINGS, etc etc don't matter. It's really not a hard concept, and my 9-year-old kid understands it very well... |
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
166
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 04:14:11 -
[4726] - Quote
Johann VandeBur wrote:Thanks for the changes,
we all will have lots of fun to buy a ship for 300 mil t1 cruiser or some t3 for atleast 3b
Well so much accounts will be going to sleep and good job letting the game die CCP
have fun at pvp with 10 guys in frigets in 0sec
LMAO
He is hurt.
https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/market/marketdisplay.php?typeid=29984®ionid=10000002
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
5375
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 06:29:43 -
[4727] - Quote
Removed a ton of off topic/personal attack/ranting posts. Please don't get to the point where we have to do more about it. Thank you.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
AayJay Crendraven
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 13:57:36 -
[4728] - Quote
Just to sum up my previous post:
Quote:ISBoxers cheat by skirting around aggression and wardec mechanics and are 100% safe all the time
The first is a serious charge, and corp-hopping to avoid wardecs can be petitioned against. The latter part is simply untrue as we are vulnerable to gankers whenever we undock or are in the belt. A skilled interceptor or covops gang can easily catch nullsec miners and decimate their numbers before reinforcements arrive.
Quote:If it isn't giving you an advantage, you wouldn't be arguing to keep it
Informally known as the fallacy of defense. This same argument was used against UCLA when they defended certain group's right to free speech and assembly. But I will entertain this idea for a moment.
Lets say for a moment that ISBoxer does indeed violate the EULA. It doesn't, but for the moment, let's say it does. Tomorrow, like the flip of a switch, CCP decides to enforce their EULA to the fullest extend. OK, so we ban ISBoxer and similar programs. Next, we ban PYFA, EFT, and similar programs for violations of 6A3. After all, you can just buy the modules yourself and fiddle with fits that way, or you can pen-and-paper it yourself. Next, we'll ban EVEMon for violating 6A3, as you can do the math yourself on which attribute remap is better than others. After all, it tells you which attributes are better right there in the skill description! Next, out goes TS3, Mumble, Overwolf, and Steam, for violations of 6A2, as well as banning vox programs in general, because we have EVE Voice, after all! Then, we ban players from using anything other than a PS/2 2-button mouse and 100-key Dell non-mechanical keyboard. After all, if whatever keyboard and mouse you're using right now doesn't provide an advantage, you wouldn't mind using a 2-button mouse and 100-key keyboard, would you? Next, we limit EVE to only run in 800x600 resolution on a similar-sized monitor, at 30 FPS and lowest quality graphics. Finally, we limit players to 1gb RAM, a Voodoo graphics card, an Atom processor, and a 56k dialup modem.
INB4 "herp slippery slope fallacy"; Slippery slope fallacy does not come into play because it is not a new law or part of EULA that is being discussed, merely the enforcement of a previously-existing EULA. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
756
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 14:08:11 -
[4729] - Quote
Eve's EULA/TOS & Policies. Read 28 |
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 15:24:11 -
[4730] - Quote
Okay so we have this
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/33t8g7/saturdayclientsetup_multitasking/
http://i.imgur.com/jxMaJY2.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/PytY9da.jpg
Don't see anyone getting annoyed about this on reddit yet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4bZm2-gTwE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZahhEjfAso
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZz_5dI6fgM
Then we have this, and people get upset
Also before "Hur durr isboxer" in the youtube vids that guy is not using isboxer
Use of Isboxer post Jan 1st happened in two ways, the naive / law benders, who thought that no input duplication, meant no input duplication, and, from a naive stand point, round robin, videofx and rollover are not directly input duplication
These naive or benders were banned, and then CCP's GM's released a new copy paste message somewhere around march that stated specifically that Round robin and Rollover were bad, shame on you for being naive
Now with that GM response being copy pasted around for any question even remotely related to ISBoxer or multiple clients, we still have a fuzzy response on Videofx, since they do not directly affect how the game is played, and the use of god damn windows OS (or so i read on multiboxing forums)
Botting..just no
There is an extraordinarily high number of people who are arrogant as to how ISBoxer works, and immediately damn a player who has multiple characters named similarly
Cut it out with the prejudice, multiboxing has been a part of EVE since people realized they'd get double money if they mined with 2 cruisers instead of one
Yes ISBoxer pre-Jan allowed some people to do some pretty crazy stuff, but there is no need to hate on those who still use the program for the sake of convenience or comfort, UI be damned
|
|
|
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
85
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 18:18:13 -
[4731] - Quote
By the way, I have been thinking some about round robin. and it is 1 click = 1 action. focusing between clients thought it don't put any commands in eve universe. it just focus the client. it's for an example the f1 that does something, because that is an command sent to that 1 client, (when clicked 1 time) (focusing client after clicked f1'etc don't input anything into eve universe. I suppose. -.o |
Trakow
Beta Switch
24
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 05:00:06 -
[4732] - Quote
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote:Removed a ton of off topic/personal attack/ranting posts. Please don't get to the point where we have to do more about it. Thank you.
Well, all my posts which were removed were a result of defending CCP's ability to find violators with some kind of smarts behind it. And I was also proving a point to those who think CCP don't know what they're doing, and think they're smart enough to cheat the system. Apparently you don't care, and neither do others at CCP. I was someone that was actually making sense and answering questions backed by logic and methods, because none of you do.
If none of you really want to answer or let someone answer, then why are you letting all the users argue about it? How about you just lock this thread then? Because it's just about as useful as you deleting all most posts. If you're going to ignore the problems and not give solutions, then this thread is pointless. |
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
5386
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 15:06:23 -
[4733] - Quote
Removed a post discussing moderation.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
24
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 20:03:26 -
[4734] - Quote
I'm requesting/suggesting that CCP/ISD lock this thread for the following reasons:
1-CCP made their statement on this subject clear on post #1.
2-CCP clearly has no intention on answering specific questions from players in this thread and keep referring to the first post or the EULA/TOS/Policies, or suggest creating a petition in-game.
3-This thread is causing nothing but arguments between players which leads to players violating the forum policies under sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 17, 23, 27, 28, 31, 32 & 35. Therefore, CCP/ISD should be proactive and simply close this thread.
4-Specific/new questions regarding gameplay should be answered through petitions, and not this thread. Players petitioning questions regarding multiboxing and using third-party software are already being directed to this thread or to the EULA/TOS/Policies which state:
EULA
6A2) "You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played."
THIRD-PARTY POLICIES :
A) "We will not authorize or otherwise sanction the use of any third party software."
B) "We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay."
C) "Please use player-made or other third party software at your own risk."
Terms Of Service
#21) "You will not attempt to decipher, hack into or interfere with any transmissions to or from the EVE Online servers, nor will you try to create or use any third party add-ons, extras or tools for the game."
Therefore, it is quite clear that any questions players have regarding third-party software have already been answered in the list above. TL;DR : Use third-party software at your own risk.
5-No further questioning or discussions are relevant at this point since they have either not been answered by CCP, or have been asked several times over and over again causing repetition within the thread and causing issues related to this list's item #3 due to players answering on behalf of CCP.
I personally have been defending CCP's reasoning and methods with regards to the new enforcement, along with several other players. But CCP has not backed up any of us. They are either completely ignoring this thread or just reading it and having a laugh. So at this point, this thread had become useless from this point forward and I see no reason for it to remain open.
If it does however remain open, I suggest that any new questions posted here not be answered by any players, and either refer to the EULA/TOS/Policies or wait for CCP to answer. Speculations, interpretations and theories are obviously causing nothing but problems. |
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
176
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 23:20:39 -
[4735] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Gina Taroen wrote:lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D None of the ones that care about the game.
Exactly, friend.
Situation was approaching such, that the numbers of real players was decreasing and the number of bots increasing in their wake.
In that past 3 years CCP have grown complacent due to success from the 2008-2012 period, letting many things slide in my opinion. Now there is a genuine effort to restore health across the whole of New Eden.
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:marly cortez wrote:The Sandbox ....What can be will be......except when we decide it's not to be. Compliments of CCP... You don't understand the term sandbox.
He wanted to successfully use an excavator in a childrens' playground.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
176
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 00:18:05 -
[4736] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Kagehisa Shintaro wrote:Whether he paid Gé¼/$ or PLEX'ed off market matters not. Someone paid for the PLEX. CCP got their dime ($15 worth of dimes, times 80)
And since CCP already got their cash, does it matter to them when that ISBoxer converts 80 PLEX into game time? Hell, no! All it means is that there are more PLEX on the market thus driving down the isk cost. CCP cares when someone creates PLEX by buying them for rl cash. That is all.
This gentlebeing gets it.
Plus, velocity of PLEX has been dropping, meaning it is sitting idle in hangars, not even sell orders, more often than not.
Ranger 1 wrote:Sylphy wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Incidentally, PLEX prices are already dropping, over 50mil since the announcement. Let's check PLEX prices again in 3 months and see who was right, shall we? Marking your name and my calendar for a regular check-up on Feb 25th, 2015. I'll contact you in-game. You might want to put the rest of EVE on that calendar as well, you can start with me.
So did she contact anyone on the date?
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 02:03:14 -
[4737] - Quote
This change had no effect on the number of bots.
This change also had no real effect on plex. Speculators are one of the biggest drivers of plex prices. I've personally pushed up plex prices in some of the trade hubs albeit for a short time. Plex price tends to drop down some after the initial push but the prices themselves never fully return to pre-push levels.
Plex prices over the last 180 days have stayed level despite the change.
So all this basically did was stop people from reaching silly levels of boxing (like 20 gank alts being boxed). |
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 02:30:50 -
[4738] - Quote
Trakow wrote:I'm requesting/suggesting that CCP/ISD lock this thread for the following reasons:
1-CCP made their statement on this subject clear on post #1.
Really, really was not clear seeing as how they went from "no input duplication" to "oh btw round robin and rollover banned too, sorry if you lacked the imagination to see what we really meant, it's EVE after all, you should know better than to trust anyone" |
Trakow
Beta Switch
24
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 02:54:28 -
[4739] - Quote
Lee Sin Priest wrote:Trakow wrote:I'm requesting/suggesting that CCP/ISD lock this thread for the following reasons:
1-CCP made their statement on this subject clear on post #1.
Really, really was not clear seeing as how they went from "no input duplication" to "oh btw round robin and rollover banned too, sorry if you lacked the imagination to see what we really meant, it's EVE after all, you should know better than to trust anyone"
THIRD-PARTY POLICIES :
A) "We will not authorize or otherwise sanction the use of any third party software."
B) "We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay."
C) "Please use player-made or other third party software at your own risk."
Don't want to be at risk of being banned? Don't use third-party software. Easy as that. It's in their policy. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
24
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 03:01:14 -
[4740] - Quote
GankYou wrote:And since CCP already got their cash, does it matter to them when that ISBoxer converts 80 PLEX into game time? Hell, no! All it means is that there are more PLEX on the market thus driving down the isk cost. CCP cares when someone creates PLEX by buying them for rl cash. That is all. This gentlebeing gets it. Plus, velocity of PLEX has been dropping, meaning it is sitting idle in hangars, not even sell orders, more often than not. So did she contact anyone on the date?
Kinete Jenius wrote:This change had no effect on the number of bots. This change also had no real effect on plex. Speculators are one of the biggest drivers of plex prices. I've personally pushed up plex prices in some of the trade hubs albeit for a short time. Plex price tends to drop down some after the initial push but the prices themselves never fully return to pre-push levels. Plex prices over the last 180 days have stayed level despite the change. So all this basically did was stop people from reaching silly levels of boxing (like 20 gank alts being boxed).
Forum Moderation Policy #27 : Off-topic posting is prohibited. |
|
|
Nicholas Kirk
GFL
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 04:29:01 -
[4741] - Quote
I recently reported a 8 bot account after losing a ship to auto lock and fire literally hours after watching CCP's security vid, which was freaking awesome!! after a few hours of learning bot tactics I was able to kill over 30 of his ships and went all in war dec'ng all his corps account, Two days in the bot was no longer loggin in.
I lost a 100m ship to a cheat/exploit but I killed over a billion of its assets.
Did I need CCPs help? No but I thank them all the same. Good job guys!
I used to design missions for league play for FreeSpace 2 16 years ago and cheat detection for operation flashpoint and ArmA servers for years and know cheat detection is not perfect but can also have defined certainties that work so looking at this thread I can see nothing has change on this topic after 16 years.
Once again keep up the good work CCP! |
Bachari Tanner
Perkone
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 07:06:56 -
[4742] - Quote
Trakow wrote:THIRD-PARTY POLICIES : A) "We will not authorize or otherwise sanction the use of any third party software." B) "We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay." C) "Please use player-made or other third party software at your own risk." Don't want to be at risk of being banned? Don't use third-party software. Easy as that. It's in their policy. Some of what is banned can be done through nothing but your OS. Should we not use an OS? Are CCP creating an EVE boot disk so we can run EVE without an OS? I've played a lot of mmos and I've never played one where the rules have to be deciphered in such a way. Why can't we just have straightforward and clear rules like everyone else?
Thos posts were on topic.
Why is it you are posting here if you think that everything has been said and the thread is done?
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
182
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 11:36:16 -
[4743] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:This change had no effect on the number of bots.
...
So all this basically did was stop people from reaching silly levels of boxing (like 20 gank alts being boxed).
Logic 101. Systems failure. Can not reboot.
Keep telling yourself nice and fuzzy warm thoughts - it helps with sleeping soundly at night.
Nicholas Kirk wrote:
I used to design missions for league play for FreeSpace 2 16 years ago and cheat detection for operation flashpoint and ArmA servers for years and know cheat detection is not perfect but can also have defined certainties that work so looking at this thread I can see nothing has change on this topic after 16 years.
Once again keep up the good work CCP!
I salute you! o77
Bachari Tanner wrote:Thos posts were on topic. Why is it you are posting here if you think that everything has been said and the thread is done?
Because it is the last refuge of the bot bugs, leaning to logical fallacies & paranoia - Everything to prevent & disrupt a rational discussion by real people.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
AayJay Crendraven
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 12:15:58 -
[4744] - Quote
Can't believe I have to spell this out but here goes:
Actual botters, the ones who start the botting program and go off to work and let the bot work, didn't give two hoots about this change, as they would have been botting anyways. Most botting programs are singular character entities, i.e. they only control 1 account per instance of the bot, so it would be difficult to differentiate between a very good ratter (or even a normal AFKTar) and an actual bot at times. This change did nothing but drive away people who were actually behind their keyboards and playing, not to mention those who alt-tabbed too quickly, or even those who did not use ISBoxer at all.
Botters don't care as they're already breaking the EULA.
e: And the only logical fallacies I've seen have been coming from CCP and the anti-ISBoxer crowd. |
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
182
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 12:20:40 -
[4745] - Quote
AayJay Crendraven wrote:This change did nothing but drive away people who were actually behind their keyboards and playing, not to mention those who alt-tabbed too quickly, or even those who did not use ISBoxer at all.
Tell me more.
Because multi-BOXING is allowed... since the year 2003, and still is.
*It appears your IP address had issued 4 commands across 4 accounts within milliseconds (or even seconds) of each other*
*How do you plead?*
-I alt-tabbed too quickly.
Quote:e: And the only logical fallacies I've seen have been coming from CCP and the anti-ISBoxer crowd.
Share the True Logic with us here. Please.
Point by point.
Kindly please.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
AayJay Crendraven
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 12:31:14 -
[4746] - Quote
GankYou wrote:AayJay Crendraven wrote:This change did nothing but drive away people who were actually behind their keyboards and playing, not to mention those who alt-tabbed too quickly, or even those who did not use ISBoxer at all. Tell me more. Because multi-BOXING is allowed... since the year 2003, and still is. *It appears your IP address had issued 4 commands across 4 accounts within milliseconds (or even seconds) of each other*
*How do you plead?*
-I alt-tabbed too quickly.
4 windows tiled, or 4 separate monitors. Have Windows function "OnMouseOverFocus" set on. Spin mouse in circle at the corner of the 4 monitors, and mash F1. Tada, you just send 4x commands on 4x separate clients to the servers during the same cycle. And yes, CCP does not have client side detection per their own admission and only look at the incoming server commands which are limited every 1 second.
Quote:e: And the only logical fallacies I've seen have been coming from CCP and the anti-ISBoxer crowd.
Share the True Logic with us here. Please.
Point by point.
Kindly please.[/quote]
Not sure what you're asking me to do here, honestly. |
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
183
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 12:36:06 -
[4747] - Quote
AayJay Crendraven wrote:GankYou wrote:AayJay Crendraven wrote:This change did nothing but drive away people who were actually behind their keyboards and playing, not to mention those who alt-tabbed too quickly, or even those who did not use ISBoxer at all. Tell me more. Because multi-BOXING is allowed... since the year 2003, and still is. *It appears your IP address had issued 4 commands across 4 accounts within milliseconds (or even seconds) of each other*
*How do you plead?*
-I alt-tabbed too quickly. 4 windows tiled, or 4 separate monitors. Have Windows function "OnMouseOverFocus" set on. Spin mouse in circle at the corner of the 4 monitors, and mash F1. Tada, you just send 4x commands on 4x separate clients to the servers during the same cycle. And yes, CCP does not have client side detection per their own admission and only look at the incoming server commands which are limited every 1 second.
Do you think they would admit to such capabilities, if they had it? That is the most trivial function to attain - VALVe had it in the year 2006.
Quote:Quote:
Share the True Logic with us here. Please.
Point by point.
Kindly please.
Not sure what you're asking me to do here, honestly.
I'm sure you do, as you've read all of the points and arguments and deemed them logical fallacies in your own mind - So please share your reasoning - point by point, as to why you think it is so.
Healthy real human discussion.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
AayJay Crendraven
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 13:39:28 -
[4748] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Do you think they would admit to such capabilities, if they had it? That is the most trivial function to attain - VALVe had it in the year 2006.
Yeah, think I'll believe a dev over you on this one, especially after having multiple players banned whilst not broadcasting, one of which was only using ISBoxer's FPS limiter.
Quote:Quote:Not sure what you're asking me to do here, honestly. I'm sure you do, as you've read all of the points and arguments and deemed them logical fallacies in your own mind - So please share your reasoning - point by point, as to why you think it is so. Healthy real human discussion.
Ah, you want me to explain which logical fallacies are being used?
Generalization fallacy - "All ISBoxers are bad!" and similar statements
Cherry-picking fallacy - "This one guy used broadcasting, so they all must!"
Appeal to Authority - "CCP said so, so it must be true!"
Ad hominems - Self explanatory.
*Subset of Ad Hominem: Poisoning the well - "Nothing he says can be trusted because he's an ISBoxer!"
True Scotsman - "No real EVE player uses ISBoxer!"
Appeal to Accomplishment - "Look at the reduction in PLEX / number of people banned!" Note that the first, the PLEX argument, is also a Faulty Cause fallacy.
Faulty Cause, aka Correlation/Causation fallacy - "I wore a red shirt today and got in a car accident, so red shirts must be the cause of all car accidents!" or, in EVE terms, "Look at the drop in PLEX!"
Appeal to Ignorance
Bifurcation, aka Black and White fallacy - "Either CCP bans anyone playing too fast, or we let bots run rampant!" Also a straw-man fallacy, as ISBoxers have never and will never say that AFK botters are "innocent" or "good".
Tautological Fallacy - "All ISBoxers are against this change, and if anyone else argues against me, he must be an ISBoxer too!"
Straw man - "CCP will never repeal this interpretation because bots will run rampant and there will be no real players left!"
To name but a few.
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
183
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 13:53:23 -
[4749] - Quote
AayJay Crendraven wrote:[
Generalization fallacy - "All ISBoxers are bad!" and similar statements
No one is saying that they are bad people in real life. What they do to the game, however, is bad in the long-term for its very health.
See Chinese Eve server Serenity.
Quote:Cherry-picking fallacy - "This one guy used broadcasting, so they all must!"
When one runs 10 accounts, then yes - that is the most logical conclusion. Occam's razor.
Quote:Appeal to Authority - "CCP said so, so it must be true!"
They are the Great Architects of this world, they are also the Police, the Government and the Scientific branches - They provide all of the technology - we can only act as emergent content creators here.
Quote:Ad hominems - Self explanatory.
That's unfortunate, and it comes from both sides.
Quote:*Subset of Ad Hominem: Poisoning the well - "Nothing he says can be trusted because he's an ISBoxer!"
That is reasonable response due to very many vested interests in the topic at hand.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
184
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 13:56:37 -
[4750] - Quote
Quote:True Scotsman - "No real EVE player uses ISBoxer!"
And we didn't. We always multiboxed.
Even the RMT people back in 2004-2008, before the introduction of PLEX, multiboxed.
ISBoxer concept is a relatively new addition to the whole industry.
Quote:Appeal to Accomplishment - "Look at the reduction in PLEX / number of people banned!" Note that the first, the PLEX argument, is also a Faulty Cause fallacy.
Accomplishment is reducing the imbalances of faucet ISK inflows into the game, and the fact that the average player can now compete with someone, who had been "playing Eve" at 1000, 1100, 2000% efficiency before the change.
Please expand on the topic of PLEX more thoroughly.
Quote:Faulty Cause, aka Correlation/Causation fallacy - "I wore a red shirt today and got in a car accident, so red shirts must be the cause of all car accidents!" or, in EVE terms, "Look at the drop in PLEX!"
PLEX price drop is indeed because of the November policy shift. At this point, you're grasping at straws and I'm running out of the Quote limit per post.
Quote:Appeal to Ignorance
On the contrary, the botters appeal to ignorance in saying that what they do only concerns them, and has not effect on the greater Economy.
Quote:Tautological Fallacy - "All ISBoxers are against this change, and if anyone else argues against me, he must be an ISBoxer too!"
There are only two player sides in this discussion:
1) The ones who genuinely care about the future of this game;
2) The ones who are genuinely only care about retaining their 1100% ISK generating efficiency.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
|
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
184
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 14:02:01 -
[4751] - Quote
Quote:Straw man - "CCP will never repeal this interpretation because bots will run rampant and there will be no real players left!"
That is now the Last Hope of the botters, this is why you are in this thread, and this is why it is now at 211 pages long.
The problem wasn't as acute back in 2012, and I suspect many are here because of the option that the ISBoxer provides, otherwise they aren't interested in Eve Online at all.
I am very glad to see where CCP's true loyalty is, which works both ways - from the customers to the company, and from the company to the core user base, who had built this very game.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
25
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 14:04:40 -
[4752] - Quote
Bachari Tanner wrote:Trakow wrote:THIRD-PARTY POLICIES : A) "We will not authorize or otherwise sanction the use of any third party software." B) "We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay." C) "Please use player-made or other third party software at your own risk." Don't want to be at risk of being banned? Don't use third-party software. Easy as that. It's in their policy. Some of what is banned can be done through nothing but your OS. Should we not use an OS? Are CCP creating an EVE boot disk so we can run EVE without an OS? I've played a lot of mmos and I've never played one where the rules have to be deciphered in such a way. Why can't we just have straightforward and clear rules like everyone else?
TheOS? That's a childish response if you think that CCP would really ban someone for using an OS which is required to play the game. The rules ARE straight-forward, read above A,B and C again, mainly B and C.
Bachari Tanner wrote:Thos posts were on topic. Why is it you are posting here if you think that everything has been said and the thread is done?
They were not on topic, they were discussing PLEX prices. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
25
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 14:11:45 -
[4753] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Bachari Tanner wrote:Thos posts were on topic. Why is it you are posting here if you think that everything has been said and the thread is done? Because it is the last refuge of the bot bugs, leaning to logical fallacies & paranoia - Everything to prevent & disrupt a rational discussion by real people.
Wow, you obviously haven't read the last 50 pages or so in which I've been defending CCP, or THIS POST which was right above yours. I've never used bots or ISBoxer.
Perhaps read my posts HERE pages 157-159. I'm not against multiboxing, I'm against third-party software which violates EULA/TOS/Policy that CCP is now enforcing. Also, just to clear things up for you, botting and using ISBoxer are not the same, at all. Botters have complex scripts where they can essentially let their computer run their account all day long, and their ships will mine asteroids, return full cargo to station, return to mine some more, and do things like run away and dock if attacked, all automated without user input. ISBoxer facilitates the use of multiple accounts simultaneously but requires some user input. Again, I'm against the use of ISBoxer, I'm just pointing out the difference to you. |
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
184
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 14:15:27 -
[4754] - Quote
Trakow wrote:
Why is it you are posting here if you think that everything has been said and the thread is done?
They were not on topic, they were discussing PLEX prices.[/quote]
PLEX is an integral part of the system that the ISBoxers had been running.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
AayJay Crendraven
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 14:16:15 -
[4755] - Quote
GankYou wrote:No one is saying that they are bad people in real life. What they do to the game, however, is bad in the long-term for its very health. See Chinese Eve server Serenity.
[Citation Needed]
The Serenity server has more ISK farmers than TQ; people who do nothing but farm ISK to sell it. ISK buyers and sellers are rampant there, with PLEX hitting 2b ISK last time I looked, which was admittedly a while ago.
Quote:When one runs 10 accounts, then yes - that is the most logical conclusion. Occam's razor.
Except that's not what Occam's Razor actually means. Occam's Razor was a method of "shaving away" more complicated methods, equations, or explanations for a given problem. Also, you just participated in a Generalization Fallacy.
Quote:They are the Great Architects of this world, they are also the Police, the Government and the Scientific branches - They provide all of the technology - we can only act as emergent content creators here.
But they are not infallible. Indeed, that is one of the very tenets of civilized society: That nobody has all the answers, and that nobody is infallible. That's why society today is not the same as society of the Greco-Roman era: because we evolved.
Quote:That's unfortunate, and it comes from both sides.
No argument here.
Quote:That is reasonable response due to very many vested interests in the topic at hand.
Lucas Kell does not (or did not) use ISBoxer, and yet he defends us. Kinete no longer uses ISBoxer, is managing quite well, and is arguing here. Simply because a player may or may not have a vested interest in a policy change does not invalidate his arguments, which is a Poisoning the Well fallacy. If that were the case, nobody would be allowed to comment as everyone would have a perceived vested interest on the issue. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
25
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 14:17:41 -
[4756] - Quote
AayJay Crendraven wrote:
4 windows tiled, or 4 separate monitors. Have Windows function "OnMouseOverFocus" set on. Spin mouse in circle at the corner of the 4 monitors, and mash F1. Tada, you just send 4x commands on 4x separate clients to the servers during the same cycle. And yes, CCP does not have client side detection per their own admission and only look at the incoming server commands which are limited every 1 second.
I explained quite clearly how to detect the probability of a round-robin user HERE and HERE .
"using pattern recognition combined with linear discriminant analysis will show the likely violators, then apply the Probit Model to that, and more specifically probit regression, which will yield very little to no false positives, especially after analyzing logs over a length of time"
"It's really not hard to take a large amount of data and put it up against sets of filters and nested queries that can sort out specific criteria in data sets, with each new step drilling down to more specific results. Then you have a much smaller set of extremely highly probable positives to which a human can then look at manually for further investigation. I told you before how it can be done and the methods that can be used, I was pretty specific (But I won't lay down exact query methods or pseudo code because CCP might not be happy with possibly posting how they get their data set results). There are many models and boolean queries that can be used for complex criteria no matter how many combining or negating conditions you need to get the end result, and I already stated some."
I would also like to point this out to you. |
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
184
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 14:30:31 -
[4757] - Quote
AayJay Crendraven wrote:GankYou wrote:No one is saying that they are bad people in real life. What they do to the game, however, is bad in the long-term for its very health. See Chinese Eve server Serenity. [Citation Needed] The Serenity server has more ISK farmers than TQ; people who do nothing but farm ISK to sell it. ISK buyers and sellers are rampant there, with PLEX hitting 2b ISK last time I looked, which was admittedly a while ago.
PLEX is 5.3bn there.
You answered your own query with your own "citation".
You see, the current monthly ISK inflows minus sinks is around 25-30 Trillion per month - Why would CCP want to artificially distort the economy and devalue ISK further for the benefit of 5% of the population?
That ISK will always find its way to assets prices, especially when the botters don't engage in much Market activity, except buying, and spend minimal amounts on Skill, Blueprint and other purchases plus taxes.
Quote:When one runs 10 accounts, then yes - that is the most logical conclusion. Occam's razor.
Except that's not what Occam's Razor actually means. Occam's Razor was a method of "shaving away" more complicated methods, equations, or explanations for a given problem. Also, you just participated in a Generalization Fallacy. [/quote]
What is your explanation then?
That the guy with 10 accounts manually activates everything, achieving 600% efficiency, when he could get 1100% by merely settting up input broadcasting?
Keep trying to peddle this story! It is entertaining.
Quote:
But they are not infallible. Indeed, that is one of the very tenets of civilized society: That nobody has all the answers, and that nobody is infallible. That's why society today is not the same as society of the Greco-Roman era: because we evolved.
Appeal to the concepts of no one ever knowing the Truth.
Listen, kiddo, I said Great Architects - de facto and de jure They Know the Truth, for They Are the Truth.
Even disregarding that fact, the very concept of ISBoxer is cancerous in a game - this is not the real world where efficiency is the way of progress at the expense of the current generation of typewrites, assemblers, or other manual types of labour.
Quote:That is reasonable response due to very many vested interests in the topic at hand.
Lucas Kell does not (or did not) use ISBoxer, and yet he defends us. Kinete no longer uses ISBoxer, is managing quite well, and is arguing here. Simply because a player may or may not have a vested interest in a policy change does not invalidate his arguments [/quote]
Good luck to them, some people even provide legal councel and defend atrocities commited in the real world.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
AayJay Crendraven
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 14:33:26 -
[4758] - Quote
GankYou wrote:And we didn't. We always multiboxed. Even the RMT people back in 2004-2008, before the introduction of PLEX, multiboxed. ISBoxer concept is a relatively new addition to the whole industry.
True Scotsman fallacy again. See here: https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/oldrigs
Duct tape and dowels were used by dedicated players, and programs such as Synergy and AutoHotkey were used before ISBoxer was introduced. If by "relatively new" you mean over 5 years old, then sure, I guess.
Quote:Accomplishment is reducing the imbalances of faucet ISK inflows into the game, and the fact that the average player can now compete with someone, who had been "playing Eve" at 1000, 1100, 2000% efficiency before the change.
This is not about adjusting ISK faucets. I could easily earn more than a VG fleet with fewer characters if I went to solo C5/6 Capital escalations with 1 Moros, 1 Loki, 1 Archon, 1 OGB, and 1 toon warping capitals in and out. Toss in PI, and I would have Scrooge McDuck levels of ISK.
As for your "2000%" efficiently, [Citation Bloody Needed]. 6a3 has never in it's entirety of existence been interpreted to be on a Per Human-Being basis. If it was, CCP would have to disallow multiple clients.
Quote:PLEX price drop is indeed because of the November policy shift. At this point, you're grasping at straws and I'm running out of the Quote limit per post.
[Citation Needed]. As discussed earlier, if Plex dropping really was the fault of the new policy, it would be dropping to below 600m ISK levels. However, if indeed it was being manipulated as literally everyone who market trades believes, then the current price makes sense after hitting 1B ISK/Unit and then having the massive spike in number of PLEX traded per day for that period until it settled.
Quote:On the contrary, the botters appeal to ignorance in saying that what they do only concerns them, and has not effect on the greater Economy.
We have never said that what we do only concerns us. We have said that you cannot attribute the rise of PLEX prices to what is considered a drop in the ocean of manipulation by PLEX traders.
Quote:There are only two player sides in this discussion:
1) The ones who genuinely care about the future of this game;
2) The ones who are genuinely only care about retaining their 1100% ISK generating efficiency.
We do care about the future of this game, what with two CCP at two CSM members being on the record for disallowing multiple clients, and the dangerous precedent this follows in the wake of T20's "Do as we say, not as we do" in regards to the EULA. You are also participating in a Black and White fallacy whereby you divide the player base into two extremes.
I and other ISBoxers believe that CCP has failed to meet the burden of proof required to disallow input broadcasting whilst allowing other programs in violation of the EULA to continue to work, including a program that a CCP dev is working on that mimics ISBoxer. |
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
186
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 14:42:09 -
[4759] - Quote
AayJay Crendraven wrote:
This is not about adjusting ISK faucets
It is, honey.
Quote:I could easily earn more than a VG fleet with fewer characters if I went to solo C5/6 Capital escalations with 1 Moros, 1 Loki, 1 Archon, 1 OGB, and 1 toon warping capitals in and out. Toss in PI, and I would have Scrooge McDuck levels of ISK.
Then go do it! We'd like cheaper T3s, please.
https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/market/marketdisplay.php?typeid=29984®ionid=10000002
Quote:[Citation Needed]. As discussed earlier, if Plex dropping really was the fault of the new policy, it would be dropping to below 600m ISK levels.
Is it currently supported by new-found demand from the coming SKINs systems, launching April 28th - Haven't you read the news?
Regarding the 600 mil figure - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5694622#post5694622
All that is needed now is an extended PLEX discount sale and it is entirely possible.
Quote:We have never said that what we do only concerns us. We have said that you cannot attribute the rise of PLEX prices to what is considered a drop in the ocean of manipulation by PLEX traders.
Keep telling yourself that. I hear self-deception helps in the short term, what happens next is another story, tho.
https://element-43.com/market/29668/
http://i.imgur.com/qj6Hot5.png - In a situation with ever decreasing real player numbers, and ever-increasing hordes of bots - We ramped it up all de way from 511. Yes, yes, we did.
Quote:We do care about the future of this game, what with two CCP at two CSM members being on the record for disallowing multiple clients, and the dangerous precedent this follows in the wake of T20's "Do as we say, not as we do" in regards to the EULA. You are also participating in a Black and White fallacy whereby you divide the player base into two extremes.
I and other ISBoxers believe that CCP has failed to meet the burden of proof required to disallow input broadcasting whilst allowing other programs in violation of the EULA to continue to work, including a program that a CCP dev is working on that mimics ISBoxer.
Sold to you.
If you didn't use Input Broadcasting, I am not sure why you are up in arms over this - probably because you did use it.
Oh well - Round and round this circus goes, where it stops?.. Nobody knows.
I'm having great Fun here, would buy tickets again! 11/10
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5452
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 17:13:47 -
[4760] - Quote
I simply can't resist responding to a few points here:
GankYou wrote:No one is saying that they are bad people in real life. What they do to the game, however, is bad in the long-term for its very health.
See Chinese Eve server Serenity. Serentiy isn't simply allowing ISBoxer however. AFAIK, actual bots are allowed, which ISBoxer is not.
GankYou wrote:When one runs 10 accounts, then yes - that is the most logical conclusion. Occam's razor. Long before I'd even heard of ISBoxer, I controlled 10 accounts and knew people with more. Now that I've got upgraded tech I can long-term control 10 passively with ease while playing PS4. I doubt I'd have an issue controlling up to around 30, using nothing but the OS - not even EVE-O preview.
GankYou wrote:PLEX price drop is indeed because of the November policy shift. At this point, you're grasping at straws and I'm running out of the Quote limit per post. Actually, it's almost entirely speculation. Sure, there were a few of the biggest multiboxers who dropped accounts leading to a little less consumption, but most of the PLEX price is driven by people with PLEX as an investment (we've had stats on where PLEX ends up before). A lot of us went from flipping PLEX to selling PLEX waiting for the dust to settle before buying back in more recently. A shockingly large amount of the prices in EVE are driven by ludicrously easy and risk free trading, all of which is only possible at the scale it is thanks to third party tools.
Oh, and I doubt we'll ever see <=600m PLEX again as a stable price. Re your element 43 graph, you realise that spike occurred prior to this announcement, right? it's surprisingly stable if you ignore that spike which definitely had nothing to do with players reacting to an announcement that had not yet been made.
GankYou wrote:On the contrary, the botters appeal to ignorance in saying that what they do only concerns them, and has not effect on the greater Economy. Botters were totally unaffected by this change as AayJay mentioned earlier. Botters were already violating the EULA before and they are still violating the EULA now. It's irrelevant to them as it's a simple cost of doing business. There's a clear distinction between a botter, who is entirely autonomous, using disposable accounts and designed to avoid detection, and a tool-using multiboxers, who require constant manual input, use accounts and characters they are as committed to as you are to yours, and operate in plain sight attempting to work within the rules laid down by CCP. Honestly, I don't care if you want to hate both, but to be taken seriously, you should understand the distinction between the two.
GankYou wrote:There are only two player sides in this discussion:
1) The ones who genuinely care about the future of this game;
2) The ones who are genuinely only care about retaining their 1100% ISK generating efficiency. Incredibly biased wording on the categorisation, but there's at least a third - me. Those who genuinely care about the future of this game and feel that while banning multiplexing is achievable and fine, banning of other methods of control put manual multiboxers at risk. FYI, those arguing about efficiency rarely know what they are talking about. From the point of view of 10 accounts, easily with room for more, it's actually slightly more efficient to control them manually than it is with tools - albeit with slightly more effort to get the character set up.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
187
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 17:17:25 -
[4761] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:It's irrelevant to them as it's a simple cost of doing business.
Then continue on with your business, you most non-honourable ladies & gentlemen.
I am very glad CCP had finally woken up from the deep slumber of 2008-2012 success wave - I can't wait for this Summer-Autumn in Eve!
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
AayJay Crendraven
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 18:07:40 -
[4762] - Quote
GankYou wrote:PLEX is 5.3bn there. You answered your own query with your own "citation". You see, the current monthly ISK inflows minus sinks is around 25-30 Trillion per month - Why would CCP want to artificially distort the economy and devalue ISK further for the benefit of 5% of the population? That ISK will always find its way to assets prices, especially when the botters don't engage in much Market activity, except buying, and spend minimal amounts on Skill, Blueprint and other purchases plus taxes.
Uh, what do you think those botters do to earn enough ISK to sell it? Twiddle their thumbs?
ISK buying is rampant on Serenity. There are dedicated groups of players who do nothing but farm ISK and sell it, oftentimes those in prison. There was an article in the news recently about a group of WoW gold farmers who were actually prisoners forced to earn gold. I would be greatly surprised of there was not an EVE counterpart.
Quote:What is your explanation then?
That the guy with 10 accounts manually activates everything, achieving 600% efficiency, when he could get 1100% by merely settting up input broadcasting?
That, if there's a 10-boxer left after the new change, that he is following the new rules.
Again, efficiency is per character, not per human. Come back when you've learned that.
Quote:Appeal to the concepts of no one ever knowing the Truth. Listen, kiddo, I said Great Architects - de facto and de jure They Know the Truth, for They Are the Truth. Even disregarding that fact, the very concept of ISBoxer is cancerous in a game - this is not the real world where efficiency is the way of progress at the expense of the current generation of typewrites, assemblers, or other manual types of labour.
First off, ignoring the laughable idea that "they are the truth", why, in your own words, is ISBoxer any more cancerous than the likes of CODE, who arguably drive more players away than any ISBoxer has? Why is ISBoxer worse than those margin traders and PLEX stockpilers, ever driving PLEX skyward?
Quote:Good luck to them, some people even provide legal councel and defend atrocities commited in the real world.
Hang on, are you comparing ISBoxers, players who have always followed the EULA, to the likes of **** sympathizers? False comparison fallacy much? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5452
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 18:11:58 -
[4763] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:It's irrelevant to them as it's a simple cost of doing business. Then continue on with your business, you most non-honourable ladies & gentlemen. I am very glad CCP had finally woken up from the deep slumber of 2006-2012 success wave - I can't wait for this Summer-Autumn in Eve!
Out of curiosity, what is it that bugs you about ISBoxers that doesn't bug you about multiboxers, or are they all bad? It's been shown that manually multiboxing can be as efficient, so is it OK if someone manually controls 30 characters, or do you take issue with that too? I'm just confused as to what effect you think ISBoxer had that manual multiboxers and high end traders don't have.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
188
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 18:16:41 -
[4764] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:It's irrelevant to them as it's a simple cost of doing business. Then continue on with your business, you most non-honourable ladies & gentlemen. I am very glad CCP had finally woken up from the deep slumber of 2006-2012 success wave - I can't wait for this Summer-Autumn in Eve! Out of curiosity, what is it that bugs you about ISBoxers that doesn't bug you about multiboxers, or are they all bad? It's been shown that manually multiboxing can be as efficient, so is it OK if someone manually controls 30 characters, or do you take issue with that too? I'm just confused as to what effect you think ISBoxer had that manual multiboxers and high end traders don't have.
The answer is elementary, Watson - Quality of Life.
Now, they will be playing Alt-Tab and 10-times-the-number-of-inputs Online, as compared to the previous easy life, which essentially didn't differ from the normal Eve player leveraged ten, fifteen, twenty times.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
AayJay Crendraven
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 18:36:21 -
[4765] - Quote
GankYou wrote:It had never been the intention by the game's Founders for the player to simultaneously run 10 accounts comfortably and efficiently, hence why most of us average out at 2.4 accounts since the Dawn of Time.
Living in wormholes wasn't intended either, but look what happened there. Are players who live in wormholes somehow bad? |
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
188
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 18:41:41 -
[4766] - Quote
Wormholes are at the forefront of potential Wealth acquisition precisely because there is risk involved, and precisely because it is a relatively new industry - T3 prices have room to fall, still.
TL;DR EVERYONE MOVE TO WORMHOLES NOW!
I'll update this post with ISK Faucet and sinks metrics later on - also do consider that Wormhole activity for the most part is not an ISK Faucet.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5452
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 19:08:52 -
[4767] - Quote
GankYou wrote:One could argue that you could have 50,000 bots getting Bounty ISK from CONCORD, and the same number mining, and then it all balances out. The difference is that we are not talking about bots here. If we were, I'd be firmly on your side.
Just for you by the way, I'm going to migrate to using eve-o preview (which has been certified my CCP as not breaking the EULA in any way) and open 5 accounts today, then another 5 in a couple of weeks.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
AayJay Crendraven
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 19:42:42 -
[4768] - Quote
Single tower in a C5/6 wormhole with a static C6: 1b +/- depending on type and modules
Assuming that, like 99% of wormhole residents of higher-class WHs make their own fuel.
1x Archon: 1.9b, +/- rigs and whatnot
1x Moros: 3.5b, +/- tank or faction mag stabs
1x Loki: 500m, no Slaves, can tank C6s.
1x OGB: 300m not counting warfare implant.
1x capital sitter toon, low skills: depending on how far you're escalating, anywhere from 1.5b to 5b +/-.
Tada, you have a C5/6 escalation fleet.
The best part is that you can train the actual site-running toons to also be efficient PI alts and sell excess PI material for profit.
Assuming you don't attempt to move 3000x Nanoribbons in a Heron to Jita, you can make quite a lot of money with minimal work compared to incursions or anom running. |
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
189
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 19:43:18 -
[4769] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:One could argue that you could have 50,000 bots getting Bounty ISK from CONCORD, and the same number mining, and then it all balances out. The difference is that we are not talking about bots here. If we were, I'd be firmly on your side.
We have always been talking about bots, I don't care if said person posts on the forum once in a while - Input Automation = botting, hence OFF WITH ITS HEAD.
Quote:Just for you by the way, I'm going to migrate to using eve-o preview (which has been certified my CCP as not breaking the EULA in any way) and open 5 accounts today, then another 5 in a couple of weeks.
Looks interesting - http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1306/example%5B1%5D.png
Enjoy the Windowception.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
AayJay Crendraven
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 19:45:35 -
[4770] - Quote
GankYou wrote:We have always been talking about bots, I don't care if said person posts on the forum once in a while - Input Automation = botting
OK, let's try a simple exercise.
In your own words, please define "botting" in the context of MMOs. |
|
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
189
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 19:46:54 -
[4771] - Quote
AayJay Crendraven wrote:GankYou wrote:We have always been talking about bots, I don't care if said person posts on the forum once in a while - Input Automation = botting OK, let's try a simple exercise. In your own words, please define "botting" in the context of MMOs.
I already have - Automated inputs.
One player - One action per reasonable unit of time. If said person can down a Titan solo while alt-tabbing, then more power to him!
Erebus wanted to go home 25.11.14
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5452
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 19:54:22 -
[4772] - Quote
GankYou wrote:We have always been talking about bots, I don't care if said person posts on the forum once in a while - Input Automation = botting, hence OFF WITH ITS HEAD. That's an insanely limited view which kind of misses the point about what is wrong with botting. In addition nothing in this thread - not one single rule or discussion - has affected botting.
I'm not sure what "windowception" is, but yeah, looks great, better than that screenshot.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 22:33:09 -
[4773] - Quote
For the last time there was no real plex price drop. Sure there was a panic sale that resulted in somewhat of a drop in some areas but prices rebounded quickly.
When people were complaining that plex were costing them +900m I was still buying them daily for under 830m. Even eve-market's price history shows clearly that prices have held fairly steady with a slight rise recently. |
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
191
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 22:49:50 -
[4774] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:For the last time there was no real plex price drop. Sure there was a panic sale that resulted in somewhat of a drop in some areas but prices rebounded quickly.
When people were complaining that plex were costing them +900m I was still buying them daily for under 830m. Even eve-market's price history shows clearly that prices have held fairly steady with a slight rise recently.
https://element-43.com/market/29668/
Steady as a rock.
But I understand you may have no interest in anything Eve-related, apart from receiving big hourly ticks.
Quote:I intend to make a new video of my NM fleet running incursions. I am just waiting on CCP to confirm that no matter how fast I manually control I won't be banned. I have no interest in getting banned because I hit 3 commands to 4 clients instead of 3 clients in one second.
I won't wish for your computer to explode catastrophically, but I do hope that the EULA clauses 6A-2 & 3 will be enforced in full this coming Summer, as they gain a major player buffer from the coming expansions, in order to do so.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 22:58:21 -
[4775] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:For the last time there was no real plex price drop. Sure there was a panic sale that resulted in somewhat of a drop in some areas but prices rebounded quickly.
When people were complaining that plex were costing them +900m I was still buying them daily for under 830m. Even eve-market's price history shows clearly that prices have held fairly steady with a slight rise recently. https://element-43.com/market/29668/
Steady as a rock. But I understand you may have no interest in anything Eve-related, apart from receiving big hourly ticks. Quote:I intend to make a new video of my NM fleet running incursions. I am just waiting on CCP to confirm that no matter how fast I manually control I won't be banned. I have no interest in getting banned because I hit 3 commands to 4 clients instead of 3 clients in one second. I won't wish for your computer to explode catastrophically, but I do hope that the EULA clauses 6A-2/3 will be enforced in full this coming Summer, as they gain more player buffer from the coming expansions, in order to do that.
Your link shows nothing of value and I already said I was buying plex for under 840m when there were threads screaming about plex prices being +950m.
Here is a price history to help you out since you seem confused.
http://i.imgur.com/3l98TJj.jpg
There's a traditional seasonal bump in plex prices during november which played out as normal. Prices never dropped after the EULA change.
EULA clause 6a-2/3 is irrelevant. If you would care to try to explain why that matters I'd appreciate it.
EDIT : I don't really care to look at what plex is being sold at as it's very VERY easy to manipulate that value. The real indicator is what people are buying it at before they flip for a profit. |
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
191
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 23:01:52 -
[4776] - Quote
I humbly wish you all the best in your future Eve career(s).
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Rosewalker
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
169
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 23:51:55 -
[4777] - Quote
GankYou wrote:AayJay Crendraven wrote:GankYou wrote:We have always been talking about bots, I don't care if said person posts on the forum once in a while - Input Automation = botting OK, let's try a simple exercise. In your own words, please define "botting" in the context of MMOs. I already have - Automated inputs. It is acknowledged that singular, or limited number of accounts running automation is harder to detect, but their profitability per person is going to be such, as to become a non-factor in the economy. Is it when the average Joe and Jane fires up ISBoxer and runs 15-20 accounts simultanously in perfect sync - that becomes a problem. Thanks for all the evidence on YouTube, guys! In the context of Eve: One player - One action per reasonable unit of time. If said person can down a Titan solo while alt-tabbing, then more power to him. - Erebus wanted to go home 25.11.14But most importantly, read the EULA, http://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/third-party-policies/
Quote:6. CONDUCT
A. Specifically Restricted Conduct
2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
3. You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game. Even without Input Automation/Broadcasts function in the ISBoxer, their bullshit Dashboards can also be considered as botting under both 6A-2 and 6A-3.
0/10 - Obvious troll is obvious. Because if this isn't a troll ...
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
192
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 00:06:24 -
[4778] - Quote
Don't be so hard on yourself for not comprehending.
ISBoxer dashboards fall under, 6A-2 "You may not use your own or third-party software to modify [...] how the Game is played."
and
6A-3 "You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game."
Stay sharp, bot boi.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 00:49:46 -
[4779] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Don't be so hard on yourself for not comprehending. ISBoxer dashboards fall under, 6A-2 "You may not use your own or third-party software to modify [...] how the Game is played." and 6A-3 "You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game." Stay sharp, bot boi.
I don't use any third party programs other then windows and drivers. So I still don't get your point. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5454
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 06:59:33 -
[4780] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:GankYou wrote:Don't be so hard on yourself for not comprehending. ISBoxer dashboards fall under, 6A-2 "You may not use your own or third-party software to modify [...] how the Game is played." and 6A-3 "You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game." Stay sharp, bot boi. I don't use any third party programs other then windows and drivers. So I still don't get your point. I think his point is proving that he has no idea what's going on. I think it's pretty clear though that what he is mad at is multiboxers in general, manual or not.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
196
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 11:54:59 -
[4781] - Quote
Indeed, CCP let this circus slide in the hope that PCU numbers would pickup eventually - OOPS! The inverse actually happened.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2ndrl2/the_end_isboxers
Quote:CCP_Falcon --- CCP Games 152 points 5 months ago
My personal opinion on this question is that I value the integrity of the game, and its overall health more than I value the numbers.
I'd rather see 1 person playing with 19 of his friends, than 1 person using software or hardware to play solo while input broadcasting to 20 accounts.
EVE is a game based around interaction with others, and the action and reaction that comes from it.
Well, that's my personal take on it, at least.
The current management has big enough coconuts to be able to even think of enforcing their own EULA in this regard.
All in due time.
In due time.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5533
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 12:26:48 -
[4782] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Indeed, CCP let this circus slide in the hope that PCU numbers would pickup eventually - OOPS! The inverse actually happened. http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2ndrl2/the_end_isboxers
Quote:CCP_Falcon --- CCP Games 152 points 5 months ago
My personal opinion on this question is that I value the integrity of the game, and its overall health more than I value the numbers.
I'd rather see 1 person playing with 19 of his friends, than 1 person using software or hardware to play solo while input broadcasting to 20 accounts.
EVE is a game based around interaction with others, and the action and reaction that comes from it.
Well, that's my personal take on it, at least. The current management has big enough coconuts to be able to even think of enforcing their own EULA in this regard. All in due time. In due time. Except what we have is 1 person playing with 19 of his friend AND 1 person playing with 20 accounts. These two concepts can work together. EVE will never stop being a multiboxing heavy game. Ever. you've made it clear that it's multiboxing itself, not the use of tools, that you dislike. Tough.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
25
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 14:07:58 -
[4783] - Quote
Trakow wrote:I'm requesting/suggesting that CCP/ISD lock this thread for the following reasons: 1-CCP made their statement on this subject clear on post #1. 2-CCP clearly has no intention on answering specific questions from players in this thread and keep referring to the first post or the EULA/TOS/Policies, or suggest creating a petition in-game. 3-This thread is causing nothing but arguments between players which leads to players violating the forum policies under sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 17, 23, 27, 28, 31, 32 & 35. Therefore, CCP/ISD should be proactive and simply close this thread. 4-Specific/new questions regarding gameplay should be answered through petitions, and not this thread. Players petitioning questions regarding multiboxing and using third-party software are already being directed to this thread or to the EULA/TOS/Policies which state: EULA 6A2) "You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played." THIRD-PARTY POLICIES : A) "We will not authorize or otherwise sanction the use of any third party software." B) "We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay." C) "Please use player-made or other third party software at your own risk." Terms Of Service #21) "You will not attempt to decipher, hack into or interfere with any transmissions to or from the EVE Online servers, nor will you try to create or use any third party add-ons, extras or tools for the game." Therefore, it is quite clear that any questions players have regarding third-party software have already been answered in the list above. TL;DR : Use third-party software at your own risk. 5-No further questioning or discussions are relevant at this point since they have either not been answered by CCP, or they have been asked several times over and over again causing repetition within the thread and causing issues related to this list's item #3 due to players answering on behalf of CCP/logic. I personally have been defending CCP's reasoning and methods with regards to the new enforcement, along with several other players. But CCP has not backed up any of us. They are either completely ignoring this thread or just reading it and having a laugh. So at this point, this thread had become useless from this point forward and I see no reason for it to remain open. If it does however remain open, I suggest that any new questions posted here not be answered by any players, and either refer to the EULA/TOS/Policies or wait for CCP to answer. Speculations, interpretations and theories are obviously causing nothing but problems.
Since my quoted post HERE until this point, my post has proven itself.
More specifically, CCP and ISD are leaving this thread open and continuing to support it as a catalyst which violate their own rules in the forum policies, specifically:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.
3. Ranting is prohibited.
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
23. Post constructively.
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
32. Rumor mongering is prohibited.
ISD and CCP should take responsibility and follow their own rules by locking this thread. At this point it has become a place where rules are inevitably broken. |
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
198
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 16:40:03 -
[4784] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:Indeed, CCP let this circus slide in the hope that PCU numbers would pickup eventually - OOPS! The inverse actually happened. http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2ndrl2/the_end_isboxers
Quote:CCP_Falcon --- CCP Games 152 points 5 months ago
My personal opinion on this question is that I value the integrity of the game, and its overall health more than I value the numbers.
I'd rather see 1 person playing with 19 of his friends, than 1 person using software or hardware to play solo while input broadcasting to 20 accounts.
EVE is a game based around interaction with others, and the action and reaction that comes from it.
Well, that's my personal take on it, at least. The current management has big enough coconuts to be able to even think of enforcing their own EULA in this regard. All in due time. In due time. Except what we have is 1 person playing with 19 of his friend AND 1 person playing with 20 accounts. These two concepts can work together.
Except it didn't.
That's the point.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5536
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 16:54:45 -
[4785] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Except it didn't. That's the point. ???? It's obviously did, hence the people still playing the game. ISBoxers had nearly no effect on the game then, all they did were make some people sad pandas when they though someone was making more isk than them. The truth is they were making a very small amount of isk for a very large time and effort investment. Their existence didn't really affect the number of other players playing, just the number of overly entitled players whining about something they misunderstood. Those people whining failed to realise a simple truth - they were jealous because they were terrible at EVE. There's countless ways to earn far more than a multiboxer, and countless methods to crush a multiboxer, but they can't do those, so instead they thought "they must all use ISBoxer, let's get rid of that". Now that's gone, and there's still whining about all the multiboxers!
Multiboxers still exist on a massive scale throughout the whole of EVE. CCP are still running the power of two campaign to drag in more and more alts. That's never going to change.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
5405
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 18:39:55 -
[4786] - Quote
Removed some posts discussing moderation.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
198
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 19:31:00 -
[4787] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:Except it didn't. That's the point. ???? It's obviously did, hence the people still playing the game. ISBoxers had nearly no effect on the game then, all they did were make some people sad pandas when they though someone was making more isk than them.
Keep peddling this story. Someone might believe it.
It surely won't be CCP.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5537
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 21:19:55 -
[4788] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Keep peddling this story. Someone might believe it. It surely won't be CCP. Lol. I do love your selective responses which say basically nothing. Let's just understand that your position appears to be "grr multiboxers" and assume that sense isn't something we're likely to get from you and leave it at that. I'll continue to watch CCP allow swarms of multiboxers to operate (as they always will) and the economy to be unaffected by their presence while you can continue to wail about the end of multiboxing as if it's something that will change.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
AayJay Crendraven
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 21:40:06 -
[4789] - Quote
GankYou wrote:I already have - Automated inputs. It is acknowledged that singular, or limited number of accounts running automation is harder to detect, but their profitability per person is going to be such, as to become a non-factor in the economy.
No, you misunderstood the question. Explain what you mean by "automated inputs". This is a serious issue and should not be limited to a two-word answer lest someone interprets it incorrectly to mean "botting programs and complex macros".
Quote:Is it when the average Joe and Jane fires up ISBoxer and runs 15-20 accounts simultanously in perfect sync - that becomes a problem.
[Citation Needed]
Quote:In the context of Eve: One player - One action per reasonable unit of time. If said person can down a Titan solo while alt-tabbing, then more power to him. - Erebus wanted to go home 25.11.14
Funny how you bring up a video of Russian supercarrier pilots when the running joke for quite a while was "grr Russian carrier bots" as seen here.
Additionally, he forced his EVE clients to not stack in the task bar, something which gives him a distinct advantage in switching clients and activating modules over people who did not.
Quote:But most importantly, read the EULA,
Hang on, that wasn't the point of this exercise. This was a test to determine what *you* defined bots as.
Quote:Even without Input Automation/Broadcasts function in the ISBoxer, their bullshit Dashboards can also be considered as botting under both 6A-2 and 6A-3.
Incorrect as the only way to ban VideoFX's interaction with a client would also snag video capturing software such as Fraps (though as I mentioned earlier I'd be unsure as to Shadowplay due to the nature of how it grabs frames from the GPU). VideoFX then displays the "dashboards" onto Windows Aero, not the client directly.
And finally, TS3, Steam, Overwolf, and Mumble overlays all arguably violate 6A2 as well, and Fuzzworks and EVEMon/Pyfa/EFT/EVEHQ arguably violate 6A3, yet you have been mum on their legality. Double standards, much? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5537
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 22:08:07 -
[4790] - Quote
This by the way is what a properly set up eve-o preview looks like. Room for 32 standard (in 16-1-16, the 1 being the control screen) or 20 if you're doing the 16-1-4 if you've got some you want to see more than others (among other layouts). That's totally legal multiboxing for you, using only EVE and EVE-O preview which CCP have stated is fine to use unmodified.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 22:35:53 -
[4791] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:This by the way is what a properly set up eve-o preview looks like. Room for 32 standard (in 16-1-16, the 1 being the control screen) or 20 if you're doing the 16-1-4 if you've got some you want to see more than others (among other layouts). That's totally legal multiboxing for you, using only EVE and EVE-O preview which CCP have stated is fine to use unmodified.
May as well be VFX |
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
198
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 23:29:55 -
[4792] - Quote
AayJay Crendraven wrote:
Additionally, he forced his EVE clients to not stack in the task bar, something which gives him a distinct advantage in switching clients and activating modules over people who did not.
Clearly, this great injustice must be rectified in some shape, way, or form!
Amusing thread, I'd go point-by-point, again, but we'd be going in circles, again, which means the general consensus had been reached with minor parties disregarding all reasoning.
Instead, I'll enjoy it further on - currently only on page 48.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
AayJay Crendraven
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 02:11:52 -
[4793] - Quote
GankYou wrote: but we'd be going in circles
You're right. You keep attempting to bring up points about violations of the EULA, and I keep demolishing them when I mention EVEMon and TS3.
Then you attempt to argue PLEX, to which Lucas and I counter by talking about the PLEX hoarders and traders who move PLEX.
When you go back to talking about what EVE was intended to be or what the devs wanted for the game, I respond with wormholes.
And then you go back to talking about violations of the EULA. |
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
198
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 02:25:25 -
[4794] - Quote
Alruan Shadowborn wrote:They called it the Boxer virus.
No one knew where it came from, some suspected it was a plot by Sansha Kuvakei to take control of the growing legion of capsuleers, others suggested some remnant of long lost sleeper technology.
One thing for sure, it is insipid, permeating the very fabric of New Eden.
It started small, a few capsuleers in one system. But in time it spread, with entire fleets succumbing.
The virus was strange, it didn't damage the host's health, if anything it improved it, but it exerted mind linking properties unlike anything seen before, like a hive-mind creating a fleet of drones, but rather than mechanical drones with simplistic AI, it was a capsuleer piloted drone, capable of flying any ship across the cluster.
As you can imagine, this concerned quite a few the leaders of New Eden, the empires, CONCORD, even some of the Pirate Commanders were worried. Imagine large fleets of ships controlled with a hive mind, a single action performed simultaneously across a fleet.
It was the stuff of nightmares, especially if Kuvakei were behind it and was the puppet master pulling the strings.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONCORD Research Center Alpha 357
Yulai
Planet VIII GÇô Moon 10 GÇô Concord Logistic Support
Professor Grian Julkit Falcon
Initial Research Report GÇô Boxer Virus
The virus is strange, near undetectable in itGÇÖs dormant state, it increases synaptic speed of capsuleer minds. In and of itself, this is no real concern, with the capsule linking systems achieving much the same during flight.
When the virus is active however, the change is extraordinary. Synaptic speed continues to increase, but beyond that, it seems new links form that allow the mind to transmit and receive information, however only to and from one source.
The fleet that was captured has proven interesting to study, there was one member who appeared less infected than the others, and seemed to exhibit the characteristics of controlling the other GÇ£dronesGÇ¥ for want of a better term. Interrogation techniques have so far proven futile, with the GÇ£controllerGÇ¥ yielding no new information.
I have engineered what I hope will prove to be a vaccine against the virus, and with the current production cycle planned, it should commence distribution from 1 January YC117. Given the concern around this virus and the power it could grant to one person if harnessed, vaccination will be compulsory, and conducted in top secret. It should not be too hard to have our agents install Aerosol units on every ship in the cluster when they dock.
I will continue trying to understand this Virus, who made it is truly important. As if it is Kuvakei, the stability of the Empires will be in jeopardy.
But I also highlight, as with any vaccination program, we will not prevent it all, so ongoing monitoring of the Capsuleer population will be necessary to ensure the eradication of this virus is complete.
Bravo. Gÿ£a++a¦ê+ä-£a¦êGÿ£a++
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
26
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 02:30:11 -
[4795] - Quote
Posting observations regarding the subject of this thread:
1-CCP made their statement on this subject clear on post #1.
2-CCP clearly has no intention on answering specific questions from players in this thread and keep referring to the first post or the EULA/TOS/Policies, or suggest creating a petition in-game.
3-This thread is causing nothing but arguments between players which leads to players violating the forum policies under sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 17, 23, 27, 28, 31, 32 & 35.
4-Specific/new questions regarding gameplay should be answered through petitions, and not this thread. Players petitioning questions regarding multiboxing and using third-party software are already being directed to this thread or to the EULA/TOS/Policies which state:
EULA
6A2) "You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played."
THIRD-PARTY POLICIES :
A) "We will not authorize or otherwise sanction the use of any third party software."
B) "We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay."
C) "Please use player-made or other third party software at your own risk."
Terms Of Service
#21) "You will not attempt to decipher, hack into or interfere with any transmissions to or from the EVE Online servers, nor will you try to create or use any third party add-ons, extras or tools for the game."
Therefore, it is quite clear that any questions players have regarding third-party software have already been answered in the list above. TL;DR : Use third-party software at your own risk.
5-No further questioning or discussions are relevant at this point since they have either not been answered by CCP, or they have been asked several times over and over again causing repetition within the thread and causing issues related to this list's item #3 due to players answering on behalf of CCP/logic.
I personally have been defending CCP's reasoning and methods with regards to the new enforcement, along with several other players. But CCP has not backed up any of us. They are either completely ignoring this thread or just reading it and having a laugh. So at this point, this thread had become useless from this point forward.
I suggest that any new questions posted here not be answered by any players, and either refer to the EULA/TOS/Policies or wait for CCP to answer. Speculations, interpretations and theories are obviously causing nothing but problems. |
AayJay Crendraven
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 02:39:38 -
[4796] - Quote
Trakow, let's try something new.
You submit a ticket and ask, in your own words, about the legality of ISBoxer's VideoFX software, or the legality of using Windows Aero.
If CCP says anything other than "You should read the post" or "ask your questions in the thread", I will eat my hat with salt and ketchup. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
26
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 02:41:54 -
[4797] - Quote
AayJay Crendraven wrote:
Incorrect as the only way to ban VideoFX's interaction with a client would also snag video capturing software such as Fraps (though as I mentioned earlier I'd be unsure as to Shadowplay due to the nature of how it grabs frames from the GPU). VideoFX then displays the "dashboards" onto Windows Aero, not the client directly.
And finally, TS3, Steam, Overwolf, and Mumble overlays all arguably violate 6A2 as well, and Fuzzworks and EVEMon/Pyfa/EFT/EVEHQ arguably violate 6A3, yet you have been mum on their legality. Double standards, much?
Wrong. As for your mention of TS3, see the Third Party Policy under Client Modification, which states:
"the use of programs that provide in-game overlays (Mumble, Teamspeak) is not something we plan to actively police at this time."
So you can throw that argument out as they specifically mentioned them. Double-standard or not, it's their rules. As for Fraps or Shadowplay, they capture, they don't change anything within the game environment.
VideoFX uses Innerspace and provides windows within the DirectX window. This clearly violates EULA
6A2) "You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played."
Very clear. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
26
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 02:44:32 -
[4798] - Quote
AayJay Crendraven wrote:Trakow, let's try something new.
You submit a ticket and ask, in your own words, about the legality of ISBoxer's VideoFX software, or the legality of using Windows Aero.
If CCP says anything other than "You should read the post" or "ask your questions in the thread", I will eat my hat with salt and ketchup.
That's what I expect them to say, and it's very clear. Do I really have to post it again? Ok then:
THIRD-PARTY POLICIES :
"Please use player-made or other third party software at your own risk."
One more time just in case you didn't get that:
"Please use player-made or other third party software at your own risk." |
AayJay Crendraven
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 02:49:37 -
[4799] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Wrong. As for your mention of TS3, see the Third Party Policy under Client Modification, which states: "the use of programs that provide in-game overlays (Mumble, Teamspeak) is not something we plan to actively police at this time." So you can throw that argument out as they specifically mentioned them. Double-standard or not, it's their rules. As for Fraps or Shadowplay, they capture, they don't change anything within the game environment. VideoFX uses Innerspace and provides windows within the DirectX window. This clearly violates EULA6A2) "You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played." Very clear.
Wrong. VideoFX displays screens onto Windows Aero, not the clients directly. I told you this ages ago.
Additionally, dxNothing is not under CCP's purview and does not violate 6A2 unless you restrict everyone to a given window size and resolution.
It's painfully obvious you don't know what you're talking about as well.
ISBoxer is the program that generates the "barebones" profiles that Inner Space "reads". ISBoxer's profiles include FPS limits, proper CPU management, and monitor setups and tiling.
VideoFX is a feature of Inner Space and utilizes Windows Aero.
And finally, ISBoxer used to be "... not actively police[d]...". The sudden reversal of one program's stance does not immediately mean every other program is suddenly safe. Look at cache scraping, for heavens sake. It's explicitly disallowed by the EULA and TOS, and then CCP turned around and said it was explicitly allowed for market shenanigans but disallowed for other stuff. |
AayJay Crendraven
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 02:52:09 -
[4800] - Quote
Trakow wrote:That's what I expect them to say, and it's very clear.
You clearly missed the first post that said to ask any questions about ISBoxer or any activity that remotely relates to ISBoxer in a ticket. We have been asking for the past 6, 7, 8? months, and we keep getting referred to the thread here when our questions are not answered either explicitly or even via a loose interpretation of what was stated. |
|
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
28
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 03:04:12 -
[4801] - Quote
AayJay Crendraven wrote:Trakow wrote:Wrong. As for your mention of TS3, see the Third Party Policy under Client Modification, which states: "the use of programs that provide in-game overlays (Mumble, Teamspeak) is not something we plan to actively police at this time." So you can throw that argument out as they specifically mentioned them. Double-standard or not, it's their rules. As for Fraps or Shadowplay, they capture, they don't change anything within the game environment. VideoFX uses Innerspace and provides windows within the DirectX window. This clearly violates EULA6A2) "You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played." Very clear. Wrong. VideoFX displays screens onto Windows Aero, not the clients directly. I told you this ages ago. Additionally, dxNothing is not under CCP's purview and does not violate 6A2 unless you restrict everyone to a given window size and resolution. It's painfully obvious you don't know what you're talking about as well. ISBoxer is the program that generates the "barebones" profiles that Inner Space "reads". ISBoxer's profiles include FPS limits, proper CPU management, and monitor setups and tiling. VideoFX is a feature of Inner Space and utilizes Windows Aero. And finally, ISBoxer used to be "... not actively police[d]...". The sudden reversal of one program's stance does not immediately mean every other program is suddenly safe. Look at cache scraping, for heavens sake. It's explicitly disallowed by the EULA and TOS, and then CCP turned around and said it was explicitly allowed for market shenanigans but disallowed for other stuff.
If any of the game is being displayed in a dxnothing windows it's already changing the game environment and how it's played. You're now taking cutout pieces from multiple clients placed into another box and interacting with them.
Also, CCP can change their mind on what they do and don't police whenever they want. It's their right to. Just like if they decide one day that TS3 can no longer be used, well that's fine too. |
Trakow
Beta Switch
28
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 03:07:32 -
[4802] - Quote
AayJay Crendraven wrote:Trakow wrote:That's what I expect them to say, and it's very clear. You clearly missed the first post that said to ask any questions about ISBoxer or any activity that remotely relates to ISBoxer in a ticket. We have been asking for the past 6, 7, 8? months, and we keep getting referred to the thread here when our questions are not answered either explicitly or even via a loose interpretation of what was stated.
And you once again clearly missed their policy:
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
199
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 03:10:54 -
[4803] - Quote
Cartman puts it even more mildly, than it actually is.
Page forty nine, brother!
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5539
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 06:41:15 -
[4804] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Crying about his threads existence You can keep posting the exact same posts if you want, but this is the thread CCP made for these particular types of discussions and questions. I understand that you think it's done, you think everything been answered, and you think petitions are the way forward. The truth is that petitions tell you to ask here, and there are many people who feel it's not been made clear. You refuse to accept that some players have legitimate concerns, you refuse to understand the subject matter of which you are talking and you refuse to enter into a reasonable discussion which isn;t just you spamming the EULA as if that resolves everyone issues. If you are done with this thread then leave. Take the forum alt you hide behind and go.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
34
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 14:21:59 -
[4805] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Trakow wrote:Crying about his threads existence You can keep posting the exact same posts if you want, but this is the thread CCP made for these particular types of discussions and questions. I understand that you think it's done, you think everything been answered, and you think petitions are the way forward. The truth is that petitions tell you to ask here, and there are many people who feel it's not been made clear. You refuse to accept that some players have legitimate concerns, you refuse to understand the subject matter of which you are talking and you refuse to enter into a reasonable discussion which isn;t just you spamming the EULA as if that resolves everyone issues. If you are done with this thread then leave. Take the forum alt you hide behind and go.
I don't keep posting the exact same posts. Also, your misquote along with some of your post are breaking the forum rules:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
As for petitions and this thread; everything that can be answered, has already been answered between this thread, the EULA, Terms of Service, and policies. Just because someone has trouble understanding, doesn't mean it hasn't been made clear. But if it's not clear enough, then perhaps I can point things out to make it clearer. It's also the reason why I keep linking the EULA and policies, because perhaps some people don't know they exist, or don't know where to find them.
The same questions keep getting asked over and over, and they have been answered. There are no NEW, LEGITIMATE concerns. Here are the 2 questions always asked:
Question #1> Am I allowed to use *blank* software to [....]?
The answers are in the EULA under 6A2 and 6A3. If you're expecting them to say "yes" to any kind of software, THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN, which is clearly stated here:
THIRD-PARTY POLICIES :
A) "We will not authorize or otherwise sanction the use of any third party software."
B) "We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay."
C) "Please use player-made or other third party software at your own risk."
Therefore, asking question #1, is pointless and a waste of time. You will NOT get a "yes" answer, EVER. So stop asking because it's pointless.
Question #2> Can I still multibox? (no extra software used)
That has already been answered HERE : "Based on our EULA and Policies we would like to clarify that multiboxing is allowed."
Question #3> *insert some immature question regarding the OS or mouse driver being third-party software and asking how come that is allowed here*
I doubt CCP even answers those because they're not even worth the time used to read and delete them. It's the equivalent of a child having a tantrum, stomping their feet, taking their ball and going home so none of the other kids can keep playing the game.
So what else is there to ask that hasn't been answered? |
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
5408
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 19:45:21 -
[4806] - Quote
Removed some posts discussing moderation. Please stop doing that.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 23:38:31 -
[4807] - Quote
I have uploaded videos of me running one of each vanguard site on my youtube account. These videos include all the screens I use.
In case you wonder what it's like to run without any third party tools other then windows and the drivers required to interact with eve. |
Shinta Kobi
191st Task Group
New Eden Brewing Co.
7
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 17:50:29 -
[4808] - Quote
Just to remind people, you don't technically 'own' the account you use, CCP does(as stated in the EULA).
With that being said, it's simple:
Play by the rules, you get to keep playing. Break them and they take the game away from you.
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
20
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 22:48:49 -
[4809] - Quote
Shinta Kobi wrote:Just to remind people, you don't technically 'own' the account you use, CCP does(as stated in the EULA). With that being said, it's simple: Play by the rules, you get to keep playing. Break them and they take the game away from you. Well the issue is that I am playing by the rules but from an outsider's perspective it looks like I'm using a repeater when I run my Nightmare fleet. Just the other night while I was recording my latest round of videos I had some serious hate in incursion local after I said "that's why I run incursions solo" after some people were complaining about some of the community groups. Next thing I know there was a dude yelling for everyone to petition me as a bot along with some people voicing their hatred of multiboxers.
That frankly is my only concern in regards to all this. |
Dustpuppy
New Eden Ferengi
94
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 13:23:36 -
[4810] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:ISBoxers had nearly no effect on the game then, all they did were make some people sad pandas when they though someone was making more isk than them. .
The change had and has one positive aspect. It keeps you busy and I can collect your tears in this thread now for over 4 months.
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5560
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 13:46:20 -
[4811] - Quote
I'm somehow more busy now? You realise I wasn't an ISBoxer user, right? If you're going to attempt to troll, at least be good at it.
I actually run more accounts now (within the rules) specifically because I know it winds people like you up to know I'm running loads of accounts (15 currently, the aim is to work towards a decent way to run 32) all paid for with PLEX. Amusingly even when I wasn't multiboxing at all, I was still in part responsible for the high PLEX prices you hate, because I actively trade and invest in PLEX.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Dustpuppy
New Eden Ferengi
96
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 17:42:14 -
[4812] - Quote
Your answer makes no sense. Noone who isn't affected by a game change spends so many months on complaining and discussing it in a forum. Either you don't say the truth, hide something or you have some more or less serious other problems with this game. Maybe you just should take a big breath, relax and shut down the computer for a while until you have a different point of view about this topic here.
On the other side feel free to continue this lost battle. Maybe at some point you become so obsessed with it that you end like Jack Nicholson in the pledge. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5570
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 23:29:29 -
[4813] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:Your answer makes no sense. Noone who isn't affected by a game change spends so many months on complaining and discussing it in a forum. First off, yes they do. Look at the forum you are posting in. People literally have an opinion on everything.
Secondly, it directly affects everyone when CCP are making sweeping changes in the enforcement of their EULA and not giving us enough cause to believe that people who aren't breaking the rules won't be banned, so your point is moot.
At the end of the day, you are only posting here because you used to get all teared up by people playing with multiple characters paid for with PLEX. You seem to think this change eliminates that group of people (which you are incorrect by the way) and so are coming over to "collect tears", inadvertently embarrassing yourself.
Indeed though, I will continue this "lost battle" as you call it, and I'll continue pushing for the rights of all players to play within the rules without fear of being banned due to bad methods of detection being used or insanely blurry policies. You're welcome by the way.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Trakow
Beta Switch
39
|
Posted - 2015.05.03 06:20:08 -
[4814] - Quote
Dustpuppy is right. Nobody cares anymore, especially CCP. Old news. Move on... |
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
228
|
Posted - 2015.05.03 07:27:53 -
[4815] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dustpuppy wrote:Your answer makes no sense. Noone who isn't affected by a game change spends so many months on complaining and discussing it in a forum. First off, yes they do. Look at the forum you are posting in. People literally have an opinion on everything. Secondly, it directly affects everyone when CCP are making sweeping changes in the enforcement of their EULA and not giving us enough cause to believe that people who aren't breaking the rules won't be banned, so your point is moot.
Something Something Use your own or third-Party software that modifies the interface or how the game is played at your own risk.
Rules are rules.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5572
|
Posted - 2015.05.03 07:34:10 -
[4816] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Something Something Use your own or third-Party software that modifies the interface or how the game is played at your own risk.Rules are rules. And yet there's still no certainty people won't get banned while using no special software. They've even stated that EVE-O Preview is completely legal to use, while it in itself does enough to get people banned.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
228
|
Posted - 2015.05.03 07:41:42 -
[4817] - Quote
Perhaps, they already have client-side detection capabilities, and perhaps this thread will culminate in them admitting to it. Keep fighting for personal gain and the ruinment of the greater Eve economy, meanwhile.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5572
|
Posted - 2015.05.03 12:01:38 -
[4818] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Perhaps, they already have client-side detection capabilities, and perhaps this thread will culminate in them admitting to it. Keep fighting for personal gain and the ruinment of the greater Eve economy, meanwhile.
The economy never was and still isn't ruined by multiboxers. As for personal gain, I gain nothing from multiboxing in comparison to what I gain from trading, because trading is ludicrously overpowered. Sorry, I didn't realise you were new to EVE.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
235
|
Posted - 2015.05.03 13:23:18 -
[4819] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:Perhaps, they already have client-side detection capabilities, and perhaps this thread will culminate in them admitting to it. Keep fighting for personal gain and the ruinment of the greater Eve economy, meanwhile. The economy never was and still isn't ruined by multiboxers.
Multiboxers - no. We have been here since the Birth of Eve.
Third-party or own software ISBotters - yes.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5572
|
Posted - 2015.05.03 14:42:25 -
[4820] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Multiboxers - no. We have been here since the Birth of Eve. Third-party or own software ISBotters - yes. Which have also existed for quite some time, and with the exception of 1 or two players who went with 100 or more, have little to no impact on the size of multiboxer operations. If you honestly think they had any significant impact on the economy, then sorry mate but you need to learn a bit more about EVE. And actual botters, producing vast quantities of ISK for sale on illegitimate markets, will be unaffected by this change as they were already breaching the EULA before.
Besides which, you've made it clear that you dislike all multiboxers beyond those with a couple of accounts, regardless of software use.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
238
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 00:07:39 -
[4821] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:Multiboxers - no. We have been here since the Birth of Eve. Third-party or own software ISBotters - yes. Which have also existed for quite some time, and with the exception of one or two players who went with 100 or more, have little to no impact on the size of multiboxer operations. If you honestly think they had any significant impact on the economy, then sorry mate but you need to learn a bit more about EVE.
You're telling me this?
Care to provide some hard numbers to support the bubbly-bub dreams of yours there?
Of course not.
Lucas Kell wrote:
Besides which, you've made it clear that you dislike all multiboxers beyond those with a couple of accounts, regardless of software use.
It took so long, thru so much travail to finally get the message across.
We don't need factory robot assembly-type efficiency in a video game at the expense of the core playerbase, thank you very much sir!
Use. Any. Third. Party. Software. Modifying. Either. The. Interface. Or. How. The. Game. Is. Played. With. The. Goals. Of. Acquisition. Of. In-game. Assets. And. Currency. At. Your. Own. Risk.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
439
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 05:24:56 -
[4822] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:Multiboxers - no. We have been here since the Birth of Eve. Third-party or own software ISBotters - yes. Which have also existed for quite some time, and with the exception of one or two players who went with 100 or more, have little to no impact on the size of multiboxer operations. If you honestly think they had any significant impact on the economy, then sorry mate but you need to learn a bit more about EVE. You're telling me this? Care to provide some hard numbers to support the bubbly-bub dreams of yours there? Of course not. Lucas Kell wrote:
Besides which, you've made it clear that you dislike all multiboxers beyond those with a couple of accounts, regardless of software use.
It took so long, thru so much travail to finally get the message across. We don't need factory robot assembly-type efficiency in a video game at the expense of the core playerbase, thank you very much sir! Use. Any. Own. Or. Third. Party. Software. Modifying. Either. The. Interface. Or. How. The. Game. Is. Played. With. The. Goals. Of. Acquisition. Of. In-game. Assets. And. Currency. At. Your. Own. Risk.
"At the expense of the core player base"; Interesting position to take.
EveOnline - 1 active .Exe per IP.
You can have multiple characters as long as you don't multibox?
EveOnline economy remains fairly stable and cost effective for the masses due to players working with multiple characters and robot like efficiency (no 3rd party programs needed), to carry out the most mundane and boring job in the game.
Without them the game economy would reach highs never before imaginable, 20 individual miners sitting in an ore anom is nowhere near as efficient or cost effective as one individual with 20 miners. The guy with 20 miners is what allows you to buy what you need at affordable prices because he isn't relying on one character for his profit..
One guy 20 miners -15 miners to cover costs, the other 5 is profit = Lower sale price for ore = Lower cost to end product consumer.
20 individuals mining, each needs to cover costs and make a profit = Higher sell prices for ore = Higher cost to end product consumer.
If a single miner needs to make 60 ml p/h (still pretty low compared to other isk making avenues), how much is 1 tritanium going to cost the manufacturer, who passes his cost on to the consumer?
High end ores would see little price change as everyone would mine them, so keeping the market fairly stable.
Lowend ores would sky rocket in price as everyone wants to make a profit and not until there are shortages do they become viable for individuals to mine. At which time, prices go up with demand.
Sure, the guy with 20 miners could sell his ore at higher prices and attempt to push market prices up BUT they don't because the next multiboxer is happy with the lower profit margin and so keeps the prices lower. Individual multiboxers have little effect on market prices but as a play style, they have a big impact as far as keeping things affordable for everyone else.
Extreme? 20 mil Rifters, 400 mil Ishtars, 1 bil for your next Domi.
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
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5573
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 07:29:13 -
[4823] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Besides which, you've made it clear that you dislike all multiboxers beyond those with a couple of accounts, regardless of software use. It took so long, thru so much travail to finally get the message across. So finally you admit it. You're mad at multiboxers in general, hence all your tears. Multiboxing will always be an officially supported style of play. Always. So get over it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 10:45:07 -
[4824] - Quote
At least in Eve |
Dustpuppy
New Eden Ferengi
99
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 12:19:35 -
[4825] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
Indeed though, I will continue this "lost battle" as you call it, and I'll continue pushing for the rights of all players to play within the rules without fear of being banned due to bad methods of detection being used or insanely blurry policies. You're welcome by the way.
Edit: By the way, been a while since I've seen the pledge, but I'm sure everyone thought he was crazy when in actual fact he was right all along. So thanks for your support.
Let's start with the pledge because it's really too long since you have seen it, and this time you should watch it until the end. I's not about the fact that he was right when searching for the murderer but the end of the movie where he became so obsessed with something that it drove him mad.
This brings up point 1 and the first part of your last answer. I am still unclear about your intentions. The change didn't affect you according to your statement so there is no direct reason for this here.
It seems that the change has caused some other damage in you. At least for me it's totally strange to keep a discussion alive for over 4 months just because something in the future might happen which might have some negative consequences in a game I am playing. Maybe you really should step back from the computer for a while and realize that this here is only a game and not a war.
Beside this: thx for the invitation to join your "fight", but I have better things to do than to complain about the past. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5574
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 14:20:49 -
[4826] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:I am still unclear about your intentions. The change didn't affect you according to your statement so there is no direct reason for this here. It seems that the change has caused some other damage in you. At least for me it's totally strange to keep a discussion alive for over 4 months just because something in the future might happen which might have some negative consequences in a game I am playing. We are all affected, at least all those that multibox. Whether you use software or not, there's a risk you'll get banned under a pretty severe policy for doing nothing wrong. You seem to think that in order to disagree with something CCP are doing that we need to be directly affected by it in our day to day playing. That's not the case. I was very much against Somer getting away with RMT, but it didn't affect me in the slightest.
Dustpuppy wrote:Maybe you really should step back from the computer for a while and realize that this here is only a game and not a war. You seem to be confused. I'm here in the official thread for these changes to discuss my opposition to them., as happens every single day on these forums. You are here because you want to "collect tears", or at least you want to throw around that used up meme even if it makes no sense in the context it's being used. Basically your spending your time badly trolling people.
Dustpuppy wrote:Beside this: thx for the invitation to join your "fight", but I have better things to do than to complain about the past. You misunderstand. I wasn't inviting you to join, I was pointing out that I stand up for the rights of players to play legitimately without being banned, which one assumes include you. Therefore I was saying no need to thank me, but you're welcome anyway.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
241
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 23:33:19 -
[4827] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:GankYou wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:Multiboxers - no. We have been here since the Birth of Eve. Third-party or own software ISBotters - yes. Which have also existed for quite some time, and with the exception of one or two players who went with 100 or more, have little to no impact on the size of multiboxer operations. If you honestly think they had any significant impact on the economy, then sorry mate but you need to learn a bit more about EVE. You're telling me this? Care to provide some hard numbers to support the bubbly-bub dreams of yours there? Of course not. Lucas Kell wrote:
Besides which, you've made it clear that you dislike all multiboxers beyond those with a couple of accounts, regardless of software use.
It took so long, thru so much travail to finally get the message across. We don't need factory robot assembly-type efficiency in a video game at the expense of the core playerbase, thank you very much sir! Use. Any. Own. Or. Third. Party. Software. Modifying. Either. The. Interface. Or. How. The. Game. Is. Played. With. The. Goals. Of. Acquisition. Of. In-game. Assets. And. Currency. At. Your. Own. Risk. "At the expense of the core player base"; Interesting position to take. EveOnline - 1 active .Exe per IP. You can have multiple characters as long as you don't multibox? EveOnline economy remains fairly stable and cost effective for the masses due to players working with multiple characters and robot like efficiency (no 3rd party programs needed), to carry out the most mundane and boring job in the game. Without them the game economy would reach highs never before imaginable, 20 individual miners sitting in an ore anom is nowhere near as efficient or cost effective as one individual with 20 miners. The guy with 20 miners is what allows you to buy what you need at affordable prices because he isn't relying on one character for his profit.. One guy 20 miners -15 miners to cover costs, the other 5 is profit = Lower sale price for ore = Lower cost to end product consumer. 20 individuals mining, each needs to cover costs and make a profit = Higher sell prices for ore = Higher cost to end product consumer. If a single miner needs to make 60 ml p/h (still pretty low compared to other isk making avenues), how much is 1 tritanium going to cost the manufacturer, who passes his cost on to the consumer? High end ores would see little price change as everyone would mine them, so keeping the market fairly stable. Lowend ores would sky rocket in price as everyone wants to make a profit and not until there are shortages do they become viable for individuals to mine. At which time, prices go up with demand. Sure, the guy with 20 miners could sell his ore at higher prices and attempt to push market prices up BUT they don't because the next multiboxer is happy with the lower profit margin and so keeps the prices lower. Individual multiboxers have little effect on market prices but as a play style, they have a big impact as far as keeping things affordable for everyone else. Extreme? 20 mil Rifters, 400 mil Ishtars, 1 bil for your next Domi.
Keep peddling 20 mil rifters and 300 mil Tech 1 cruiser story. Someone might believe it.
Someone who hasn't been playing since 2004.
Someone who isn't CCP.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5690029#post5690029
Mexallon: http://i.imgur.com/9lPYnoh.png
Pyerite: http://i.imgur.com/9PIVckB.png
Tritanium: http://i.imgur.com/ANCnbIR.png
Gosh, 1bn Domis - here we come!
Thank you for the laugh, THIS IS THE BEST THREAD EVER!
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
243
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 00:10:34 -
[4828] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Multiboxing will always be an officially supported style of play. Always. So get over it.
Indeed.
However, own or third-party software ISBotting isn't. Always. So get over it.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 03:13:56 -
[4829] - Quote
Eve-o? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5574
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 06:52:26 -
[4830] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Multiboxing will always be an officially supported style of play. Always. So get over it. Indeed. However, own or third-party software ISBotting isn't. Always. So get over it. Except that's not what I'm stating, is it? It's like you have the inability to read. My issue is with legitimate , manual players getting caught up in bans because of bad detection. I don't use ISBoxer and didn;t even before the change, so I couldn't give a flying **** whether it's banned or not, my issue is what happens to MANUAL MULTIBOXERS. Is that a clear enough for you? You keep whining about multiboxing in general because you hate all multiboxers, whether they use software or not, and you refuse to make a distinction between the two. You seem to believe that if someone has more than a few accounts they are as bad as an ISBoxer user. I really can't tell if you legitimately believe that or if you're just trolling.
What I do know is that you have little understanding of the economy and are all teared up thinking ISBoxers have a major impact on prices. You've even swapped sides now and are claiming they raise mineral prices, while before you were whining about them lowering them. Make up your mind.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
247
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 15:36:51 -
[4831] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
Except that's not what I'm stating, is it? It's like you have the inability to read. My issue is with legitimate , manual players getting caught up in bans because of bad detection.
Provide some examples where that had been the case, and we may continue this discussion on the basis of your paranoia.
Butt Sir, I alt-TAB'ed too quickly!
Lucas Kell wrote: You've even swapped sides now and are claiming they raise mineral prices, while before you were whining about them lowering them. Make up your mind.
In the end, they do, my son.
For you see, once the ball gets rolling, real player base numbers crater, and the bots fulfill all PvE activites from then onward. But you see, with 8-20k PCU players at any one time, there isn't much need for RAW RESOURCES, as only a handful of ISBotting groups could fill it.
Instead, the majority switches to ISK-printing, which is essentially unlimited in scope and utility, and this ISK then finds its way to ready products that shoot up in price.
Case in point - Chinese Eve server Serenity.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4469
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 16:27:20 -
[4832] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.
The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5578
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 16:44:03 -
[4833] - Quote
The only thing the serenity server is proof of is that ISBoxer is not even remotely botting. If it were, our economy would look much like theirs. As it stands though, our economy is moving in the same way it did before this announcement, which tells me that ISBoxers had little to no impact on the economy. Prove otherwise.
As for manual multiboxers getting banned, would you say CCP is infallible? If not, then we agree.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
249
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 16:55:54 -
[4834] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:The only thing the serenity server is proof of is that ISBoxer is not even remotely botting. If it were, our economy would look much like theirs.
There was a real danger of that happening, hence their timely realisation and subsequent enforcement.
We almost hit 40k PCU this Sunday - http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility
The previous peak is at 46,688 on Earth-Oct 31st, 2014-YC116.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5578
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 17:03:26 -
[4835] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:The only thing the serenity server is proof of is that ISBoxer is not even remotely botting. If it were, our economy would look much like theirs. There was a real danger of that happening, hence their timely realisation and subsequent enforcement. There was never a danger of this. If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to post it, but ISBoxer was being used for years and at no point did the economy get out of control. I think you overestimate the tiny blip of activity that ISBoxers add.
I'm not sure what relevance there is in this. So you're saying that before this announcement they had more players online? 0.032% of Sunday's PCU was me btw.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
249
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 17:32:18 -
[4836] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:ISBoxer was being used for years and at no point did the economy get out of control. I think you overestimate the tiny blip of activity that ISBoxers add.
Because they have been throttling ISK faucets and sinks this whole time - and it would seem the limit has been reached, so instead of taxing us, the real people, with sinks, they cut the head off the robots.
Thanks goes out to certain people for Broker fee increases some time ago.
Lucas Kell wrote:I'm not sure what relevance there is in this. So you're saying that before this announcement they had more players online?
The botters accounted for 18% of the PCU, we if go by the late 2014-YC116 numbers, so real people are covering up for them.
Don't worry, be happy.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5578
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 18:05:54 -
[4837] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Because CCP have been throttling ISK faucets and sinks this whole time, and it would seem the limit has been reached, so instead of taxing us further, the real people, with sinks, they cut the head off the robots. Proof? Of any of this claim?
GankYou wrote:Thanks goes out to certain groups for Broker fee increases some time ago. Broker fee needs to be at least doubled still.
GankYou wrote:The botters accounted for 18% of the PCU, we if go by the late 2014-YC116 numbers, so real flesh & blood Capsuleers are covering up for them. Again, proof? Correlation does not imply causation.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
249
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 18:33:20 -
[4838] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:Because CCP have been throttling ISK faucets and sinks this whole time, and it would seem the limit has been reached, so instead of taxing us further, the real people, with sinks, they cut the head off the robots. Proof? Of any of this claim? I posted it earlier, but eager & overly zealous minds couldn't comprehend it. EVE Fanfest 2013: EVE EconomyFanfest 2014 - Economy: Into the Second DecadeGankYou wrote:The botters accounted for 18% of the PCU, we if go by the late 2014-YC116 numbers, so real flesh & blood Capsuleers are covering up for them. Again, proof? Correlation does not imply causation.
As you wish - view it your way.
But then again, the chart looks like the last bastions of the bots were being exterminated after the sharp drop-off in Earth-December.
It's an on-going battle, friend.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5579
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 20:24:59 -
[4839] - Quote
Lol? How is that proof? Where in there does it state that limits of sinks have been reached, or that sinks were being used to manage anything to do with ISBoxer. You're basically posting links to economic talks, both of which state that the economy is relatively stable and making up bogus claims which you can't possible know are true.
GankYou wrote:As you wish - view it your way. But then again, the chart looks like the last bastions of the botters were being exterminated, and as accounts began to lapse, after the sharp drop-off in Earth-December. It's an on-going battle, friend. For the thousandth time, botters were completely unaffected by this change. What they were doing was always against the EULA, so they won;t be affected by a EULA change. And there have been numerous changes which may have affected the population, and there have also been days above 40k since the changes came in. You've simply cherry picked 2 stats and claimed those are only affected by this change. There certainly hasn't been an 18% drop in PCU on average.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
250
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 20:45:14 -
[4840] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Lol? How is that proof? Where in there does it state that limits of sinks have been reached, or that sinks were being used to manage anything to do with ISBoxer.
Due to the fact is that it is being throttled, this is why it is stable.
You've taken my later hypothesis for Gospel Fact - it happens when one disregards proper syntax rules in a sentence.
Lucas Kell wrote:For the thousandth time, botters were completely unaffected by this change. What they were doing was always against the EULA, so they won;t be affected by a EULA change.
You're coming across as if you'd like a piece of their pie. Naughty, naughty.
I mean, of course, ISBotting. Here is a good article on the matter, released on Earth-Sept 2014-YC116 no less - http://evenews24.com/2014/09/24/kirith-kodachi-isboxer-is-botting/
"In essence, ISBoxer is just a bot that doesnGÇÖt have a preset script to follow, but rather follows you."
Quote:...and there have also been days above 40k since the changes came in. You've simply cherry picked 2 stats and claimed those are only affected by this change.
It has been on the downhill following Earth-Nov of the year 2014-YC116 - We bottomed around 38k just before the deployment of Mosaic on April 28th.
Quote:There certainly hasn't been an 18% drop in PCU on average.
(1 - 38,313 / 46,688) * 100 = 17.93%
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5579
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 20:57:42 -
[4841] - Quote
GankYou wrote:The fact is that it is being throttled, this is why it is stable. That is always going to be the case. The economy will always be kept in line by CCP. It has nothing to do with ISBoxer and it certainly doesn't prove your claim that " the limit has been reached". That's what you stated.
GankYou wrote:It has been on the downhill following Nov, 2014 - we bottomed around 38k just before the deployment of Mosaic on April 28th. Other than the dip around crhistmas/new year, it's been relatively stable. It's only started really dipping since march. And again, you're just guessing that ISBoxer is the cause. It could be any number of things. Not to mention that every year the PCU drops before summer. Last year it was a significantly bigger drop.
GankYou wrote:(1 - 38,313 / 46,688) * 100 = 17.93% But that's not the average. That's you taking the highest point you can find before the change and the lowest you can find after. It's cherry-picked data. It's pretty safe to say you are trolling as you can't honestly believe what you are spouting.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
250
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 21:05:02 -
[4842] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:The fact is that it is being throttled, this is why it is stable. That is always going to be the case. The economy will always be kept in line by CCP. It has nothing to do with ISBoxer and it certainly doesn't prove your claim that " the limit has been reached". That's what you stated.
It is a hypothesis. Reasonable one at that.
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:(1 - 38,313 / 46,688) * 100 = 17.93% But that's not the average. That's you taking the highest point you can find before the change and the lowest you can find after. It's cherry-picked data. It's pretty safe to say you are trolling as you can't honestly believe what you are spouting.
Yes it is an average for the set of days that is being presented on the 5 yr chart, which, presumably, calculates it across 6-day ranges.
Look at the at the 2 wk and monthly charts - it went as a low as 30k on some days.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5579
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 21:26:14 -
[4843] - Quote
GankYou wrote:It is a hypothesis. Reasonable one at that. You may think so, I strongly disagree. I think there's basically zero chance that ISBoxer which was used for several years suddenly stopped CCP being able to balance the economy. It's also a pretty strong sign because the economy didn't actually change following the ISBoxer ban.
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:(1 - 38,313 / 46,688) * 100 = 17.93% But that's not the average. That's you taking the highest point you can find before the change and the lowest you can find after. It's cherry-picked data.
GankYou wrote:Yes it is an average for the set of days that is being presented on the 5 yr chart, which, presumably, calculates it across 6-day ranges. Look at the 2-wk and monthly charts - it went as a low as 30k on some days. Lol, it's cherry-picked data. It says whatever you want it to say. You've just grabbed a high bit and a low bit and acted like that's the normal for then and now. In neither case is that true. On top of which you've ignored all other possible factors and assumed ISBoxer made that difference. In your mind, ISBoxer an dropped the PCU 18%, and unsurprisingly you don't go into detail as to why half of that change happened following march, since March peaks at 42,885. Look at it realistically and the minor drop this year is far less than last year. It's just normal PCU fluctuation.
quite honestly, I'm done talking amateur statistics with you. You want to present real proof, go right ahead. Until then your opinion is irrelevant. You have no knowledge of ISBoxer or any special knowledge of what CCP did or why, and you have an incredible bias blinding you all the way. What i really don;t get is what's got you so butthurt. Is it PLEX prices, is that why you're all mad? Those are going to go up, they always do. Get used to it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
251
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 21:36:24 -
[4844] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:It's also a pretty strong sign because the economy didn't actually change following the ISBoxer ban. It most certainly did, the price of minerals sparked shortly afterwards. Tritanium - http://i.imgur.com/ANCnbIR.png
Pyerite - http://i.imgur.com/9PIVckB.png
Mexallon - http://i.imgur.com/9lPYnoh.png
And yes, that first leg on Mexallon terminated sharply around Earth-Nov 24th. They are now being faded. Quote:Lol, it's cherry-picked data. It says whatever you want it to say. You've just grabbed a high bit and a low bit and acted like that's the normal for then and now. Truth is always found in the synthesis of the extremes. Those are averages, however, but you can review it day-by-day, then you'd get 43k in Earth-Nov 2014-YC116, and 33k in Earth-April. [quote]...quite honestly, I'm done talking amateur statistics with you. You want to present real proof, go right ahead. Until then your opinion is irrelevant. You have no knowledge of ISBoxer or any special knowledge of what CCP did or why, and you have an incredible bias blinding you all the way. What i really don;t get is what's got you so butthurt. Is it PLEX prices, is that why you're all mad? Those are going to go up, they always do. Get used to it.
Quite feisty one, isn't he, guys? Completely neutral ISBox bystander indeed.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5579
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 22:16:58 -
[4845] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Quite feisty one, isn't he, guys? Completely neutral ISBox bystander indeed. lol, thanks for proof that you are simply here to troll. I tell you what, go back to crying over all the evil multiboxers. I'm done with entertaining trolls. Edited out the rest because it's irrelevant following this.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
252
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 22:26:44 -
[4846] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:Quite feisty one, isn't he, guys? Completely neutral ISBox bystander indeed. lol, thanks for proof that you are simply here to troll.
No, I am not.
I am here, because the EULA is actually being enforced in this regard now.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5579
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 22:28:48 -
[4847] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:Quite feisty one, isn't he, guys? Completely neutral ISBox bystander indeed. lol, thanks for proof that you are simply here to troll. No, I am not. I am here, because the EULA is actually being enforced in this regard now. No, you're here because you're a troll. This is obvious. I'm here because I'm eager to ensure manual multiboxers don't get banned.
By the way, you never did let me know what you thought of EVE-O Preview - the EULA legal way of mass multiboxing.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
252
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 22:33:24 -
[4848] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:Quite feisty one, isn't he, guys? Completely neutral ISBox bystander indeed. lol, thanks for proof that you are simply here to troll. No, I am not. I am here, because the EULA is actually being enforced in this regard now. I'm here because I'm eager to ensure manual multiboxers don't get banned.
That's honourable.
As, long as they don't use any own, or third-party software, which is always at their own risk, they should be perfectly safe.
Unless you have example cases of that being otherwise?
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5579
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 22:35:40 -
[4849] - Quote
GankYou wrote:That's honourable. As, long as they don't use any own, or third-party software, which is always at their own risk, they should be perfectly safe. Unless you have example cases of that being otherwise? Alas, discussion of bans is not allowed. That said, are you saying CCP are infallible? That must be what you are saying if manual multiboxers are "perfectly safe".
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2853
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 22:44:25 -
[4850] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:The only thing the serenity server is proof of is that ISBoxer is not even remotely botting. If it were, our economy would look much like theirs. As it stands though, our economy is moving in the same way it did before this announcement, which tells me that ISBoxers had little to no impact on the economy. Prove otherwise.
As for manual multiboxers getting banned, would you say CCP is infallible? If not, then we agree.
If ISBoxer improves a players efficiency in various aspects of the game, then it must have an impact. This should be obvious.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5579
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 23:00:15 -
[4851] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:If ISBoxer improves a players efficiency in various aspects of the game, then it must have an impact. This should be obvious. ISBoxer replaces effort. It doesn't improve efficiency outside of the guys with like 100 accounts on the go, of which I only know of 2 existing, and the amount they spent on hardware is simply ludicrous. truly, if you were to use ISBoxer you'd understand how much still has to be done manually, meaning that using something like EVE-O Preview (which has been sanctioned by CCP) makes very little difference.
Even if it were to improve efficiency, the impact on the economy would still be negligible, as the number of ISBoxer users is so few. The vast majority of the flux in the economy is caused by traders and large mechanics changes. The introduction of the Bowhead, Thera, the null mineral rebalance and the sov changes are all good examples of economy impacting changes, some short term, others long standing. People tend to like to blame everything on ISBoxer to rationalise their hatred, but it simply doesn't hold any water. I'm not even claiming ISBoxer should be allowed, if it were up to me, large-scale multiboxing would be much harder though gameplay changes anyway, but that doesn't mean I won't call out nonsense when I see it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4477
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 23:00:46 -
[4852] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.
The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2853
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 23:02:54 -
[4853] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:
[quote]Lol, it's cherry-picked data. It says whatever you want it to say. You've just grabbed a high bit and a low bit and acted like that's the normal for then and now.
Truth is often found in the synthesis of the extremes. Those are averages, however. You can also review it day-by-day, then you'd get 43k in Earth-Nov 2014-YC116, and 33k in Earth-April.
LOL...that is hilarious.
Lucase, "Those are cherry picked his and los!"
GankYou, "They are averages."
Reminds me of a time in graduate school....
Prof., "But, how do you know its positive?"
Me, "Uhhh...its a variance."
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2856
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 23:07:30 -
[4854] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:If ISBoxer improves a players efficiency in various aspects of the game, then it must have an impact. This should be obvious. ISBoxer replaces effort. It doesn't improve efficiency outside of the guys with like 100 accounts on the go, of which I only know of 2 existing, and the amount they spent on hardware is simply ludicrous. truly, if you were to use ISBoxer you'd understand how much still has to be done manually, meaning that using something like EVE-O Preview (which has been sanctioned by CCP) makes very little difference. Even if it were to improve efficiency, the impact on the economy would still be negligible, as the number of ISBoxer users is so few. The vast majority of the flux in the economy is caused by traders and large mechanics changes. The introduction of the Bowhead, Thera, the null mineral rebalance and the sov changes are all good examples of economy impacting changes, some short term, others long standing. People tend to like to blame everything on ISBoxer to rationalise their hatred, but it simply doesn't hold any water. I'm not even claiming ISBoxer should be allowed, if it were up to me, large-scale multiboxing would be much harder though gameplay changes anyway, but that doesn't mean I would call out nonsense when I see it.
Sorry, not buying it Lucas. Improvements due to efficiency gains in ratting means more isk flowing into the Eve economy which would mean an acceleration of inflation.
Improvements in efficiency in terms of mining would mean more minerals flowing into the Eve economy and depressing prices.
Given that ISBoxer comes with a fee I find it hard to believe there is no efficiency gain to be had when using it. People use it...because they can? You can try to word-smith your way out of this with "replacing effort" as not being an efficiency gain, but you seem to be the only person left in this thread that believes that.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
255
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 23:08:03 -
[4855] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:The only thing the serenity server is proof of is that ISBoxer is not even remotely botting. If it were, our economy would look much like theirs. As it stands though, our economy is moving in the same way it did before this announcement, which tells me that ISBoxers had little to no impact on the economy. Prove otherwise.
As for manual multiboxers getting banned, would you say CCP is infallible? If not, then we agree. If ISBoxer improves a players efficiency in various aspects of the game, then it must have an impact. This should be obvious.
Indeed. For someone who doesn't use it, he sure advocates it a lot.
The article I linked earlier is a good summation,
http://evenews24.com/2014/09/24/kirith-kodachi-isboxer-is-botting/
Quote:No, its not. Multi-boxing, i.e. having multiple clients open at the same time and doing things in each of them, is different because as a human you can only really pay full attention to one at a time. I cannot give an order at exactly the same time to both clients, I need to switch back and forth and while working on one, the other is unattended and essentially vulnerable to mistakes.
One could argue that an improperly setup interface for ISBoxer can lead to mistakes as well but that is more of a mechanical setup issue and not a human mental error issue. Once perfectly setup, multi-boxing can still allow for human error, ISBoxer cannot. The number of times IGÇÖve heard someone on comms say GÇ£just wait, I need to move my other shipGÇ¥ or GÇ£dammit, I missed warp because I was on the other clientGÇ¥ from multi boxing players is very high. Multi-boxing is human-intensive, ISBoxing is not.
In essence, ISBoxer is just a bot that doesnGÇÖt have a preset script to follow, but rather follows you.
You have to admit, playing at 1100% efficiency, getting those sweet, sweet megaticks per hour is lucrative, while playing for free all the while with complete disregard to the Universe at large, and retaining 80% of the income, after PLEX, in sweet, sweet liquid ISK.
A year on from now, people, and indeed CCP themselves, will remark on how the **** it was even allowed in the first place.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5579
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 23:16:09 -
[4856] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:GankYou wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:
[quote]Lol, it's cherry-picked data. It says whatever you want it to say. You've just grabbed a high bit and a low bit and acted like that's the normal for then and now.
Truth is often found in the synthesis of the extremes. Those are averages, however. You can also review it day-by-day, then you'd get 43k in Earth-Nov 2014-YC116, and 33k in Earth-April. LOL...that is hilarious. Lucase, "Those are cherry picked his and los!" GankYou, "They are averages." Reminds me of a time in graduate school.... Prof., "But, how do you know its positive?" Me, "Uhhh...its a variance." The difference being that those are actually highs and lows. He's picked 2 Sundays (not averages, but Sunday peaks), one prior to the changes which was as high as he could find and one recently as low as he could find. Quite simply, do you believe that on average EVE has lost 18% of it's PCU in the last 6 months?
An average would be something like taking this data for 6 Sundays:
26/10/201443935
19/10/201437507 (I guess loads of "botters" stopped on this day too?)
12/10/201442020
26/04/201440007
19/04/201538993
12/04/201539312
Averaging them out to:
October: 41154
April: 39437
Decrease: 4.17%
It's the normal yearly flux undoubtedly with the normal "EVE is dying" threads on the way.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
257
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 23:18:32 -
[4857] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:
Given that ISBoxer comes with a fee I find it hard to believe there is no efficiency gain to be had when using it. People use it...because they can? You can try to word-smith your way out of this with "replacing effort" as not being an efficiency gain, but you seem to be the only person left in this thread that believes that.
Don't mind him, he is just desperately trying to talk down 1,200 mil per hour income on a 13-account setup.
Just 1.78 hours per day, and you get to keep 53bn ISK per month cash, after PLEX of course, and that is also discounting the LP store in some cases.
You know what they stormed a 220-page thread about, Teckos.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5579
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 23:23:31 -
[4858] - Quote
Pretty much a prime example of how you have no idea what you're talking about. You're taking a badly written article claiming ISBoxer = botting and going "yup, I guess that's true". There's a significant difference, not least of which this insane per-character efficiency an actual bot can achieve. As you're always quick to point out, just look at Serenity. If ISBoxer was botting our economy would look like that. What this guy is mad at is the idea of players using multiple accounts to earn ISK. This still happens. Using no tools it's easily possible to run 32 miners and still spend over half of your time waiting for stuff to happen. As I've said from the very very very beginning, the problem isn't that tools exist, it's very simplistic game mechanics which lend themselves to mass multiboxing.
And no, I don;t advocate the use of ISBoxer. Once again proof that you're just here to troll.
GankYou wrote:You have to admit, playing at 1100% efficiency, getting those sweet, sweet megaticks per hour is lucrative, while playing for free all the while with complete disregard to the Universe at large, and retaining 80% of the income, after PLEX, in sweet, sweet liquid ISK. This is you misunderstanding what efficiency is, how PLEX works and how many people still multibox at a large scale.
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
5580
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 23:29:05 -
[4859] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Sorry, not buying it Lucas. Improvements due to efficiency gains in ratting means more isk flowing into the Eve economy which would mean an acceleration of inflation.
Improvements in efficiency in terms of mining would mean more minerals flowing into the Eve economy and depressing prices.
Given that ISBoxer comes with a fee I find it hard to believe there is no efficiency gain to be had when using it. People use it...because they can? You can try to word-smith your way out of this with "replacing effort" as not being an efficiency gain, but you seem to be the only person left in this thread that believes that. Except it doesn't improve efficiency, it reduces effort. You can control a massive stack of AFK ratters because you just have to sit them AFK. You can control a mass of miners because you just have to sit them AFK. Isboxer just meant you had to do less clicks to achieve that. If I click 3 times and make 100m/hour and you click 500 times and also make 100m/hour, we're equally efficient, you simply click more.
As for ISBoxer's fee, it does a lot of cool things which people still do pay for as they are still within the EULA. Most notably it distributes resource use between clients and limits inactive client FPS, which allows you to run more clients on a lower end machine. It's a way for people who don't have a beast of a machine (like mine ) to run more clients. And it's stupidly cheap.
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
5580
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 23:30:35 -
[4860] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Don't mind him, he is just desperately trying to talk down 1,200 mil per hour income on a 13-account setup. That income and setup is still possible without ISBoxer. There's videos linked in this thread in fact.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
258
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 23:32:42 -
[4861] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Sorry, not buying it Lucas. Improvements due to efficiency gains in ratting means more isk flowing into the Eve economy which would mean an acceleration of inflation.
Improvements in efficiency in terms of mining would mean more minerals flowing into the Eve economy and depressing prices.
Given that ISBoxer comes with a fee I find it hard to believe there is no efficiency gain to be had when using it. People use it...because they can? You can try to word-smith your way out of this with "replacing effort" as not being an efficiency gain, but you seem to be the only person left in this thread that believes that. Except it doesn't improve efficiency, it reduces effort. If I click 3 times and make 100m/hour and you click 500 times and also make 100m/hour, we're equally efficient, you simply click more.
That's all you needed to see folks.
I'll contact University professors all across New Eden first thing in the morning on Amarr VIII tomorrow, so that we can overwrite and review the texbooks on Economics and Logic.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5580
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 06:35:28 -
[4862] - Quote
GankYou wrote:That's all you needed to see folks.
I'll contact University professors all across New Eden first thing in the morning on Amarr VIII tomorrow, so that we can review, revise and overwrite the textbooks on Economics and Logic.
Effective (adj.): Adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result.
Efficient (adj.): Performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort.
Along with Universal dictionaries, it would seem. Except of course we're talking about efficiency in the context of how it affects the economy. We're not talking about how much effort it takes to produce the same result. Again though, thanks for proving you are simply here to troll, because there's no possible way you don't really understand the difference.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
266
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 06:37:31 -
[4863] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:That's all you needed to see folks.
I'll contact University professors all across New Eden first thing in the morning on Amarr VIII tomorrow, so that we can review, revise and overwrite the textbooks on Economics and Logic.
Effective (adj.): Adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result.
Efficient (adj.): Performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort.
Along with Universal dictionaries, it would seem. Except of course we're talking about efficiency in the context of how it affects the economy. We're not talking about how much effort it takes to produce the same result.
That's the same thing.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5580
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 06:45:13 -
[4864] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:That's all you needed to see folks.
I'll contact University professors all across New Eden first thing in the morning on Amarr VIII tomorrow, so that we can review, revise and overwrite the textbooks on Economics and Logic.
Effective (adj.): Adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result.
Efficient (adj.): Performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort.
Along with Universal dictionaries, it would seem. Except of course we're talking about efficiency in the context of how it affects the economy. We're not talking about how much effort it takes to produce the same result. That's the same thing. No, t's really not.
Say for example we both complete level 4 missions, and we are doing full clears. You are using an actively piloted ship and I'm using something passive, like sentries. Assume our setups take the exact same time and produce 40m/hour. In terms of isk generation and how we affect the economy, we are the same level of efficiency, we're both doing the same task at the same rate of income. Out of game though, I'm performing less clicks, so my real world time efficiency is higher.
Now lets say that you choose to start blitzing instead, performing the same number of clicks/hour but now generating 60m/ hour due to the reduced need to do a full clear. You are now operating at a higher level of in-game efficiency, as you are getting more out of your characters potential.
ISboxer doesn't make your character generate ISK faster, it simply reduces the amount of effort required to achieve the same (actually it's less, but we'll let that slide) efficiency in game.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
268
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 06:57:32 -
[4865] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
ISboxer doesn't make your character generate ISK faster, it simply reduces the amount of effort required to achieve the same (actually it's less, but we'll let that slide) efficiency in game.
It absolutely does print ISK.
You are one person, you can artificially create 19 other accounts, that would have the same effect on the economy as twenty different people, if not more, depending on their average/casual/hardcore playstyle.
Those additional 19 players DO NOT EXIST - You've artificially created them, and now they inflate the ISK supply due to the sole reason that is ISBoxer.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5580
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 07:00:14 -
[4866] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:
ISboxer doesn't make your character generate ISK faster, it simply reduces the amount of effort required to achieve the same (actually it's less, but we'll let that slide) efficiency in game.
It absolutes does print ISK. You are one person, you can artificially create 19 other accounts, that would have the same effect on the economy as twenty different people, if not more, depending on their average/casual/hardcore playstyle. Those 19 players DO NOT EXIST, you've artificially created them, and they inflate the ISK supply due to the sole reason that is ISBoxer. Which you can do without ISBoxer, as has been proven. Like I said from the very beginning, ISBoxer didn't make it possible for mass multiboxing, overly simplistic gameplay mechanics did.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
268
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 07:02:56 -
[4867] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:
ISboxer doesn't make your character generate ISK faster, it simply reduces the amount of effort required to achieve the same (actually it's less, but we'll let that slide) efficiency in game.
It absolutes does print ISK. You are one person, you can artificially create 19 other accounts, that would have the same effect on the economy as twenty different people, if not more, depending on their average/casual/hardcore playstyle. Those 19 players DO NOT EXIST, you've artificially created them, and they inflate the ISK supply due to the sole reason that is ISBoxer. Which you can do without ISBoxer, as has been proven.
Then what the hell is your problem here? Go enjoy controlling 20 accounts without Input Broadcasting, and keep very, very close to mind the thought that Dashboards and Overlays also fall under 6-A2 & 3.
http://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/third-party-policies/
See you this Summer.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5580
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 07:07:04 -
[4868] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Then what the hell is your problem here? Go enjoy controlling 20 accounts without Input Broadcasting, and keep very, very close to mind the thought that Dashboards and Overlays also fall under 6-A2 & 3. EVE-O Preview doesn't fall under it though. I'm aiming for 32 accounts. And my issue remains the same - how the bans are enforced without catching legitimate players in the extremely harsh policy these things have been placed under. Thanks once again for confirming you are trolling.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
268
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 07:10:59 -
[4869] - Quote
I refer you once again to the Third Party Policies articles, where is it said,
Devs posting in the EVE-O Preview doesn't mean it will always get lenient treatment if it gets out of control. Again.
HTFU
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5580
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 07:17:17 -
[4870] - Quote
GankYou wrote:I refer you once again to the Third Party Policies articles, where is it said, Devs posting in the EVE-O Preview doesn't mean it will always get lenient treatment if it gets out of control. Again. Devs contributed code towards it too. As long as it remains a way to switch screen rapidly and nothing more, I doubt we'll see anything happen to it.
And the policies may say that, but FoxFour has authorized it and confirmed it is within the rules. I can't quote the ticket I raised to check this, but let's say I'm happy to continue using it. You can continue crying for eternity over all of these extra characters, just remember this one thing - until you showed up here whining, I had no intention of multiboxing at a large scale, so you only have yourself to blame.
Oh, and the "outflow of real players" has nothing to do with ISBoxer or EVE-O Preview, or multiboxing in general. Quite honestly, I'm not convinced there is an outflow. Whatever way you spin it though, multiboxers pay for their accounts, even if it's through PLEX consumption, so they will always be around in one form or another.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
268
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 07:21:39 -
[4871] - Quote
Be my guest, I work for my own ISK with the 5.6 million Skillpoints that I have.
And ISK is very good. Twelve digit good.
You can earn yours the way you see fit, and as is allowed by the rules of the game.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5580
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 07:30:18 -
[4872] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Be my guest, I work for my own ISK with the 5.6 million Skillpoints that I have. And ISK is very good. Twelve digit good. You can earn yours the way you see fit, and as is allowed by the rules of the game. 5.6m?
Primarily I make ISK through trading. Multiboxing doesn't come close to that. What is good though is that I can trade and multibox at the same time. Win win.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
268
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 07:33:47 -
[4873] - Quote
Yes, the lack of proper Capital Gains taxes and/or Progressive tax on such incomes will backfire many more times in the history of EvE.
To a lesser extent now, but the damage has been done - the artificially-generated ISK is sitting in accounts, though I'm thankful that some is being transfered from theirs to my own wallet.
You can afford to pay 2,800 ISK p/u Zydrine and you will pay me.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5580
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 07:45:29 -
[4874] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Yes, the lack of proper Capital Gains taxes and/or Progressive tax on such incomes will backfire many more times in the history of EvE. To a lesser extent now, but the damage has been done - the artificially-generated ISK is sitting in accounts, though I'm thankful that some is being transfered from theirs to my own wallet. You can afford to pay 2,800 ISK p/u Zydrine and you will pay me. Isk is being generated now as it ever was. Most of it comes from nullsec AFK ratting which doesn't require ISBoxer.
And unless you are trading wrong I doubt I'll buy Zydrine from you as I don't buy minerals from sell orders as a general rule. I saw your screenshots in the other thread, it really doesn't look like you trade in a high enough volume to cover too much of the market tbh though.
Anyway, this is all now wildly off topic. Good day.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
268
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 07:56:17 -
[4875] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:Yes, the lack of proper Capital Gains taxes and/or Progressive tax on such incomes will backfire many more times in the history of EvE. To a lesser extent now, but the damage has been done - the artificially-generated ISK is sitting in accounts, though I'm thankful that some is being transfered from theirs to my own wallet. You can afford to pay 2,800 ISK p/u Zydrine and you will pay me. Isk is being generated now as it ever was. Most of it comes from nullsec AFK ratting which doesn't require ISBoxer.
Yes, the (overall) bounties constitute the vast majority of the ISK faucet.
It had been done in dank Vindicators and other setups, posting 11bn monthly profits after PLEX with ISBotter setups.
Dank ticks,
Dank setup,
Dank ISK,
Gold chain!
Quote:And unless you are trading wrong I doubt I'll buy Zydrine from you as I don't buy minerals from sell orders as a general rule.
You'll be buying spaceships.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 08:40:10 -
[4876] - Quote
GankYou wrote:
Dank setup,
Dank ticks,
Dank ISK,
Gold chain!
Are you writing a song?
Also why do you keep calling it ISBotter? |
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
270
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 08:44:13 -
[4877] - Quote
Lee Sin Priest wrote:GankYou wrote:
Dank setup,
Dank ticks,
Dank ISK,
Gold chain!
Are you writing a song? Also why do you keep calling it ISBotter?
Because it is no different from an automated bot script, only this one is enacted by the user.
Input Broadcasting and Multiplexing was/is just that. Overlays and Dashboards is something that should not be, but it is what it is - a Bot-Human interface 2.0.
The Machines are evolving.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5580
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 09:15:35 -
[4878] - Quote
GankYou wrote:So there's a big does-not-compute for CCP in this regard, with ISBotter Incursions in HS overshadowing even LvL 4s, which likes like Lowsec Combat exploration take a bit, just a bit more steps than Warp in and print ISK. But that's not just ISBoxer, that happens without ISBoxer too. The problem is with the incursions.
GankYou wrote:You'll be buying spaceships. Not from sell orders I won't, and to be quite honest I rarely buy ships anyway as they don't need replacing if they don't explode. Being a trader, I don't tend to get blown up much. Rarely do I buy anything from sell orders at all though unless it's in SMA space and I need it quick, and even then it's not very common.
Lee Sin Priest wrote:Also why do you keep calling it ISBotter? Because up until now nobody has made a comment on his hilarious pun.
GankYou wrote:Because it is no different from an automated bot script, only this one is enacted by the user. It's very different. The fact that you believe it's the same makes me question your knowledge and experience in EVE. That you seem to not understand the economy very well makes me question it further.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
270
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 09:24:47 -
[4879] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:So there's a big does-not-compute for CCP in this regard, with ISBotter Incursions in HS overshadowing even LvL 4s, which likes like Lowsec Combat exploration take a bit, just a bit more steps than Warp in and print ISK. But that's not just ISBoxer, that happens without ISBoxer too. The problem is with the incursions.
Incursions per se are fine - they were designed for fleets. Of players, maybe. More frequent spawns in LS wouldn't hurt, however.
I'd rather have an Universal AFKtar, than anything else you may have in your arsenal. Such as Jane-Joe with 20 ISBotter accounts included, because it's dank, cool and sooo easy - Everybody's doing it!
"But my computr can't run more than three gnomes at a time...
-GET GUD"
Quote:GankYou wrote:Because it is no different from an automated bot script, only this one is enacted by the user. It's very different. The fact that you believe it's the same makes me question your knowledge and experience in EVE. That you seem to not understand the economy very well makes me question it further.
You seem to excel at baseless ad hominems, more than anything.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5580
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 09:42:32 -
[4880] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Incursions per se are fine - they were designed for fleets. Of players, maybe. But even without ISBoxer, even just using the client and not even EVE-O preview, incursions are able to be done by a single individual with alts, with a high rate of efficiency. That's the part you seem to be missing. You seem to be of the impression that without ISBoxer people can't multibox incursions. You're wrong, so ISK will still be being generated in vast quantities by single players.
GankYou wrote:Quote:GankYou wrote:Because it is no different from an automated bot script, only this one is enacted by the user. It's very different. The fact that you believe it's the same makes me question your knowledge and experience in EVE. That you seem to not understand the economy very well makes me question it further. You seem to excel at baseless ad hominems, more than anything. It's not an ad hominem, it's a simple observation. If you are offended by me questioning your experience, perhaps that's even more of a sign that you aren't quite the expert you claim to be. Reviewing your posting history appears to confirm that.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
272
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 10:04:56 -
[4881] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:Incursions per se are fine - they were designed for fleets. Of players, maybe. But even without ISBoxer, even just using the client and not even EVE-O preview, incursions are able to be done by a single individual with alts, with a high rate of efficiency. That's the part you seem to be missing.
Envy is an unhonourable trait. The will to uphold the Law of the Land isn't.
Quote:You're wrong, so ISK will still be being generated in vast quantities by single players.
No argument there, either move them completely to LS, or rework the mechanics, because the Machines are evolving, maaan.
Quote:
It's not an ad hominem, it's a simple observation. If you are offended by me questioning your experience, perhaps that's even more of a sign that you aren't quite the expert you claim to be. Reviewing your posting history appears to confirm that.
So that's not a veiled insult, and ISBotting is not botting, and the EULA is irrelevant, and efficiency is the same as effectiveness.
Keep it up, expert, that seems to need an artificially-generated income to sustain himself, which is not available through other legal means, hence you being in this thread - forever eternal evermore.
ISK per hour must be getting relatively low.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5580
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 10:19:29 -
[4882] - Quote
GankYou wrote:So that's not a veiled insult No it's not.
GankYou wrote:and ISBotting is not botting No, it's not.
GankYou wrote:and the EULA is irrelevant No it's not, but whether or not EULA abiding players get caught up in bans is very relevant. By the way, you realise I'm not here campaigning for ISBoxer to be unbanned, right? It's just occurred to me that since you have an aversion to reading posts that you might not actually understand that.
GankYou wrote:Keep it up, expert, that seems to need an artificially-generated income to sustain himself, which is not available through other legal means, hence you being in this thread - forever eternal evermore. I don't need it to sustain anything. I could quite happily stop all ISK making activities and continue to play for probably longer than I'm likely to play EVE. But I like ISK, so I continue to trade to make the bulk of my isk. That I get people like you crying about how unfair multiboxing is, that part I do for fun. And it is available through legal means. It can be done completely manually, though is easier with the CCP authorised EVE-O Preview.
That's enough of me feeding the troll for now though I think.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
272
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 10:30:00 -
[4883] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:]I don't need it to sustain anything. I could quite happily stop all ISK making activities and continue to play for probably longer than I'm likely to play EVE. But I like ISK, so I continue to trade to make the bulk of my isk.
You like trying to win lost battles. On twisted principle case - Insanity and paranoia rolled into one, both feeding on each other in perpetuity.
Quote:That I get people like you crying about how unfair multiboxing is
CCP have determined it to be unfair with respect to individual players and the long-term health of the economy. I'm more concerned with upholding the Letter of the Law and the long-term survival of Eve, which you don't seem to care about.
So please do return to your expert bulk 0.01 ISK trading and your assorted activities in an irrelevant pet alliance.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5580
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 11:06:23 -
[4884] - Quote
GankYou wrote:I'm more concerned with upholding the Letter of the Law and the long-term survival of Eve, which you don't seem to care about. I care about the future of EVE and the letter of the law. that's why I'm here campaigning against people getting banned in error. The letter of the law works both ways.
What you are here for is to cry about the evil multiboxer - and you are even having a go at ones who are doing it legitimately, like I am.
GankYou wrote:So please do return to your expert bulk 0.01 ISK trading Real traders don't 0.01. Now I see where you are going wrong.
GankYou wrote:and your assorted activities in an irrelevant pet alliance Grr Goons...
GankYou wrote:with a little EVEOP multiboxing on the side. What's EVEOP?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
503
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 12:49:17 -
[4885] - Quote
I've removed a couple troll posts and those quoting them as they add no value to the discussion.
Quote:5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
ISD Decoy
Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
280
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 19:44:11 -
[4886] - Quote
It is always important to find one's roots, the discussion in the following thread has been a most "fascinating" one, with the thread being started on July 23th, 2014 and let run to 14 Pages all the way upto the birth of the current one, here is the link where a few reasonable voices left their mark in history, https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=354128
And the following is also taken from that thread, and shall be left for the impartial, and often silent, Jury that is the Public of EvE, pronounce a verdict for themselves on things, which had been discussed upto this point,
Lucas Kell wrote:2014-08-04 10:19:32 UTC |
I love that this argument is still going on.
Listen up guys: ISBoxer is here to stay. Even if the CSM championed this idea, there's no way in hell CCP are going to go forward with a ban of ISBoxer. Aside from the enormous amount of effort it would be to tell if people are using it, the loss of accounts that would result from the banning of ISBoxer would be staggering. We're talking thousands of accounts here, not a handful of disgruntled players.
If CCP wanted to ban ISBoxer they would have had to do it right at the beginning. As they haven't, and people have built whole ISBoxer armies, it would be too devastating to CCPs income to go back and remove it now.
At the end of the day you just have to live with the fact that it exists, accept that it affects most players pretty much to the sum of zero, and move on.
And,
Lucas Kell wrote:2014-08-11 10:07:20 UTC
If it was suddenly disallowed, thousands of accounts would drop. And all for what? So a few people can cry a little less while the mineral index doubles?
As an addendum, here is a decision & concise explanation by GM Lelouch on what can, or can not be done without EULA/ToS violations, http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1291641&page=10#274
CCP, we know, that you got a bit carried away, following the huge success waves of those times, but we forgive you. GÖÑ
I Wish Good Fortune to All. o/
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5581
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 20:04:54 -
[4887] - Quote
And for the most part I was wrong. CCP banned it, and nearly no impact was seen. Why? Because mass multiboxing is still incredibly viable using legal means.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2015.05.07 03:21:27 -
[4888] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:And for the most part I was wrong. CCP banned it, and nearly no impact was seen. Why? Because mass multiboxing is still incredibly viable using legal means.
Well in my experience most of the incursion boxers either quit or teamed up with others to continue running but with a reduced client count.
As for mining I would bet very few actually used isboxer's repeater function to do so. You could make the repeater work with mining but it was rather clunky.
I could still run an 8 man bomber fleet if I wanted to. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2872
|
Posted - 2015.05.07 21:14:19 -
[4889] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Sorry, not buying it Lucas. Improvements due to efficiency gains in ratting means more isk flowing into the Eve economy which would mean an acceleration of inflation.
Improvements in efficiency in terms of mining would mean more minerals flowing into the Eve economy and depressing prices.
Given that ISBoxer comes with a fee I find it hard to believe there is no efficiency gain to be had when using it. People use it...because they can? You can try to word-smith your way out of this with "replacing effort" as not being an efficiency gain, but you seem to be the only person left in this thread that believes that. Except it doesn't improve efficiency, it reduces effort. You can control a massive stack of AFK ratters because you just have to sit them AFK. You can control a mass of miners because you just have to sit them AFK. Isboxer just meant you had to do less clicks to achieve that. If I click 3 times and make 100m/hour and you click 500 times and also make 100m/hour, we're equally efficient, you simply click more. As for ISBoxer's fee, it does a lot of cool things which people still do pay for as they are still within the EULA. Most notably it distributes resource use between clients and limits inactive client FPS, which allows you to run more clients on a lower end machine. It's a way for people who don't have a beast of a machine (like mine ) to run more clients. And it's stupidly cheap.
Reducing effort is pretty much the definition of efficiency in this game.
Lets put it in math terms....
let r() be the reward function and E is the effort the player puts into the game.
r(E) is the rewards a player gets for effort level E. Now, a reasonable assumption about r() is that it is increasing in E.
r(E') > r(E) when E' > E.
If ISBoxer reduces E presumably people are not paying for ISBoxer to get less rewards or to work harder. So it seams reasonable that the following holds.
r(E') = r(E) and that E' < E.
Where E is the level of effort a player expended before getting ISBoxer and E' the amount of effort afterwards.
Further, that this holds for all levels of E since E and E' are arbitrary.
In short, ISBoxer shifts the player up to a higher reward function. So lets denote the non-ISBoxer reward function as r, and the ISBoxer reward function as R. Now we have,
R(E) > r(E).
In other words, with the same level of effort the ISBoxer will make more ISK. Now it is entirely possible that people will reduce effort and make just as much isk as before, but it is more likely that some will reduce effort while others will not, and that ISBoxer would indeed have an impact on the economy. The more ISBoxer and similar programs proliferate throughout the Eve population the stronger the impact.
I'm going to guess that a tipping point was reached and CCP decided to act.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5773
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 00:15:43 -
[4890] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Sorry, not buying it Lucas. Improvements due to efficiency gains in ratting means more isk flowing into the Eve economy which would mean an acceleration of inflation.
Improvements in efficiency in terms of mining would mean more minerals flowing into the Eve economy and depressing prices.
Given that ISBoxer comes with a fee I find it hard to believe there is no efficiency gain to be had when using it. People use it...because they can? You can try to word-smith your way out of this with "replacing effort" as not being an efficiency gain, but you seem to be the only person left in this thread that believes that. Except it doesn't improve efficiency, it reduces effort. You can control a massive stack of AFK ratters because you just have to sit them AFK. You can control a mass of miners because you just have to sit them AFK. Isboxer just meant you had to do less clicks to achieve that. If I click 3 times and make 100m/hour and you click 500 times and also make 100m/hour, we're equally efficient, you simply click more. As for ISBoxer's fee, it does a lot of cool things which people still do pay for as they are still within the EULA. Most notably it distributes resource use between clients and limits inactive client FPS, which allows you to run more clients on a lower end machine. It's a way for people who don't have a beast of a machine (like mine ) to run more clients. And it's stupidly cheap. Reducing effort is pretty much the definition of efficiency in this game. Lets put it in math terms.... let r() be the reward function and E is the effort the player puts into the game. r(E) is the rewards a player gets for effort level E. Now, a reasonable assumption about r() is that it is increasing in E. r(E') > r(E) when E' > E. If ISBoxer reduces E presumably people are not paying for ISBoxer to get less rewards or to work harder. So it seams reasonable that the following holds. r(E') = r(E) and that E' < E. Where E is the level of effort a player expended before getting ISBoxer and E' the amount of effort afterwards. Further, that this holds for all levels of E since E and E' are arbitrary. In short, ISBoxer shifts the player up to a higher reward function. So lets denote the non-ISBoxer reward function as r, and the ISBoxer reward function as R. Now we have, R(E) > r(E). In other words, with the same level of effort the ISBoxer will make more ISK. Now it is entirely possible that people will reduce effort and make just as much isk as before, but it is more likely that some will reduce effort while others will not, and that ISBoxer would indeed have an impact on the economy. The more ISBoxer and similar programs proliferate throughout the Eve population the stronger the impact. I'm going to guess that a tipping point was reached and CCP decided to act. But we were talking about efficiency vs the economy. Someone using ISBoxer doesn't magically produce more per character than anyone else. ISBoxer helped players in certain types of activities to reduce the number of clicks they needed to do to achieve the same level of income. That's all. It doesn't make them able to improve the in-game efficiency of those activities vs the economy. I'm not sure how much simpler it can be explained. As for people not reducing effort, most multiboxers, ISBoxer or not, are capped by hardware way before they are capped by effort.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2876
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 01:33:10 -
[4891] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Sorry, not buying it Lucas. Improvements due to efficiency gains in ratting means more isk flowing into the Eve economy which would mean an acceleration of inflation.
Improvements in efficiency in terms of mining would mean more minerals flowing into the Eve economy and depressing prices.
Given that ISBoxer comes with a fee I find it hard to believe there is no efficiency gain to be had when using it. People use it...because they can? You can try to word-smith your way out of this with "replacing effort" as not being an efficiency gain, but you seem to be the only person left in this thread that believes that. Except it doesn't improve efficiency, it reduces effort. You can control a massive stack of AFK ratters because you just have to sit them AFK. You can control a mass of miners because you just have to sit them AFK. Isboxer just meant you had to do less clicks to achieve that. If I click 3 times and make 100m/hour and you click 500 times and also make 100m/hour, we're equally efficient, you simply click more. As for ISBoxer's fee, it does a lot of cool things which people still do pay for as they are still within the EULA. Most notably it distributes resource use between clients and limits inactive client FPS, which allows you to run more clients on a lower end machine. It's a way for people who don't have a beast of a machine (like mine ) to run more clients. And it's stupidly cheap. Reducing effort is pretty much the definition of efficiency in this game. Lets put it in math terms.... let r() be the reward function and E is the effort the player puts into the game. r(E) is the rewards a player gets for effort level E. Now, a reasonable assumption about r() is that it is increasing in E. r(E') > r(E) when E' > E. If ISBoxer reduces E presumably people are not paying for ISBoxer to get less rewards or to work harder. So it seams reasonable that the following holds. r(E') = r(E) and that E' < E. Where E is the level of effort a player expended before getting ISBoxer and E' the amount of effort afterwards. Further, that this holds for all levels of E since E and E' are arbitrary. In short, ISBoxer shifts the player up to a higher reward function. So lets denote the non-ISBoxer reward function as r, and the ISBoxer reward function as R. Now we have, R(E) > r(E). In other words, with the same level of effort the ISBoxer will make more ISK. Now it is entirely possible that people will reduce effort and make just as much isk as before, but it is more likely that some will reduce effort while others will not, and that ISBoxer would indeed have an impact on the economy. The more ISBoxer and similar programs proliferate throughout the Eve population the stronger the impact. I'm going to guess that a tipping point was reached and CCP decided to act. But we were talking about efficiency vs the economy. Someone using ISBoxer doesn't magically produce more per character than anyone else. ISBoxer helped players in certain types of activities to reduce the number of clicks they needed to do to achieve the same level of income. That's all. It doesn't make them able to improve the in-game efficiency of those activities vs the economy. I'm not sure how much simpler it can be explained. As for people not reducing effort, most multiboxers, ISBoxer or not, are capped by hardware way before they are capped by effort.
By your own admission it would let a player run more clients than without it.
More clients while ratting....more isk.
More clients while mining...more resources/isk.
And I could see broadcasting "shoot this rat" as improving the PLAYER'S efficiency. Without ISBoxer one would have to go through each client and assign the drones. Then go back to the main client and shoot the rat they thought they should shoot first. Then all the other drones start shooting. If your trigger client can't shoot (jammed, damped, etc.) then you can lose the benefit of drone assist....now you have to cycle through the clients again setting up. With broadcasting problem solved via 1 click. If a player can make 2-N characters do things with 1 click with ISBoxer vs. 2-N clicks without ISBoxer, that is unequivocally and absolutely and improvement in both acquiring ISK and in game resources. Anyone arguing against this blindingly obvious result has an agenda they are pushing.
So it isn't an improvement in the efficacy of things like an ishtar or warden IIs. It is an improvement in the human player's efficiency.
And for things like ratting, CCP doesn't give a ****ing **** about how much isk/character you are making. They really, really don't. That is a useless and irrelevant metric when it comes to the issue of inflation. At that point all the ****ing matters is the amount of isk entering the economy vs. the amount of goods entering the economy.
But nice try with the word smithing again.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
296
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 02:58:45 -
[4892] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:That is a useless and irrelevant metric when it comes to the issue of inflation. At that point all the ****ing matters is the amount of isk entering the economy vs. the amount of goods entering the economy.
Bingo-presto.
And the people who had been printing ISK with ISBotter had been doing so at a very grave detriment to the economy, as this artificial ISK inflow could not be matched to the resource acquisition, especially Tech 2 and Tech 3, NOR was it matched to the resource/spaceship destruction, which is the driving force in EvE.
My post expanding on the topic a little: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5726029#post5726029 and on Page 38.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 03:01:45 -
[4893] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:By your own admission it would let a player run more clients than without it.
More clients while ratting....more isk.
More clients while mining...more resources/isk.
And I could see broadcasting "shoot this rat" as improving the PLAYER'S efficiency. Without ISBoxer one would have to go through each client and assign the drones. Then go back to the main client and shoot the rat they thought they should shoot first. Then all the other drones start shooting. If your trigger client can't shoot (jammed, damped, etc.) then you can lose the benefit of drone assist....now you have to cycle through the clients again setting up. With broadcasting problem solved via 1 click. If a player can make 2-N characters do things with 1 click with ISBoxer vs. 2-N clicks without ISBoxer, that is unequivocally and absolutely and improvement in both acquiring ISK and in game resources. Anyone arguing against this blindingly obvious result has an agenda they are pushing.
So it isn't an improvement in the efficacy of things like an ishtar or warden IIs. It is an improvement in the human player's efficiency.
And for things like ratting, CCP doesn't give a ****ing **** about how much isk/character you are making. They really, really don't. That is a useless and irrelevant metric when it comes to the issue of inflation. At that point all the ****ing matters is the amount of isk entering the economy vs. the amount of goods entering the economy.
But nice try with the word smithing again. You would have a point if all of the stuff you listed actually sees an improvement when a repeater is used. You're not using the repeater to increase the number of clients ratting. For most miner fleets using the repeater decreases efficiency as there's only so much you can do with the sorting of overviews to try to vary the roids being hit. If you're running a giant ice mining fleet then the repeater is "good enough" when combined with a varied overview setup. For actual minerals the whole thing doesn't scale that well.
Your hypothetical about shooting the rat isn't remotely how it's done in game. I've posted a video of me running a nightmare fleet in incursions with just eve in windowed mode (8 nm 2 logi 1 ore dropper 1 booster). Nkey rollover means all you do is hit all the fkeys you need once per click as you click through the clients. That's how it would work if you're killing a rat without a repeater.
I'm still waiting on a response from CCP before I dust off the NMs again to see how fast I can click through. I REALLY want to make sure that CCP knows what I'm doing before I do it because I have no doubt it'll look awfully like a repeater on their end.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2877
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 05:42:43 -
[4894] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:By your own admission it would let a player run more clients than without it.
More clients while ratting....more isk.
More clients while mining...more resources/isk.
And I could see broadcasting "shoot this rat" as improving the PLAYER'S efficiency. Without ISBoxer one would have to go through each client and assign the drones. Then go back to the main client and shoot the rat they thought they should shoot first. Then all the other drones start shooting. If your trigger client can't shoot (jammed, damped, etc.) then you can lose the benefit of drone assist....now you have to cycle through the clients again setting up. With broadcasting problem solved via 1 click. If a player can make 2-N characters do things with 1 click with ISBoxer vs. 2-N clicks without ISBoxer, that is unequivocally and absolutely and improvement in both acquiring ISK and in game resources. Anyone arguing against this blindingly obvious result has an agenda they are pushing.
So it isn't an improvement in the efficacy of things like an ishtar or warden IIs. It is an improvement in the human player's efficiency.
And for things like ratting, CCP doesn't give a ****ing **** about how much isk/character you are making. They really, really don't. That is a useless and irrelevant metric when it comes to the issue of inflation. At that point all the ****ing matters is the amount of isk entering the economy vs. the amount of goods entering the economy.
But nice try with the word smithing again. You would have a point if all of the stuff you listed actually sees an improvement when a repeater is used. You're not using the repeater to increase the number of clients ratting. For most miner fleets using the repeater decreases efficiency as there's only so much you can do with the sorting of overviews to try to vary the roids being hit. If you're running a giant ice mining fleet then the repeater is "good enough" when combined with a varied overview setup. For actual minerals the whole thing doesn't scale that well. Your hypothetical about shooting the rat isn't remotely how it's done in game. I've posted a video of me running a nightmare fleet in incursions with just eve in windowed mode (8 nm 2 logi 1 ore dropper 1 booster). Nkey rollover means all you do is hit all the fkeys you need once per click as you click through the clients. That's how it would work if you're killing a rat without a repeater. I'm still waiting on a response from CCP before I dust off the NMs again to see how fast I can click through. I REALLY want to make sure that CCP knows what I'm doing before I do it because I have no doubt it'll look awfully like a repeater on their end.
Could you run 12 clients without ISBoxer? If the answer is no, it still results in an improvement in acquiring ISK. In which case I'd say ISBoxer's days are probably limited....
As for using the broadcast/repeater function the length of this thread provides considerable evidence that it was also providing enhanced acquisition of in game assets.
IMO, ISBoxer can be banned under the very same portion of the EULA that covers botters. The language is sufficiently broad. All CCP would need to do is just make an announcement to that effect...like they did with the broadcasting function.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5773
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 07:32:32 -
[4895] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:By your own admission it would let a player run more clients than without it. Where is that my admission? I think for most players, you will be limited by how many clients your hardware can run WAY before you are limited by how many you can control manually. Again, the problem is that this game requires so little input that large scale multiboxing is possible. Honestly, if you understood how little the multiplexing, VFX and round robin features were really used in PvE activities you might understand it a little better. The greatest benefit to PvE is the ability to rapidly switch between screens and get a quick look at all those clients - which EVE-O Preview provides completely, and windows itself does a pretty good job of even without that.
Teckos Pech wrote:And for things like ratting, CCP doesn't give a ****ing **** about how much isk/character you are making. They really, really don't. That is a useless and irrelevant metric when it comes to the issue of inflation. At that point all that ****ing matters is the amount of isk entering the economy vs. the amount of goods entering the economy. You say that, but there's no difference from a resource/isk entering the economy point of view between one player running 10 characters and 10 individually controlled characters. We certainly haven't seen CCP going against multiboxers in general, which you would see if that was their actual focus, and they aren't against new players, which also has the same effect. Moreover, multiboxers bring in both ISK and goods, and so are just as balanced as anyone else. If anything, multiboxing is more able to bring in goods than ISK, and even removes ISK (in the form of LP rewards), which counters the massive amounts of ISK brought in through individual AFK ratters in null. I continue to reject the idea that ISBoxers have anywhere close to as large an impact on the economy over any other manual multiboxers or even swathes of individual PvE players as people like yourself are attempting to claim.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 07:37:47 -
[4896] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Could you run 12 clients without ISBoxer? If the answer is no, it still results in an improvement in acquiring ISK. In which case I'd say ISBoxer's days are probably limited....
As for using the broadcast/repeater function the length of this thread provides considerable evidence that it was also providing enhanced acquisition of in game assets.
IMO, ISBoxer can be banned under the very same portion of the EULA that covers botters. The language is sufficiently broad. All CCP would need to do is just make an announcement to that effect...like they did with the broadcasting function. I somewhat regularly run 12 eve clients without isboxer.
Proof : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ4LByLY5T4
I don't even use isboxer anymore outside of a very specific situation when I'm using only the secondary computer and I want the resource management that isboxer brings. If eve-o ever gets a resource management feature then I would switch to it.
The length of this thread provides no such evidence. It does prove that some people are rather obsessed with the play styles of others. It also proves that some people are worried that someone somewhere might earn a little more isk for a little less effort in a visible manner. Market traders utilizing third party programs to make more isk with far less effort than most of us but since we can't directly see it few people care.
I would like to see how you can explain that isboxer is covered by the exact same portion of the eula as bots while excluding eve-o and a myriad of other programs that CCP supports.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5773
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 07:43:27 -
[4897] - Quote
GankYou wrote:And the people who had been printing ISK with ISBotter had been doing so at a very grave detriment to the economy, as this artificial ISK inflow could not be matched to the resource acquisition, especially Tech 2 and Tech 3, NOR was it matched to the resource/spaceship destruction, which is the driving force in EvE. Please enlighten me on the source of all of this ISK that ISBoxers supposedly collected while you weren't playing EVE. The vast majority of ISBoxers were miners, and the second was likely incursions, which while they generate ISK also generate LP which removes ISK. Most ISK in the game comes from bounties, the majority of which will be from AFK ratters in null which requires nearly zero input, certainly no multiplexing.
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
5773
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 07:55:27 -
[4898] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Could you run 12 clients without ISBoxer? If the answer is no, it still results in an improvement in acquiring ISK. In which case I'd say ISBoxer's days are probably limited.... As I'm typing this I'm currently running 15 without ISBoxer. With my timing, it's taking me between 15 and 20% of my time to manage those clients. I plan to scale up to 32 manually controlled clients (in two sets of 16) at which point I believe I'll be at the limit of what my single machine will handle while comfortably running my dev tools and netflix alondsige without paging too much. So the answer is yes, without ISBoxer 12 clients can easily be controlled.
Teckos Pech wrote:As for using the broadcast/repeater function the length of this thread provides considerable evidence that it was also providing enhanced acquisition of in game assets. No such evidence is being provided, that's your conjecture. You believe that in order for people to be complaining it must be because they are losing reward generation ability, while you ignore what people are clearly saying. You can go back and look at my others posts in this thread and you'll see that I've supported methods of making mass multiboxing much much harder overall, which would certainly be far worse for EX-ISBoxer users than the current ruling.
Teckos Pech wrote:IMO, ISBoxer can be banned under the very same portion of the EULA that covers botters. The language is sufficiently broad. All CCP would need to do is just make an announcement to that effect...like they did with the broadcasting function. I don't actually care if ISBoxer is banned, it's irrelevant to most people anyway. What I care about is whether or not players who are playing legitimately are getting banned because the methods being used to detect tool users are flawed.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
306
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 08:37:32 -
[4899] - Quote
Keep running circles, it is amusing.
Artificially-generated ISK that would not have been there had it not been for the ISBotter and its equivalents.
The were no new resources to match this ISK on a regular basis.
Even if you had your friends doubled down on ISBotter mining, as you were printing ISK, there were no movements, or dynamics in the whole of New Eden to consume these resources and products.
Teckos, this not only ensures the long-term health of the economy, this moreso secures CCP's future success as a company, because the number of real players at that time was decreasing, with ISBotters spawning in their wake - They would later on come a time, where a situation could develop, which could drop, in a very violent manner, the subscription numbers to levels unseen since the birth of Eve, as said players came to command ever-greater number of accounts, giving false income security.
In the very end, it would be just like Chinese server Serenity - botters and people who sell PLEX to do PvP.
Diversity and ever-changing dynamics with real actors - this has been and always be the future of EVE.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5773
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 10:33:08 -
[4900] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Artificially-generated ISK that would not have been there had it not been for the ISBotter and its equivalents. Prove it. You seem to refuse to accept that ISBoxers did anything but generate ISK, even though we know full well that they more often created resources than ISK. Show me the figures that state how much ISK was generated by ISBoxers vs all other players and the resources for the same categories. on top of which, large scale multiboxers still exist. If ISK generation was caused by mass multiboxers (rather than AFK null players like we know it is) then it must still be being produced.
You have no clue what you are talking about. It's really that simple. You've jumped back into the game for a couple of months after having been absent for years and you seem to think you know the ins and outs of every situation, yet you demonstrate with every post that you don't even have a basic understanding of what was going on.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
308
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 11:12:15 -
[4901] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:Artificially-generated ISK that would not have been there had it not been for the ISBotter and its equivalents. Prove it.
A 1,200 mil per hour income on a casual 13 account setup - could be scaled further. You even commented that this is still possible to achieve.
But it isn't.
Quote:You seem to refuse to accept that ISBoxers did anything but generate ISK, even though we know full well that they more often created resources than ISK.
Numbers pls.
You seem to spot no problem, and that is perfectly fine - nobody is perfect, delusions do happen, especially mania-linked ones, but having ISBotters on the both side of the economic equation doing their thingGäó - Is this the kind of game that all of us would like to be playing in?
Rhetoric question!
Chinese Eve server Serenity says N¦É h¦Äo - Hello!
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5773
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 11:49:40 -
[4902] - Quote
GankYou wrote:A 1,200 mil per hour income on a casual 13 account setup - could be scaled further. You even commented that this is still possible to achieve. It is still possible to achieve, and it's still a mixture of ISK and LP to achieve this, and incursions still come out way below the income that AFK ratters achieve in null. Incursions are limited so they can't farm the same volume of overall ISK. They also take much more skill and are a prime target for gankers with the requirement for pretty blinged out ships.
This had absolutely nothing to do with ISBoxers. This was a massive manipulation of the pricing system to generate vast quantities of LP. It was market manipulation over anything else, which is completely unchanged by this announcement.
GankYou wrote:Numbers pls. Nobody has numbers specifically except CCP, but f you were actually playing during this time you'd know what ISBoxers were doing. The real money makers were mining and incursions. Beside incursions not supporting that many people, they required a lot more knowledge, preparation and effort. If you're claiming that ISBoxing wasn't primarily focussed around mining, then that's proof enough for most people that you are completely clueless.
GankYou wrote:You seem to spot no problem, and that is perfectly fine - nobody is perfect, delusions do happen, especially mania-linked ones, but having ISBotters on the BOTH side of the economic equation doing their thingGäó - Is this the kind of game that all of us would like to be playing in? Was this supposed to make sense?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
310
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 12:00:21 -
[4903] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:It is still possible to achieve, and it's still a mixture of ISK and LP to achieve this, and incursions still come out way below the income that AFK ratters achieve in null. Incursions are limited so they can't farm the same volume of overall ISK. They also take much more skill and are a prime target for gankers with the requirement for pretty blinged out ships.
That's great, said Incursions just opened up to NORMAL people in considerable manner. AFKtar gonna afk. vOv
Lucas wrote:This had absolutely nothing to do with ISBoxers.
Precisely, it was a FW payout imbalance - look at its results.
Quote:This was a massive manipulation of the pricing system to generate vast quantities of LP. It was market manipulation over anything else, which is completely unchanged by this announcement.
It is irrelevant how it is done, what matters is the artificial inflows.
Lucas Kell wrote:The real money makers were mining and incursions. Beside incursions not supporting that many people, they required a lot more knowledge, preparation and effort. If you're claiming that ISBoxing wasn't primarily focussed around mining
And it indeed (probably) had been so, so is that the point, then, that proves they are fine? THAT'S THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ECONOMIC EQUATION!
Operation Success - from ISBotter in your words having zero impact on the economy, we've advanced to admission, and to Faucet & Sinks discussions, as well as resource acquisition.
But CCP knows everything on the following topic, and more, anyway.
CCP Quant pls a++ püñ Gùò_Gùò a++püñ gib data
Lucas Kell wrote:Was this supposed to make sense?
No, of course not - in your mind.
15,000 ISBotters getting ISK from CONCORD
15,000 or equivalent number to match the inflows of ISBotters acquiring, mostly tech 1, mind you, resources.
Numbers exaggerated, but it scales very, very, very, very, very well at any level.
PERFECTLY FINE GAME!
According to my intel, it would seem the last bastions of the Machines held out until the Earth-March of the year 2015-YC117.
If anyone hasn't seen this most relevant presentation, do enjoy - EVE Online Fanfest 2015: CCP Security - Better Safe than Sorry!
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5773
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 12:34:54 -
[4904] - Quote
GankYou wrote:That's great, said Incursions just opened up to NORMAL people in considerable manner. AFKtar gonna afk. vOv Incursions will likely be done by the same people. Have you not seen the plethora of manual multibox incursion videos? And yeah, AFKtar gonna AFK and bring in a significantly high volume of ISK, so if the problem is that ISK is being brought in too quick, then that's the problem.
GankYou wrote:Precisely, it was a FW payout imbalance - look at its results. It was market manipulation on a massive scale. The same thing happens whenever we have an ice interdiction, to a lesser extent than that since that was a demonstration of an exploit.
GankYou wrote:It is irrelevant how it is done, what matters is the artificial inflows. Lol, of course it's relevant. You're pointing at an exploit which produced orders of magnitude more LP than the entire game has ever produced, and you're suggesting that has some resemblance to how much ISK generation comes from ISBoxers over manual multiboxers.
GankYou wrote:And it indeed (probably) had been so, so is that the point, then, that proves they are fine? THAT'S THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ECONOMIC EQUATION! Operation Success - from ISBotter in your words having zero impact on the economy, we've advanced to admission, and to Faucet & Sinks discussions, as well as resource acquisition. LOL so now you're swapping over to "ISoxers bring in more goods!". HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Seriously mate, go get a clue. ISBoxers don;t affect the economy any more than any other players do, that's the actual fact. If we had 1 player controlling 100 miners or 100 players mining, they produce the same, so if you're saying ISBoxers are significantly damaging the economy they you are also saying that recruiting new players is damaging to the economy.
Honestly, I'm done back and forthing with you. You're either a very successful troll or you have barely a basic understanding of the game. Either way it's a waste of time to engage you in conversation.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
312
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 12:41:23 -
[4905] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:And yeah, AFKtar gonna AFK and bring in a significantly high volume of ISK, so if the problem is that ISK is being brought in too quick, then that's the problem.
Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.
The problem is not high incomes per se, the problem is artificially-leveraged incomes per 1 player - They is no consumption - PvP in other words, to match either the ISK printing or mining at these levels.
GankYou wrote:Precisely, it was a FW payout imbalance - look at its results. It was market manipulation on a massive scale. The same thing happens whenever we have an ice interdiction, to a lesser extent than that since that was a demonstration of an exploit.[/quote]
Yes, exploits are very, very bad and distort everything, hence we are in this thread.
GankYou wrote:It is irrelevant how it is done, what matters is the artificial inflows. Lol, of course it's relevant. You're pointing at an exploit which produced orders of magnitude more LP than the entire game has ever produced, and you're suggesting that has some resemblance to how much ISK generation comes from ISBoxers over manual multiboxers.[/quote]
Over the course of the two years that it had been active, yes it has had a very considerable impact.
To the point of one very liquid commodity having a head and shoulders formation in place right this very moment! And there is no short-selling in Eve! No stops! No leverage from a central bank infinite finance facility on the flip of a switch!
GankYou wrote:And it indeed (probably) had been so, so is that the point, then, that proves they are fine? THAT'S THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ECONOMIC EQUATION! Operation Success - from ISBotter in your words having zero impact on the economy, we've advanced to admission, and to Faucet & Sinks discussions, as well as resource acquisition. LOL so now you're swapping over to "ISoxers bring in more goods!"[/quote]
I have always considered both sides, it is just that that naked ISK printing, unsubstantiated by the acquisition and destruction of resources and ready products in the medium and the long run.
But feel free to milk that Dysprosium moon for more than 100 * 24 * 30 = 72,000 units of Dyspro per month.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5773
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 13:04:21 -
[4906] - Quote
GankYou wrote:The problem is not high incomes per se, the problem is artificially-leveraged incomes per 1 player - They is no consumption, or PvP happening in other words, to match either the ISK printing or mining at these levels. So then your problem is ALL PvE, since any player doing pure PvE,even solo, is not going to be consuming ships to PvP.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
315
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 13:10:24 -
[4907] - Quote
You don't understand.
Leveraged ISK printing income per 1 player.
With no resources to match = Inflation.
But most importantly - No universal consumption to match = Stagflation.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2878
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 14:54:01 -
[4908] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Sorry, not buying it Lucas. Improvements due to efficiency gains in ratting means more isk flowing into the Eve economy which would mean an acceleration of inflation.
Improvements in efficiency in terms of mining would mean more minerals flowing into the Eve economy and depressing prices.
Given that ISBoxer comes with a fee I find it hard to believe there is no efficiency gain to be had when using it. People use it...because they can? You can try to word-smith your way out of this with "replacing effort" as not being an efficiency gain, but you seem to be the only person left in this thread that believes that. Except it doesn't improve efficiency, it reduces effort. You can control a massive stack of AFK ratters because you just have to sit them AFK. You can control a mass of miners because you just have to sit them AFK. Isboxer just meant you had to do less clicks to achieve that. If I click 3 times and make 100m/hour and you click 500 times and also make 100m/hour, we're equally efficient, you simply click more. As for ISBoxer's fee, it does a lot of cool things which people still do pay for as they are still within the EULA. Most notably it distributes resource use between clients and limits inactive client FPS, which allows you to run more clients on a lower end machine. It's a way for people who don't have a beast of a machine (like mine ) to run more clients. And it's stupidly cheap.
Quoting the entire post and bolding, italicizing and underlining the key part for you Lucas.
So yes, you have admitted that ISBoxer allows people to run more clients than they could without.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
KC Kamikaze
Black Dragon Elite
101
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 15:19:50 -
[4909] - Quote
The fact that CCP promotes the **** out of using multiple accounts makes this argument invalid.
The fact that some people think ISBoxer magically makes each of your characters more profitable when jewing away in your own fashion ... well it is what it is. You can't fix stupid.
The whole efficiency thing is open to interpretation an infinite number of ways.... CCP sadly seems to be in support of maintaining this huge grey area.
I've never seen a horse beat to death so badly as this thread. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2881
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 15:26:24 -
[4910] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:The problem is not high incomes per se, the problem is artificially-leveraged incomes per 1 player - They is no consumption, or PvP happening in other words, to match either the ISK printing or mining at these levels. So then your problem is ALL PvE, since any player doing pure PvE,even solo, is not going to be consuming ships to PvP.
FFS, NO! You sound like Gevlon Goblin here with his nonsense about how each ship loss will eventually bring down the Imperium (aka CFC).
What matters is the aggregate. Inflation is not a "micro" concept. Yes, what people (the micro level) do can have an impact at the aggregate level....no single player is likely driving Eve inflation. This is why people talk about balancing ISK sources with ISK sinks.
So, if the ISK coming in suddenly changes (e.g. a ban on broadcasting with ISBoxer style programs) and there is no commensurate change in goods and services entering the economy then the rate of inflation would deccelerate.
Here is why inflation is bad:
1. It impacts new players more strongly as they have much more limited ability to acquire ISK--i.e. the ISK they do have and that they acquire has its in game value eroded.
2. It can provide a disincentive for inactive people to come back to the game. With double digit inflation you can quickly find what was once a decent amount of ISK is now has less purchasing power.
3. Inflation is essentially a tax...taxes are "bad" in the sense that all taxes come with a deadweight loss. Deadweight losses are unrecoverable.
4. A non-zero rate of inflation means you'll have to grind ISK at a rate equivalent to the inflation rate to stay even. While the idea of having people logging in is good, having to need to log in to keep up with the inflation rate is probably sub-optimal.
Just about everywhere you look the ideal inflation rate is zero or very close to zero (not counting price increases due to things like changes in demand, etc., that is the monetary component of inflation).
In this game ultimately the central banker is CCP. Concord is kind of like a member bank for the Federal Reserve or the FOMC and the main way CCP can influence monetary policy in the game. But like the Fed they have other tools too. Such as the EULA. CCP's change in interpretation of the EULA could be likened to the Fed changing reserve requirements.
Why would CCP do this....go back to 1-4 above. And for central bankers, reputations matter. A central bank that has a strong or reasonably strong "hawkish" stance on keeping inflation "under control" will be believed. Belief in the stability of a currency IS important...even in a virtual world. Why? Because it goes to the stability of the in-game economy. And the in-game economy is one of CCP's selling points for Eve. It is almost entirely player driven.
So all the arguing about whether or not ISBoxer is a type of botting or not is kind of beside the point if the main reason CCP did this was to shore up its reputation as a responsible central banker and keep the rate of inflation at an acceptable level.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
329
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 15:30:10 -
[4911] - Quote
Teckos Pech, I always replied with tongue in cheek here - they have far too much at stake to agree to any of the points presented, instead they ask questions.
When you're the one providing answers to questions they seemingly can't either formulate, comprehend, or refuse to answer themselves, then, the war has already been won.
See you in half a year, when New Eden is healthier, guise.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2881
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 15:33:01 -
[4912] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:The fact that CCP promotes the **** out of using multiple accounts makes this argument invalid.
The fact that some people think ISBoxer magically makes each of your characters more profitable when jewing away in your own fashion ... well it is what it is. You can't fix stupid.
The whole efficiency thing is open to interpretation an infinite number of ways.... CCP sadly seems to be in support of maintaining this huge grey area.
I've never seen a horse beat to death so badly as this thread.
No...not really. Efficiency is pretty clearly defined. A reduction in effort or other inputs. Lucas has spent page after page of saying ISBoxer reduces effort. And Lucas noted it allows people to run more clients than they otherwise could.
And I suspect the reason they did this is that they were concerned about ISK flowing into the game as well as mined resources. The former can accelerate the rate of inflation, the latter depresses the price of those resources.
But cheer up...maybe someday deflation will become a ThingGäó and CCP will revoke this ban on broadcasting so that the money supply increases leading to inflation. Although personally, if deflation does become a ThingGäó that will be very, very bad and your days of using ISBoxer would again be limited....as would your days in Eve.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2881
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 15:34:52 -
[4913] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Teckos Pech, I always replied with tongue in cheek here - they have far too much at stake to agree to any of the points presented, instead they ask questions. When you're the one providing answers to questions they seemingly can't either formulate, comprehend, or refuse to answer themselves, then, the war has already been won. See you in half a year, when New Eden is healthier, guise.
Yes, you are probably right....I'll go ahead and do my best to let Lucas, et. al. have the last word....there is a non-zero probability I might fail though.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5773
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 16:12:01 -
[4914] - Quote
GankYou wrote:You don't understand. Leveraged ISK printing income per 1 player. With no resources to match = Inflation. But most importantly - No universal consumption to match = Stagflation. Why 1 player? That's the part that makes no sense. Why is 10 players who PvE with solo character and never PvP fine, but 10 characters that PvE and never PvP controlled by one person isn't? In both of those scenarios the effect on the economy would be identical, as both produce but don't consume.
Teckos Pech wrote:Basically, if I could get away with 5 clients running, with ISBoxer I could get up to 8 or even 10. Let's say 9 clients. 9 clients > 5 clients. 9 clients => Isk with 9 clients > Isk with 5 clients. But maybe you just log in 4 to keep the first 5 company. So only those of us with money to buy beast machines which don't need ISBoxer should e allowed to multiboxer at a large scale. Good to know.
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
5773
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 16:22:43 -
[4915] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:The problem is not high incomes per se, the problem is artificially-leveraged incomes per 1 player - They is no consumption, or PvP happening in other words, to match either the ISK printing or mining at these levels. So then your problem is ALL PvE, since any player doing pure PvE,even solo, is not going to be consuming ships to PvP. FFS, NO! You sound like Gevlon Goblin here with his nonsense about how each ship loss will eventually bring down the Imperium (aka CFC). Read what he's written. The problem he see is income without PvP. that happens with solo players doing PvE as well. HE seems to think that 10 characters controlled by one players is magically making more than 10 controlled by 10. It makes no ******* sense. It's got nothing to do with inflation it's "waah, he makes more than me!". They guy wasn't even playing while ISBoxer was a big thing.
Teckos Pech wrote:What matters is the aggregate. Inflation is not a "micro" concept. Yes, what people (the micro level) do can have an impact at the aggregate level....no single player is likely driving Eve inflation. This is why people talk about balancing ISK sources with ISK sinks. And since ISBoxer players did both ISK and resource generation, they were balanced. You can go on about inflation, but during the 2014 fanfest when arguable ISBoxer was at it's peak, CCP themselves stated that the economy was healthy throughout with minor deflation throughout the system. You seem to think that ISBoxers brought in ISK and that's it. I guarantee you they easily brought in as much ore as they ISK, and most importantly multiboxers still do both.
Teckos Pech wrote:So all the arguing about whether or not ISBoxer is a type of botting or not is kind of beside the point if the main reason CCP did this was to shore up its reputation as a responsible central banker and keep the rate of inflation at an acceptable level. They did no such thing, they simply stopped some people whining by banning a multiboxing scapegoat. Once those same people realise that multiboxing isn't stopping they'll be whining again. Hand around a multiboxer ice miner and watch the steaming hatred being poured across local.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
191
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 17:03:21 -
[4916] - Quote
this is eve every aspect of it receives a stream of hate from other aspects of it. |
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
24
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 00:31:04 -
[4917] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:this is eve every aspect of it receives a stream of hate from other aspects of it.
This is very true. No matter what activity I'm engaging in I will get people hating on me for it.
Memory is the hard limit for eve clients. Isboxer does nothing about that. Isboxer DOES on the other hand allow eve to more efficiently use the e7200 in my secondary machine. The FPS limiter is handy for a similar reason.
Having said that eve isn't a massive resource hog. My e7200 (3.2ghz 1333 FSB OC) with 4 gb of ddr3 hd5770 runs five clients quite well. When I ran OBS on that system along with 3 clients it pegged the CPU usage to 100% basically which caused the system lag in the video I posted earlier (very noticeable when warping).
My primary machine which I use to run 9 clients on is an el cheapo machine. FX 6300 (4.5ghz OC) 8 gb ddr3 gtx 660 2 gb gddr5 with a conventional hard drive (1920x1200 and 1920x1080). I can and have run 12 clients on it with no issue. OBS once again hits the system fairly hard causing system lag that isn't normally there. With shadowplay there's absolutely no lag so I know I just need to fiddle with some settings in OBS to reduce the impact. |
KC Kamikaze
Black Dragon Elite
103
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 04:06:19 -
[4918] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:The fact that CCP promotes the **** out of using multiple accounts makes this argument invalid.
The fact that some people think ISBoxer magically makes each of your characters more profitable when jewing away in your own fashion ... well it is what it is. You can't fix stupid.
The whole efficiency thing is open to interpretation an infinite number of ways.... CCP sadly seems to be in support of maintaining this huge grey area.
I've never seen a horse beat to death so badly as this thread. No...not really. Efficiency is pretty clearly defined. A reduction in effort or other inputs. Lucas has spent page after page of saying ISBoxer reduces effort. And Lucas noted it allows people to run more clients than they otherwise could. And I suspect the reason they did this is that they were concerned about ISK flowing into the game as well as mined resources. The former can accelerate the rate of inflation, the latter depresses the price of those resources. But cheer up...maybe someday deflation will become a ThingGäó and CCP will revoke this ban on broadcasting so that the money supply increases leading to inflation. Although personally, if deflation does become a ThingGäó that will be very, very bad and your days of using ISBoxer would again be limited....as would your days in Eve.
Really? So it's the "effort" debate?
ISBoxer makes multiboxing take less effort outside of the game. with the broadcast and input dupliblahblah bans there is no greater efficiency in game. In game we make as many clicks as you to accomplish the same tasks. CCP doesn't care about out of game ... what's that other multiboxing app that they are actually endorsing? yeah it does fast click windows so you can switch clients quickly. thats efficiency outside the game same as you get with ISBoxer.
show me where ccp has an issue with efficiency outside the client ... oh wait ... there it is in that big grey area....you say out of game counts I say it doesn't ccp doesn't say a damn thing.
o7 |
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
355
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 14:03:28 -
[4919] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/tSqTwl9.png
I wish an informative Y axis on these charts were a thing.
They confiscate 7bn of ISK-worth per month on average from accounts, which are found to be violation of EULA. This figure had spiked from 4.8 bn in Earth-Dec of 2014-YC116 to around 8 billion ISK confiscated in Earth-January 2015-YC117.
That equals to 25.4% on average of the total monthly ISK inflows minus sinks.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5773
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 14:22:11 -
[4920] - Quote
GankYou wrote:http://i.imgur.com/tSqTwl9.png I wish an informative Y axis on these charts were a thing. All that shows is accounts used for multiplexing dropped, which you would expect since multiplexing was banned. What it doesn't show is how many accounts continued multiboxing regardless or the change in monthly faucets vs sinks.
GankYou wrote:They confiscate 6.93 Trillion of ISK-worth* per month on average from accounts, which are found to be violation of EULA. This figure had spiked from 4.5 Tn in Earth-Dec of 2014-YC116 to around 8.1 Trillion ISK confiscated in Earth-January 2015-YC117. That equals to 25.2% on average of the total monthly ISK inflows minus sinks. *Including the 42,000,000,000,000 ISK repossessed in the month of Earth-August in 2014-YC116, otherwise it is 4.42 Tn per month without, for the same time period. Not sure where the January figures are from, but it doesn't surprise me at all that it went up in January, since some people simply wouldn't know about the changes and would get banned. That doesn't actually mean anything though, that one figure you're taking out of context and generalising. Again you have no idea what relates to ISBoxer and what doesn't, and impact that has overall.
By the way, what's with all this "Earth-August" crap?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
355
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 14:25:13 -
[4921] - Quote
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67092/1/Fanfest_2015_-_Team_Security_-_Better_Safe_Than_Sorry.pdf
Those of you interested, will find the data in the above presentation, or by watching the recording from Fanfest that was linked here earlier.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5773
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 14:37:54 -
[4922] - Quote
GankYou wrote:http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67092/1/Fanfest_2015_-_Team_Security_-_Better_Safe_Than_Sorry.pdf Those of you interested, will find the data in the above presentation, or by watching the recording from Fanfest that was linked here earlier. I was in the room for that, so I don't really need to watch it. That graph that you are referring to shows the value of ISK and the value of items on accounts banned or when they are confiscated. What that doesn't tell you is how much liquid ISK was removed, or how much was due to macro use vs things like RMT. If you compare the reasons for bans between 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, the percentage of bans for macro use actually went down, while the percentage for ISK buying went up.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lupe Meza
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
115
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 15:30:59 -
[4923] - Quote
GankYou wrote:http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67092/1/Fanfest_2015_-_Team_Security_-_Better_Safe_Than_Sorry.pdf Those of you interested, will find the data in the above presentation, or by watching the recording from Fanfest that was linked here earlier.
Thanks for this, very informative. Hard to argue with their data and the apparent impact it has on their decisions. Nice to see that the developer is as open to adapting to player behavior as more successful players are to adapting to the dynamics of the game. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
1059
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 11:23:53 -
[4924] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:You don't understand. Leveraged ISK printing income per 1 player. With no resources to match = Inflation. But most importantly - No universal consumption to match = Stagflation. Why 1 player? That's the part that makes no sense. Why is 10 players who PvE with solo character and never PvP fine, but 10 characters that PvE and never PvP controlled by one person isn't? In both of those scenarios the effect on the economy would be identical, as both produce but don't consume.
Eh? What did you do to those other nine players? You are not saying you only activated a new account every time you deliberately drove a player out the game to make a "spot" for your new one? Or that you have those previous nine paying players buried under your patio? Or in a freezer in the garage?
Because otherwise the impact on the economy from 19 accounts is never going to be the same as 10, and you are a bit silly for suggesting it is. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5778
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 07:23:50 -
[4925] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:GankYou wrote:You don't understand. Leveraged ISK printing income per 1 player. With no resources to match = Inflation. But most importantly - No universal consumption to match = Stagflation. Why 1 player? That's the part that makes no sense. Why is 10 players who PvE with solo character and never PvP fine, but 10 characters that PvE and never PvP controlled by one person isn't? In both of those scenarios the effect on the economy would be identical, as both produce but don't consume. Eh? What did you do to those other nine players? You are not saying you only activated a new account every time you deliberately drove a player out the game to make a "spot" for your new one? Or that you have those previous nine paying players buried under your patio? Or in a freezer in the garage? Because otherwise the impact on the economy from 19 accounts is never going to be the same as 10, and you are a bit silly for suggesting it is. You've wildly missed the point. The point is that if one player opening 9 more accounts is detrimental to the economy, then it stands to reason that 9 new players joining have the same effect if they also perform the same activities. The fact that the income goes to one physical player is irrelevant. It's not more detrimental just because one physical player gets it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12976
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 11:56:51 -
[4926] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:GankYou wrote:Teckos Pech, I always replied with tongue in cheek here - they have far too much at stake to agree to any of the points presented, instead they ask questions. When you're the one providing answers to questions they seemingly can't either formulate, comprehend, or refuse to answer themselves, then, the war has already been won. See you in half a year, when New Eden is healthier, guise. Yes, you are probably right....I'll go ahead and do my best to let Lucas, et. al. have the last word....there is a non-zero probability I might fail though.
Personally I suggest blocking him. I did that a while ago, and I only un-hide him to troll this desperate quest to be allowed to cheat once again at EVE Online.
Seriously, I don't know if this thread cracks me up or sickens me. It's like being on Test comms, equal parts amusing and nauseating.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5778
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 18:04:23 -
[4927] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:this desperate quest to be allowed to cheat once again at EVE Online. You mean despite the numerous occasions I've stated me not being an ISBoxer user, my multiple ideas for better changes which would be far more of a challenge for ISBoxer users and the fact that I've stated multiple times that unblocking ISBoxer is not what I'm pushing for? See, these are the problems you run into when you don't read what people are posting. If you are going to try to troll, be better at it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
DARKNESS.
2677
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 01:40:27 -
[4928] - Quote
So many isboxing miners (and other bear sub-species) in this thread, all pining for their lost revenue stream. Excellent. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5779
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 06:52:48 -
[4929] - Quote
There's a slight possibility you've posted in the wrong thread.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Marsha Mallow
2121
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 20:37:29 -
[4930] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:There's a slight possibility you've posted in the wrong thread.
If you mean
PotatoOverdose wrote:So many isboxing miners (and other bear sub-species) in this thread, all pining for their lost revenue stream. Excellent.
He's definitely in the right place, and it is ontopic feedback to CCP (not you) about how this change is perceived.
Opposition to the farming mentality is legitimate.
Disdain towards botting and automation is common and reasonable in a game with a player driven economy.
As players, we too are entitled to argue this point as forcefully as we see fit. We're not trolling when we say we despise farmers, botters and zombies.
We should be allowed to state that without being reported for trolling or mailspammed for forum remarks.
Solecist Project wrote: See, the issue isn't the rubbing
ISD Ezwal wrote: Nope, no one will get banned for 'rubbing'
Benny Ohu wrote: fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5779
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 07:01:41 -
[4931] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:There's a slight possibility you've posted in the wrong thread. If you mean PotatoOverdose wrote:So many isboxing miners (and other bear sub-species) in this thread, all pining for their lost revenue stream. Excellent. He's definitely in the right place, and it is ontopic feedback to CCP (not you) about how this change is perceived. Opposition to the farming mentality is legitimate. Disdain towards botting and automation is common and reasonable in a game with a player driven economy. As players, we too are entitled to argue this point as forcefully as we see fit. We're not trolling when we say we despise farmers, botters and zombies. We should be allowed to state that without being reported for trolling or mailspammed for forum remarks. Actually it's trolling, nothing more. It's not feedback for CCP, it's simply an attack on people who have an opinion that how CCP handled this was wrong. And very few people I've seen want ISBoxer back. Most simply want to know where they stand with regards to manual multiboxing and when they raise tickets - like they were told to - they get told to come here. What they are confronted with is not answers from CCP, it's players like you insulting them, misrepresenting their views and talking down to them. Your behaviour is disgusting, and you should be ******* ashamed.
Perhaps if you don't want to be reported for trolling or mailspammed, you should try posting constructive feedback rather than simply attacking people. It's a relatively simple concept that most people who post on these forums seem to miss.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Aristocrate Kondur
DD Starship Ltd
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 01:50:17 -
[4932] - Quote
Have been playing with 2 accounts for some time and i love the rules, never ever knew this **** was possible but encountered in-game "strange" behaviour of groups of ships that nerved my gameplay. For now.... they didn't reappear, so if this is the result of enforcing EULA , CCP gets an applause from me. |
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
26
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 20:51:50 -
[4933] - Quote
So after a month's wait CCP further clarifies that operating systems are indeed third party programs and you can be banned for using them...
So basically no matter how hard you try to follow the rules and EULA CCP can still ban you because you're using windows. It doesn't matter if you never broke a single rule you're still bannable.
I'm not so sure it's worth playing this game anymore.
EDIT : IN case you are wondering my latest ticket included a screenshot of what my primary machine's screens look like and my videos showing all the screens. Clearly showing that I'm only using eve in windowed mode. Also I ONLY asked about running eve in windowed mode as seen in my videos and the screenshot. |
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2015.05.21 04:49:31 -
[4934] - Quote
Itd be shocker if it wasnt, you arent using any 3rd party software |
FunGu Arsten
Radical Astronauts Plundering Eve
WormHole Occupation and Resource Exploitation
80
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 10:56:14 -
[4935] - Quote
back to incursions it is o/ |
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 21:07:14 -
[4936] - Quote
Lee Sin Priest wrote:Itd be shocker if it wasnt, you arent using any 3rd party software I should of clarified that CCP seems very confident that they won't accidentally ban those running like me.
|
W33b3l
Wolf-Monkey Bastards
18
|
Posted - 2015.06.03 17:48:34 -
[4937] - Quote
On a side note, I saw a fleet of Orcas come out of warp on a gate in perfect unison last night. Pretty obvious that it was one person. So there are still people breaking the new rules. Not as bad as it used to be though. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5327
|
Posted - 2015.06.03 18:16:36 -
[4938] - Quote
W33b3l wrote:On a side note, I saw a fleet of Orcas come out of warp on a gate in perfect unison last night. Pretty obvious that it was one person. So there are still people breaking the new rules. Not as bad as it used to be though.
You mean like a fleet warp?
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
28
|
Posted - 2015.06.03 21:59:50 -
[4939] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:W33b3l wrote:On a side note, I saw a fleet of Orcas come out of warp on a gate in perfect unison last night. Pretty obvious that it was one person. So there are still people breaking the new rules. Not as bad as it used to be though. You mean like a fleet warp?
Or rapid use of D+click with eve windows setup like mine. |
Psychopomps
Crack And Cookies For Santa
Git-R-Done Inc
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 14:58:41 -
[4940] - Quote
so many post and comments to sort through. (sorry for asking) Just a question. (returning eveplayer 8 accounts used to use innerspace)
can we still use inner space to place accounts in a tile. ex: view full game screen on, lets say 6 clients on one screen?
I can click on w/e for each accounts one by one. I dont care about broadcasting i jsut want to tile my accounts,, if not then ill have to manage with window mode.
|
|
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
28
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 20:28:56 -
[4941] - Quote
Psychopomps wrote:so many post and comments to sort through. (sorry for asking) Just a question. (returning eveplayer 8 accounts used to use innerspace)
can we still use inner space to place accounts in a tile. ex: view full game screen on, lets say 6 clients on one screen?
I can click on w/e for each accounts one by one. I dont care about broadcasting i jsut want to tile my accounts,, if not then ill have to manage with window mode.
Tiling should be allowed as that is what EVE-O does.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=389086 |
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
88
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 20:34:01 -
[4942] - Quote
Psychopomps wrote:so many post and comments to sort through. (sorry for asking) Just a question. (returning eveplayer 8 accounts used to use innerspace)
can we still use inner space to place accounts in a tile. ex: view full game screen on, lets say 6 clients on one screen?
I can click on w/e for each accounts one by one. I dont care about broadcasting i jsut want to tile my accounts,, if not then ill have to manage with window mode.
short answer, yes. as far as i have understood. |
Dor Cadmon
New Artisian and Mercenary Association
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.17 11:20:41 -
[4943] - Quote
i call bullshit on the first thread in this chain.
if you see someone who has multiple accounts and dont like them - report them.....this is all you need to do in order to have them banned.
|
Roxanne Dallas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 21:18:05 -
[4944] - Quote
I just came back to EVE and to my eye seems this seems stupid, but I don't know how bad things got soo... If people on a semi regular basis were getting killed because of this then ok yeah it needed to be sorted but in early 2014 this wasn't really a thing so.
All I was planning on using it for was 5 RR Tengu to do C5-C6 sites... But I suppose if I got proficient enough I would have started using it for PVP so w.e. I make enough money station trading... Well that wont be true anymore because PLEX is nearly at 1 billion but I also don't need to keep 5 accounts running so ehhhh.
Still when I get back up and running I will have 3 accounts running. |
Divine Entervention
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
498
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 13:17:01 -
[4945] - Quote
It's nice to see this change was made.
I spent a bit of time campaigning.
Just another situation where if I'd been listened to from the very beginning, all could've been solved sooner. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10553
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 13:46:30 -
[4946] - Quote
Oh here we go.
=]|[=
|
Nemhain Cadelanne
AUNZ Corp
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 14:12:10 -
[4947] - Quote
There are no boundaries in space... |
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
93
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:21:54 -
[4948] - Quote
Nemhain Cadelanne wrote:There are no boundaries in space...
true true, I guess :D |
Zoya Talvanen
BllitzenMacht
Hedgehog Concepts
10
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 17:32:08 -
[4949] - Quote
Strata Maslav wrote:The SMUG in this thread is pretty sickening not very conducive for discussion. I play and love the same game you guys do and unfortunately I will be removing some of my monetary support from this game as a result of a decision that CCP has made out of the blue.
This change will not effect my over all eve game play. I am not a heavy user of the broadcast function of the Isboxing software. I mainly use it to manage my windows and have used the controversial 'Isboxer broadcast + bomber' combination with 5 characters only once.
Recently and before this u-turn by CCP, I did invest in a couple more accounts but this recent change has pretty much condemned them to be immediately unsubbed. Even with this action the 'investment' of time and money that I have put into these accounts feels like it has been wasted.
I purchased these subscriptions from CCP to play their game in a specific fashion which at the time was considered legitimate by CCP. I have liked the direction that CCP have been moving towards with EVE Online and I will by no means be quitting the game due to this change but I do have a bad taste left in my mouth.
I cannot speculate CCP's reasoning for announcing this today but the delay on making this statement has caused some people supporting the game to feel they have been deceived.
I am as guilty as the next of not reading EULAs and contracts, but I have been saying in local for a while, after reading the EULA in June of 2014 that it appeared Input broadcasting was probably illegal and notwithstanding the decision by one senior GM in 2010 over a special case which was one input-one action, that there was a potential for this action. I am glad it happened, because I get a chance to try out some new moves, and possibly fleet doctrines which might someday rise in effect enough to get attention with a nerf bat.
Anyway< i was away from the game for several months though still subscribed. I do note fewer online now, so it is quite likely that we have real players to deal with rather than a lot of acounts run from a Master Control Program, so I am happy. I have adopted a practice of helping new players a little to balance their positive and negative experiences early on, in the hopes that we will eventually have more players.
Great Game and it was a good decision. |
Zoya Talvanen
BllitzenMacht
Hedgehog Concepts
10
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 00:09:05 -
[4950] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:sorry. forgot EFT.
evemon is calculating the best remap.
i dont see you filling the skill queue for a year and calculating manually what should be the best remap. really i dont see it.
and even though.
evemon is violating the new eula directly.
ccps statement that this violation is ok ....erm... will not be a bannable offense is rendering the whole eula useless and greyzoned.
cause ccp can flip their statements each and every second. plus youre getting different statements based on the ccp employee you are asking.
and the best thing is.
one gm is accusing another for lying.
i am not kidding.
so ccp, balls to the walls. state clearly what is allowed and what is not.
regarding to the forums and eula statements: videofx + manuall multiboxing one key per box per command is allowed.
so stick to that and stop banning players for beeing fast.
or post here in the forums. from a dev, a gm, or from hilmar himself. that isboxer + videofx + manual multiboxing is forbidden.
easy for everyone. the whole problematique is there because ccp dont get it done to publish a clear statement.
we were happy as ccp stated: broadcasting and multiplexing is forbidden. we adapted and still got banned a few.
we want to stay in eve as customers. so if you want us to stay. erase the grey areas. its not that hard.
Erase the grey areas... Masterful use of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. EFT, Pyffa, EVEMon, wonderful straw men. The post is polemic, vehement, repetitive and artful. Why then am I unconvinced?
Perhaps it is because you left out dotlan EVE maps and Eve-Survival and that online POS planner and http://www.ellatha.com/eve/T3.asp, no, that cannot be it.
The examples you mention do not interact with the game client--they may draw information from the game but it is the human receiving the information who benefits in better planning his/her stratagems, or not. Not all the software is that good at its purpose and there may be corner cases or even whole, unanticipated scenarios that human creativity can discover.
So there are tools, even tools you pay for that can create an advantage. The programmable calculator where you set up a collection of buy orders with information which you took from an EVE market is an example, and someone had to buy that calculator. In my case, I had to buy internet time to download Python or Pypy to write my own programs to plan my POS and to schedule my shipbuilding. Or I could have bought paper and pencil to do the same.
But those are all straw men. I cannot denounce my own knowledge of advanced mathematics and refuse to use it because the habit is automatic. And I paid for that knowledge and understanding, with real money and my own struggle to comprehend. And that, too, is a straw man. All of those things I mentioned interact with the game to extract information and interact with me to allow me to (usually) improve my decisions about actions I will take. They DO NOT help me take those actions by interacting with the input of the game client.
So, very nicely worded, but irrelevant, argument. I do not plan to abandon study of EVE or the freely available tools to plan better. I do not plan to adopt third-party software to make my interaction with the EVE client physically easier. I occasionally have more than one instance of the client on my screen, as in running Logi support for my own freighter, but my computer is not strong enough to support three instances, and I doubt I would use three if I could.
I am sure I will see more of your posts, but less certain I will read them. |
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6352
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 07:18:14 -
[4951] - Quote
Zoya Talvanen wrote:Erase the grey areas... Masterful use of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. EFT, Pyffa, EVEMon, wonderful straw men. The post is polemic, vehement, repetitive and artful. Why then am I unconvinced? Perhaps it is because you left out dotlan EVE maps and Eve-Survival and that online POS planner and http://www.ellatha.com/eve/T3.asp, no, that cannot be it. The examples you mention do not interact with the game client--they may draw information from the game but it is the human receiving the information who benefits in better planning his/her stratagems, or not. Not all the software is that good at its purpose and there may be corner cases or even whole, unanticipated scenarios that human creativity can discover. So there are tools, even tools you pay for that can create an advantage. The programmable calculator where you set up a collection of buy orders with information which you took from an EVE market is an example, and someone had to buy that calculator. In my case, I had to buy internet time to download Python or Pypy to write my own programs to plan my POS and to schedule my shipbuilding. Or I could have bought paper and pencil to do the same. But those are all straw men. I cannot denounce my own knowledge of advanced mathematics and refuse to use it because the habit is automatic. And I paid for that knowledge and understanding, with real money and my own struggle to comprehend. And that, too, is a straw man. All of those things I mentioned interact with the game to extract information and interact with me to allow me to (usually) improve my decisions about actions I will take. They DO NOT help me take those actions by interacting with the input of the game client. The point that he was making is that all those tools create an advantage which is the supposed reason this change was brought in. What was being stated is that any third party tool is banned if it given an advantage, whether you make it yourself of not. That you know how to write it is irrelevant. I could rewrite key broadcasting using nothing but excel scripts, that still wouldn't make it legal. I use hand built tools to manage my trading and manufacture. Without those tools there is absolutely no way I would be able to trade at the level I do. How is that any less of a tool-based advantage?
The real issue is though that this change was not because of some questionable unfairness in people's ability to control their alts, which is why this is completely allowed under the new rules (that's eve-o preview, and it's actually more efficient to use than isboxer in most cases). This was a passive attempt at nerfing bombers after a direct nerf was rejected by the crying masses. It didn't work, which is why they are taking a second stab at it by destroying fleet warp (which FYI will also fail).
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
371
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 13:02:45 -
[4952] - Quote
the changes worked for me, i pretty much have stopped playing and unsubbed all my accounts save for a couple.
Legacy - An EVE Online Blog
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Marsha Mallow
2349
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 22:56:42 -
[4953] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:the changes worked for me, i pretty much have stopped playing and unsubbed all my accounts save for a couple.
op success
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote: TO THE PITCHFORKMOBILE!
Benny Ohu wrote: fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread
ISD Ezwal wrote: Nope, no one will get banned for 'rubbing'
|
Johnny Riko
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 00:32:27 -
[4954] - Quote
What a complete embarrassment. If this happened to any other MMO there would be law suits. Sort yourself out CPP
I wanna join up. I think I got what it takes to be a Citizen.
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
371
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 12:02:39 -
[4955] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:the changes worked for me, i pretty much have stopped playing and unsubbed all my accounts save for a couple.
op success
daily users are starting to fall below 30k on a regular basis, how long can this company survive with a staff reflecting 2013 but a player base that is 2006?
Legacy - An EVE Online Blog
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
197
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 14:23:43 -
[4956] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Marsha Mallow wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:the changes worked for me, i pretty much have stopped playing and unsubbed all my accounts save for a couple.
op success daily users are starting to fall below 30k on a regular basis, how long can this company survive with a staff reflecting 2013 but a player base that is 2006?
at the peak of summer, while there's major changes being made in the fall.
its known as the summer slump. |
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
16
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 10:04:30 -
[4957] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Marsha Mallow wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:the changes worked for me, i pretty much have stopped playing and unsubbed all my accounts save for a couple.
op success daily users are starting to fall below 30k on a regular basis, how long can this company survive with a staff reflecting 2013 but a player base that is 2006?
If it's like that then 2006 people just need to grow up, and stop trying to make the best of broken systems that can't or won't be exploited equally by everybody
Johnny Riko wrote:What a complete embarrassment. If this happened to any other MMO there would be law suits. Sort yourself out CPP
Apparently, they updated the EULA - which you agreed to - long before this thread, which described the input multiplexing as cheating. You should be thanking them for making a thread&announcement like this so you can react appropriately, instead of just weilding the banhammer against all of your accounts.
Drones. Drones are a means to an end. An end to the ruthless Caldari 'progress' machines. An end to the barbaric 'redemption' proposed by the Amarr. What they see as chaos shall be my perfect order, merely beyond their comprehension.
|
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
16
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 10:34:20 -
[4958] - Quote
The spirit of the ruling and CCP's position about all sorts of issues is very clear if people would just stop trying to worm their way around particular wordings and technicalities. It can be summarized in two points:
1) data collection along with the manipulation and presentation of that data is all fine and good
2) automated and augmented control in the game via non-human interaction with the EVE client is not acceptable in any way
This is really all you need to understand and know about the topic.
The rules about this have already been in place for a while so if you have a problem with it then that's your fault for not reading the EULA and learning about it sooner. If this were any other MMO then it would have been a lot more clear much sooner and they would have been harshly banning people for years already for all kinds of input multiplexing and botting. Anybody who is unhappy with this announcement should be thanking CCP for being so lenient on the matter and being so soft against offenders.
Drones. Drones are a means to an end. An end to the ruthless Caldari 'progress' machines. An end to the barbaric 'redemption' proposed by the Amarr. What they see as chaos shall be my perfect order, merely beyond their comprehension.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6386
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 17:13:17 -
[4959] - Quote
Maenth wrote:The spirit of the ruling and CCP's position about all sorts of issues is very clear if people would just stop trying to worm their way around particular wordings and technicalities. It can be summarized in two points:
1) data collection along with the manipulation and presentation of that data is all fine and good
2) automated and augmented control in the game via non-human interaction with the EVE client is not acceptable in any way
This is really all you need to understand and know about the topic.
The rules about this have already been in place for a while so if you have a problem with it then that's your fault for not reading the EULA and learning about it sooner. If this were any other MMO then it would have been a lot more clear much sooner and they would have been harshly banning people for years already for all kinds of input multiplexing and botting. Anybody who is unhappy with this announcement should be thanking CCP for being so lenient on the matter and being so soft against offenders. Swing and a miss. This is the spirit of CCPs ruling:
We tried to fix bombers by nerfing bombers and everyone went nuts, so we stopped that and instead tried to nerf them by nerfing multiboxers. That didn't work either so now were going to fix them by nerfing fleet warp.
That's what all of this boils down to. With the exception of the 2 or 3 players who ran 50+ accounts, people are still multiboxing just as easily as ever. CCP have even given the OK to EVE-O preview which makes it ludicrously easy to control fleets of ships.
And no, the rules of this weren't in place which is why tickets had been raised by the users of ISBoxer and OKed for use. There was even a thread about it which stated that as long as a player had to click for each click, it didn't matter how many clients that hit. Further, your over simplistic summation of the rules above leave things like videoFX and round robin as legal sine they are in no way non-human interaction yet we now know them to be against the rules. It does amuse me so when someone with such profound lack of knowledge of either multiboxing software or CCPs reasons for implementing this change try to come in with their 2 cents. Please continue.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1068
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 16:27:20 -
[4960] - Quote
*pats Lucas' head* good boy.
Who in his right mind would want to ruin a perfect bell curve ??
Player Age Distribution; CCP Quant on reddit.
|
|
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
815
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 23:15:36 -
[4961] - Quote
I have removed an off-topic/troll post.
Quote:5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
ISD Decoy
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
JustinD Snodgrass
Viper-Squad
pwn-O-graphy
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 17:36:16 -
[4962] - Quote
Am I allowed to assign an extra programmable button on my keyboard to F12 and use that to broadcast for shields? |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
372
|
Posted - 2015.07.26 16:32:51 -
[4963] - Quote
JustinD Snodgrass wrote: Am I allowed to assign an extra programmable button on my keyboard to F12 and use that to broadcast for shields?
technically, no, its a macro even though its not anything more then a key re-assignment.
will you get in trouble for it? probably not unless you are caught on video or something using it.
sorry, its a crap answer but thats really how it is now.
Legacy - An EVE Online Blog
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
154
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 19:23:19 -
[4964] - Quote
I'm glad these changes went through, definitely fixes the people who were botting and using this as a cover as well, so it's great to kill three birds with a single stone.
+1 CCP
Regards,
Globby
Soldier of the New Order | Liason to the Executor | CODE. Treasurer |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards
FUBAR.
681
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 22:02:42 -
[4965] - Quote
Globby wrote:I'm glad these changes went through, definitely fixes the people who were botting and using this as a cover as well, so it's great to kill three birds with a single stone.
+1 CCP
Regards,
Globby
Soldier of the New Order | Liason to the Executor | CODE. Treasurer
Ahhh, the stupid never ceases to amuse.
PS; Being treasurer, I hope you better than math than your above comment would indicate. Although, it is Code,who cares.
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
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6436
|
Posted - 2015.07.28 07:44:47 -
[4966] - Quote
Globby wrote:I'm glad these changes went through, definitely fixes the people who were botting and using this as a cover as well, so it's great to kill three birds with a single stone.
+1 CCP
Regards,
Globby
Soldier of the New Order | Liason to the Executor | CODE. Treasurer Many botters will use multiple single miners spread over mutliple systems. I can't imagine many botters thinking it's a good idea to pile 50 accounts in one blob and hope to not get reported, and the additional difficulty of managing accounts spread out across systems is removed by the fact they are botting.
Mass multiboxers still exist though, so not sure what you're other 2 stones are. I'm guessing you're one of these that was hoping multiboxing would die, probably so your easy carebear ganking really pushed ahead in terms of isk made.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
175
|
Posted - 2015.07.28 16:06:59 -
[4967] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Many botters will use multiple single miners spread over mutliple systems. I can't imagine many botters thinking it's a good idea to pile 50 accounts in one blob and hope to not get reported, and the additional difficulty of managing accounts spread out across systems is removed by the fact they are botting.
Lots of people did this hoping to not get reported. I'm just glad botting in all forms are much less prevalent now that input broadcasting is not allowed.
|
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2015.07.28 16:37:19 -
[4968] - Quote
Globby wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Many botters will use multiple single miners spread over mutliple systems. I can't imagine many botters thinking it's a good idea to pile 50 accounts in one blob and hope to not get reported, and the additional difficulty of managing accounts spread out across systems is removed by the fact they are botting. Lots of people did this hoping to not get reported. I'm just glad botting in all forms are much less prevalent now that input broadcasting is not allowed.
Botting is not synonymous with input broad casting, could everyone please staph
It may make it more efficient, but since they're botting it won't matter whether they're spread or together (also no links)
CCP cracked down on botting slightly before Jan 1st (more so) so that may also be what you're seeing |
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
175
|
Posted - 2015.07.28 16:41:43 -
[4969] - Quote
I always felt that it was super easy to broadcast with some of these programs, but now I feel that this change is good for the game because it is no longer super easy to solo bomb an entire fleet. You actually have to be good and use more than one person now.
In no way was one guy bombing with 40 accounts in any way, shape or form fair, and I think even the people arguing otherwise realize that.
edit: I'm also glad that botting is surprisingly down by such a substantial amount since the broadcasting nerf. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6446
|
Posted - 2015.07.28 22:06:55 -
[4970] - Quote
Lee Sin Priest wrote:Globby wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Many botters will use multiple single miners spread over mutliple systems. I can't imagine many botters thinking it's a good idea to pile 50 accounts in one blob and hope to not get reported, and the additional difficulty of managing accounts spread out across systems is removed by the fact they are botting. Lots of people did this hoping to not get reported. I'm just glad botting in all forms are much less prevalent now that input broadcasting is not allowed. Botting is not synonymous with input broad casting, could everyone please staph It may make it more efficient, but since they're botting it won't matter whether they're spread or together (also no links) CCP cracked down on botting slightly before Jan 1st (more so) so that may also be what you're seeing He's not "seeing" anything, he's guessing. He has no info on how many bots exist within the game at this time, nor any way to deduce it from what he sees in game, since to an outside perspective most bots just look like players. Personally, I'd expect there to be more bots in game now that mining and ratting are bigger parts of holding sov.
Globby wrote:I always felt that it was super easy to broadcast with some of these programs, but now I feel that this change is good for the game because it is no longer super easy to solo bomb an entire fleet. You actually have to be good and use more than one person now.
In no way was one guy bombing with 40 accounts in any way, shape or form fair, and I think even the people arguing otherwise realize that. No guy was bombing with 40 accounts simultaneously, since you can't field that many bombers in a run. Solo bomb runs can also still happen, it just requires a few more clicks between button presses. You know this stuff, I'm guessing this is some terrible trolling.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
corebloodbrothers
Volition Cult
The Volition Cult
1241
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 07:23:43 -
[4971] - Quote
Fact that the post goes on supported by the same people shows that there where advantages from using it, why bother else. It made eve better, leveled the field of oppertunity, and showed ccp stepping up.
Debatting how many bombers, 40, boeh u cant use 40, even if it was 2.
The longer the debate the more i feel justified and support ccp in this. The post is mere word picking and threathening. It shows for ccp they didnt block it as being obsolete and historic |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6459
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 09:26:14 -
[4972] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Fact that the post goes on supported by the same people shows that there where advantages from using it, why bother else. It made eve better, leveled the field of oppertunity, and showed ccp stepping up. No it doesn't, that's just a cop out. Effectively what you're saying there is that if you don't argue it then obviously noone thinks it's bad that it changed so it's a good thing it changed, but if they do argue it then there must have been an advantage, therefore it's good that it changed. Considering I use more multiboxing software now than before (before I used no software, now I use eve-o preview) it's unlikely the reason for me being against this change was because of the mysterious advantage it gave me.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that CCP made multiboxing more challenging, I simply disagree with how they did it. They did it by scapegoating and banning a method of control that has been used for years and can't be conclusively detected. What they should have done is go after the root cause, which is bad mechanics.
Mining is insanely passive and too easy to scale. Incursions are too simple and easy to multibox solo. Bombing is the same. Look at exploration, that's never been mass multiboxed with broadcast. Why? Because each screen has it's own specific things to do. Each screen has to be actively played. That's what they should be working towards and that's what we as players should be pushing for. That so many people are happy to see them avoid making mechanics changes and instead just change the rules is quite sad. It's happening again too with the fleet warp changes. It's much easier to just break fleet warp so people have to manually warp a few more time rather than fix the mechanics - like bomber mechanics - that are passive enough to benefit from fleet warp.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
corebloodbrothers
Volition Cult
The Volition Cult
1241
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 10:26:41 -
[4973] - Quote
I saw first hand how they detect it, and who they banned and at that point that where zero wrong banns or dectections in it. It falls under nda but was pretty awsome too see. Also the sharp drop when dcp chnaged rules from people who adjusted their gamestyle wihtout the detection and punishement, its hardly random or debatable detection, its pure math |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6460
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 11:03:56 -
[4974] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:I saw first hand how they detect it, and who they banned and at that point that where zero wrong banns or dectections in it. It falls under nda but was pretty awsome too see. Also the sharp drop when dcp chnaged rules from people who adjusted their gamestyle wihtout the detection and punishement, its hardly random or debatable detection, its pure math For detecting straight up broadcasts sure, but edge cases are where detection falls down, and CCP even stated themselves that they can't completely eliminate false positives. Worse, their detection profiles get updated from past detections, so each false positive will make further errors more likely. Pure math it may be, but math can both be written and interpreted badly.
And that doesn't change that what they should have been looking at is improving mechanics, not covering up their badly designed mechanics with the EULA. If the game were involving enough it would be impossible to broadcast at a reasonable level of efficiency.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
94
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 19:25:43 -
[4975] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:I saw first hand how they detect it, and who they banned and at that point that where zero wrong banns or dectections in it. It falls under nda but was pretty awsome too see. Also the sharp drop when dcp chnaged rules from people who adjusted their gamestyle wihtout the detection and punishement, its hardly random or debatable detection, its pure math
The best anti detection ''anti cheat'' aka detection software's in the world, have false bans/detection, it happens. saying that it was zero wrong bans/detection. and confirming by taking an quick look at it doesn't mean that there were no wrong bans'etc. detections. at that given time. it happens in all games, that wrong bans'etc happens. it cant be avoided. and if they got wrongly banned, then it might not even show up as wrong ban. because if it was an wrong ban, it would obviously be something wrong with the detection. witch means that they wont show up as (wrong bans) . lol, |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
372
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 21:48:47 -
[4976] - Quote
So the new win+tab upgrade in Windows 10 is making running multiple clients very fast and easy, along the lines of ISBoxer per people who have tried it.
What's CCP's next move?
Legacy - An EVE Online Blog
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6467
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 22:12:32 -
[4977] - Quote
To be fair, EVE-O preview has been authorised for use which makes it pretty easy anyway.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Phneak Atol
Exit-Strategy
Exit Strategy..
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:18:51 -
[4978] - Quote
What's the word on isboxer videofx mouseover functionality to assist in multiple client interaction? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6504
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:50:05 -
[4979] - Quote
As far as can be understood, it's a "no".
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
372
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 19:43:18 -
[4980] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:As far as can be understood, it's a "no".
well i think its "no" based on how fast you are
because technically you can use mouseover inside a vfx window and its not mousing inside a client
i asked for clarification on that and also on key mapping (mapping f1 on client A to f12) and never received an answer.
Legacy - An EVE Online Blog
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
|
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
184
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 00:34:53 -
[4981] - Quote
Glad of these changes, +1 CCP you're doing the right thing stopping all these botting cheaters. |
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
94
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 12:01:13 -
[4982] - Quote
some off my friends told me that windows 10 made it really easy'etc. (idk) I don't have it, but. yeah. lol |
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
94
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 16:20:56 -
[4983] - Quote
allow multiplexing again, and I will take care off multiboxing miners miners (oh wait, I can do that already, and I allways could) ah then nvm, pff. (smartbomb battleships/catalysts should've been the fix to this, not making ccp change something that had been allowed for 10 years I guess. |
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
94
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 15:35:24 -
[4984] - Quote
Bump, been killing People. no brodcasting needed, rage was/is sweet. <3 |
Cataire
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.08.29 06:36:20 -
[4985] - Quote
I would be interested to see a delta graph on how many old accounts went inactive because there was no reason to keep them active.
Dates would be from the time ISBoxer functions were Banned to say last month, I just want to see if I can collect tears. |
Rage Bankerdo
The Rising Stars Academy
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 12:01:34 -
[4986] - Quote
I am fairly new to EvE. I guess you could say, EvE is my WoW replacement. I totally agree with this policy. Blizzard was a little more relaxed than this because they had the ingame macro system where you could make your own buttons. Even with macros built into the game, Blizzard was totally against the same things. WoW has a mechanic called "global cooldown" and you could fire off as many skills as you want instantly with 1 press as long as you do not trigger global cooldown. Once anything trigger the global cooldown, it was illegal for the macro to continue, and the game would "fizzle" or stop it once it triggered.
They also have a strict policy against "automation". You still had to have a hardware input to do anything ingame. So even with the relaxed stance on the "macro" thing, they still policed the automation programs and bots. Anyway........
I am all for this policy, but the game needs a more robust keybind system. The UI is almost "stone-age" compared to any other game in this respect. CCP don't want macros or scripts, AWESOME and more power to em, but at least give us a more indepth keybind system with more "functions" or "actions" able to be bound to a key......
For example, you have a key to command drones to attack a target, you have automation "behavior" installed for how they act (passive/aggressive), you have a key to recall them all to your hanger bay, you let us create "groups" for them but you have to right click each group heading and find the "launch" command in a drop down menu box.......... Ok, I can understand not wanting 1 button that will release 100 drones all with one press..... I get that. You already have a system in place in the existing keybind system to apply. You hold ctrl key down and click any object to target it. There you go..... Let us have a key to hold down, or even the ctrl key and click the group heading in the drone box to launch that group, just like we can target without right click/drop down menu to target. Instant hotkey that does not allow 500 drones to be launched with 1 single button press, yet still give us a hotkey......
I do like parts of the UI. The overview is an awesome "customizable" information display tool that rocks. The only thing missing is at least a tiny bit more robust keybind system.....
And to all the "botters and such", I can run a keyboard faster than a bot can do it..... I did try out the MF bot for diablo 2, and I could do manual runs way faster than the bot could....... The only thing a bot has is that it can play for you while you sleep/work. Anyone that needs a bot to help you kill people is just pathetic :)
And... to the people that do not think they can effectively police for people using auto programs........ Blizzard opened up their UI to the players so they could build their own UI and such, and they did a descent job of "policing" for bots and such. WIth CCP keeping their API locked down and closed, it is just that much easier to "police" because ANY software or such messing with the game code, or inputting commands sticks out even more and actually easier to catch than blizzard was doing. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6739
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 13:39:43 -
[4987] - Quote
Rage Bankerdo wrote:And to all the "botters and such", I can run a keyboard faster than a bot can do it..... I did try out the MF bot for diablo 2, and I could do manual runs way faster than the bot could....... The only thing a bot has is that it can play for you while you sleep/work. Anyone that needs a bot to help you kill people is just pathetic :) I don't think anyone disagrees with this sentiment, but nothing in this thread affected bots. Botting was already against the EULA and it remains so. All this did was make it marginally more difficult to control multiple accounts. It's still relatively easy to control 30 or so.
Rage Bankerdo wrote:And... to the people that do not think they can effectively police for people using auto programs........ Blizzard opened up their UI to the players so they could build their own UI and such, and they did a descent job of "policing" for bots and such. WIth CCP keeping their API locked down and closed, it is just that much easier to "police" because ANY software or such messing with the game code, or inputting commands sticks out even more and actually easier to catch than blizzard was doing. They can't, they even admitted as much at fanfest. All they can go by is the data being logged, and minimise false positives. Using wow as an example is hilarious too. Sure, they can monitor addons for automation, but botting is still a serious issue in WoW and assisted multiboxing is for the most part allowed, probably because they've decided that if someone wants to pay them thousands of dollars to run a hundred accounts and farm for their own personal sense of achievement, all is good.
Consider that The Wis used to generate around what, $18k/year for CCP, on his own? So that he could mine for resources to build up his characters wealth. It wouldn't surprise me if players like that would have bought the ORE skins for all of their accounts too, just to make their fleet look cool. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
373
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 19:34:07 -
[4988] - Quote
bump!
Legacy - An EVE Online Blog
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
3293
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 19:51:31 -
[4989] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:corebloodbrothers wrote:I saw first hand how they detect it, and who they banned and at that point that where zero wrong banns or dectections in it. It falls under nda but was pretty awsome too see. Also the sharp drop when dcp chnaged rules from people who adjusted their gamestyle wihtout the detection and punishement, its hardly random or debatable detection, its pure math The best anti detection ''anti cheat'' aka detection software's in the world, have false bans/detection, it happens. saying that it was zero wrong bans/detection. and confirming by taking an quick look at it doesn't mean that there were no wrong bans'etc. detections. at that given time. it happens in all games, that wrong bans'etc happens. it cant be avoided. and if they got wrongly banned, then it might not even show up as wrong ban. because if it was an wrong ban, it would obviously be something wrong with the detection. witch means that they wont show up as (wrong bans) . lol,
Note he said no false positives up to that point. We do not have enough information to make any reasonable conclusions.
For example, if the probability of a false positive is 0.001 and they used the detection software on 100 suspected players, there is a 90% chance of having 0 false positives. Of course, as time goes on there will eventually be a false positive.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
95
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 16:53:01 -
[4990] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:corebloodbrothers wrote:I saw first hand how they detect it, and who they banned and at that point that where zero wrong banns or dectections in it. It falls under nda but was pretty awsome too see. Also the sharp drop when dcp chnaged rules from people who adjusted their gamestyle wihtout the detection and punishement, its hardly random or debatable detection, its pure math The best anti detection ''anti cheat'' aka detection software's in the world, have false bans/detection, it happens. saying that it was zero wrong bans/detection. and confirming by taking an quick look at it doesn't mean that there were no wrong bans'etc. detections. at that given time. it happens in all games, that wrong bans'etc happens. it cant be avoided. and if they got wrongly banned, then it might not even show up as wrong ban. because if it was an wrong ban, it would obviously be something wrong with the detection. witch means that they wont show up as (wrong bans) . lol, Note he said no false positives up to that point. We do not have enough information to make any reasonable conclusions. For example, if the probability of a false positive is 0.001 and they used the detection software on 100 suspected players, there is a 90% chance of having 0 false positives. Of course, as time goes on there will eventually be a false positive.
To put it this way, i know an guy witch got banned (all his 20 accounts) and he sent support tickets and questions if his setups were ok, he contacted ccp. but how can that help if they don't give him any support that answered his questions or anything at all (before he was banned). he didn't do broadcasting anymore. and still got banned, and there would be no reason for him to broadcast. because i saw his New setup in action. and it did not give any reason in the world to do it. he was an really Nice guy, and helped out New players'etc. and really cool guy to talk to, and he paid all his accounts out from his own wallet. (no plexing'etc) so banning him was an loss for everyone. even if you or they acknowledge it or not. if there have been something I have lost respect for ccp in my years off playing, is letting us lose such an big supporter off eve, and helpful player that was doing everything ccp had said to the best off his ability. |
|
|
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
95
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 04:01:21 -
[4991] - Quote
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3j7nso/at_least_we_know_how_many_alts_there_are/cun2q2o |
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
231
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 16:17:01 -
[4992] - Quote
+1 CCP, we love and support these anti cheater changes all the way! |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
3332
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 00:10:38 -
[4993] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:kraken11 jensen wrote:corebloodbrothers wrote:I saw first hand how they detect it, and who they banned and at that point that where zero wrong banns or dectections in it. It falls under nda but was pretty awsome too see. Also the sharp drop when dcp chnaged rules from people who adjusted their gamestyle wihtout the detection and punishement, its hardly random or debatable detection, its pure math The best anti detection ''anti cheat'' aka detection software's in the world, have false bans/detection, it happens. saying that it was zero wrong bans/detection. and confirming by taking an quick look at it doesn't mean that there were no wrong bans'etc. detections. at that given time. it happens in all games, that wrong bans'etc happens. it cant be avoided. and if they got wrongly banned, then it might not even show up as wrong ban. because if it was an wrong ban, it would obviously be something wrong with the detection. witch means that they wont show up as (wrong bans) . lol, Note he said no false positives up to that point. We do not have enough information to make any reasonable conclusions. For example, if the probability of a false positive is 0.001 and they used the detection software on 100 suspected players, there is a 90% chance of having 0 false positives. Of course, as time goes on there will eventually be a false positive. To put it this way, i know an guy witch got banned (all his 20 accounts) and he sent support tickets and questions if his setups were ok, he contacted ccp. but how can that help if they don't give him any support that answered his questions or anything at all (before he was banned). he didn't do broadcasting anymore. and still got banned, and there would be no reason for him to broadcast. because i saw his New setup in action. and it did not give any reason in the world to do it. he was an really Nice guy, and helped out New players'etc. and really cool guy to talk to, and he paid all his accounts out from his own wallet. (no plexing'etc) so banning him was an loss for everyone. even if you or they acknowledge it or not. if there have been something I have lost respect for ccp in my years off playing, is letting us lose such an big supporter off eve, and helpful player that was doing everything ccp had said to the best off his ability.
He would say though, wouldn't he?
What I'm saying is, going by his word is not all that persuasive. In game theory terms it's called cheap talk.
And again, we don't have much information to go on at this stage. We don't know about how the algorithm works. Does the probability of a false positive go down with the number of suspect accounts a player is using? If that is the case...well 20 accounts...not good.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
375
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 01:38:41 -
[4994] - Quote
I pretty much stopped using all my alts and have diversified into other things. That is a large number of account I've unsubbed. If ccp and Eve survives I'll probably sell all of them and have way, way too much isk. If they reverse course on this really backwards thinking regarding multiboxing then I and hundreds others will resub.
Legacy - An EVE Online Blog
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
91
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 05:17:42 -
[4995] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:I pretty much stopped using all my alts and have diversified into other things. That is a large number of account I've unsubbed. If ccp and Eve survives I'll probably sell all of them and have way, way too much isk. If they reverse course on this really backwards thinking regarding multiboxing then I and hundreds others will resub.
Not wishing to inflame an old wound but the issue of Utilities like ISBOXER just seems to hang around, But the question no one really has asked regarding this is why is it so important to players to the point that they are prepared to trash accounts rather than try and keep them running.
CCP do need to revisit this urgently, maybe by the inclusion of a similar utility inside EVE rather than as third party purchase, This could be coded as an 'add on' were players wishing to use it could be charged a yearly subscription, say the cost of an additional subscription per year for the right to use this utility for one year allowing you to multi-box however many accounts there set up could manage.
Doing it this way CCP would be in full control of how the interface worked, what ships could be controlled by it and how.
One the basic reasons people have chosen to ghost there accounts is not because they feel they cannot do multi-boxing in EVE, it is because they are having the play style they want to use in the game inhibited to the point that it becomes impossible to pursue, The results have been far reaching, Further than most maybe comprehend.
There will be those that say that in some way players using such a utility are gaining an unfair advantage, but is this really the case, They are being faced with the same risks we all are when in space, but multiplied, There ISK risk is indeed greatly multiplied, alongside this they are paying for the accounts either in cash or with PLEX, it does cost them to play in this manner, Divided across the accounts they once ran it was the same as a player with just one account. And CCP gained considerable dollar value from there activities as a result, Mostly now lost to them.
Not really a good idea for a company which is currently grossing around 10 million a year out of EVE in my view to introduce a change in a product that incurs a severe real money penalty to itself, quite certain accounts had a few choice words to say about that aspect.
There are a lot of things wrong with EVE however inhibiting personal content generation in this manner is one that should never have been introduced, it should have been nurtured and marketed so that CCP gained from it financially, simply to ban it is 2d thinking of the worst kind.
Own nothing, Build nothing, Plan nothing, Just blow it all up, you know it makes perfect sense, Fozzie says so.
|
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
95
|
Posted - 2015.09.16 18:28:18 -
[4996] - Quote
is it only me, or did a lot off people not read that thread that said the average amount off alts per player + percent off people who have over xxx accounts. ??? |
Marsha Mallow
2528
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 21:17:58 -
[4997] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:is it only me, or did a lot off people not read that thread that said the average amount off alts per player + percent off people who have over xxx accounts. ???
I saw it and ignored it tbh. Only know 3 people ingame with one character and they either struggle with it, sell plex or have alternate games to play. All of which might be preferable to maintaining an alt army. Most people I've encountered have 2+ and the really commited have 4+.
The people are still here though, which is good.
We're all just riding out the storm btw, it's not just the guys in here. There's a deeper issue with the sub model (which we unfortunately halted with summer of rage), skillpoints, implants. Get out of this thread and start yacking in other topics. There is a major change being implemented and I really don't think it's being done to exclude specific types of players or playstyle(s). It's a systematic rebuild of the core game. If you spend too long whinging about your preferred playstyle, you'll miss participating in redesigning a game-wide shift.
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote: TO THE PITCHFORKMOBILE!
Benny Ohu wrote: fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread
Jenn aSide wrote: does anyone have any assless chaps I could borrow?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
3397
|
Posted - 2015.09.26 04:03:02 -
[4998] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:I pretty much stopped using all my alts and have diversified into other things. That is a large number of account I've unsubbed. If ccp and Eve survives I'll probably sell all of them and have way, way too much isk. If they reverse course on this really backwards thinking regarding multiboxing then I and hundreds others will resub. Not wishing to inflame an old wound but the issue of Utilities like ISBOXER just seems to hang around, But the question no one really has asked regarding this is why is it so important to players to the point that they are prepared to trash accounts rather than try and keep them running. CCP do need to revisit this urgently, maybe by the inclusion of a similar utility inside EVE rather than as third party purchase, This could be coded as an 'add on' were players wishing to use it could be charged a yearly subscription, say the cost of an additional subscription per year for the right to use this utility for one year allowing you to multi-box however many accounts there set up could manage. Doing it this way CCP would be in full control of how the interface worked, what ships could be controlled by it and how. One the basic reasons people have chosen to ghost there accounts is not because they feel they cannot do multi-boxing in EVE, it is because they are having the play style they want to use in the game inhibited to the point that it becomes impossible to pursue, The results have been far reaching, Further than most maybe comprehend. There will be those that say that in some way players using such a utility are gaining an unfair advantage, but is this really the case, They are being faced with the same risks we all are when in space, but multiplied, There ISK risk is indeed greatly multiplied, alongside this they are paying for the accounts either in cash or with PLEX, it does cost them to play in this manner, Divided across the accounts they once ran it was the same as a player with just one account. And CCP gained considerable dollar value from there activities as a result, Mostly now lost to them. Not really a good idea for a company which is currently grossing around 10 million a year out of EVE in my view to introduce a change in a product that incurs a severe real money penalty to itself, quite certain accounts had a few choice words to say about that aspect. There are a lot of things wrong with EVE however inhibiting personal content generation in this manner is one that should never have been introduced, it should have been nurtured and marketed so that CCP gained from it financially, simply to ban it is 2d thinking of the worst kind.
This would appear very much as pay-to-win...probably not going to go over well in general.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Milli J
Weyland Industries Corp
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 13:22:00 -
[4999] - Quote
If you want to run lots of ships all doing the same things at the same time with broadcasting ie in incursions, pvp, trading what ever then why play an MMO? buy a single player game if you do not with to communicate with others.
IS boxer is like a car. A very very useful tool but can be a dangerous weapon if the wrong person gets hold of it. The screen controls and positions isboxer offer are amazing, The broadcasting part is bull and should be banned. in pvp not all 10 pilots till lock and fire at the same time, with IS boxer you will alpha people not giving the reps a chance to land, which effects the game.
end of the days, its an MMO play together, with each other and enjoy |
k Rose
Aeon Interstellar Conglomerate
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.17 14:14:20 -
[5000] - Quote
So many lies; "everyone is a alt of someone," Even the CEO have MPD |
|
|
Tel Oleros
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.23 01:23:04 -
[5001] - Quote
So I've had an Eve account for 5 years now. Been playing it on and off.
I have read the first page and a couple other random ones and I don't feel like reading 200+ pages.
So can anyone answer this for me.
I would like a have another character to run transport for me / production stuff.
I would like to have two separate accounts that I can play on, switching between the two. No macros or automation. Just playing the game like if I had one account, but switching between the windows on my PC.
Would this be game breaking or get me banned?
Thanks! |
Nathan Semah
N-C-i-S
4
|
Posted - 2015.10.23 18:46:06 -
[5002] - Quote
Tel Oleros wrote:
I would like to have two separate accounts that I can play on, switching between the two. No macros or automation. Just playing the game like if I had one account, but switching between the windows on my PC.
You will be fine, I alt+tab with up to 5 accounts. |
Tel Oleros
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.23 23:35:10 -
[5003] - Quote
Nathan Semah wrote:Tel Oleros wrote:
I would like to have two separate accounts that I can play on, switching between the two. No macros or automation. Just playing the game like if I had one account, but switching between the windows on my PC.
You will be fine, I alt+tab with up to 5 accounts.
Thanks! 5 sounds crazy! I will stick with two for now. |
Blade McRavinger
Blade's Of Hell
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 21:13:40 -
[5004] - Quote
i agree with this on a PVP Stand point, you can alpha the crap out of people
but come the F on CCP, PVE, Mining, Navigation?
Without multiboxing With Broadcasting it slows down mining, reducing the amount of minerals on the market, therefore reducing the amount of ships in eve.
the amount or active players has dropped by like 100K since i started playing.
larger fights are becoming less and less but thats back to pvp.
Navigation, how does it effect eve negatively if i can fly my 4 toons across hisec?
an out-right ban of broadcasting seems abit over the top
but hay ho, i have never used it, just wanted to for my anti-gank fleet xD |
Professor Humbert
Project Fruit House
Solyaris Chtonium
5
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 07:30:52 -
[5005] - Quote
Hello,
I have a bunch of MIDI control surfaces lying around (Launchpad, APC40, etc).
Basically, these are flat control surfaces with lots of buttons and knobs, sending out MIDI signal to my computer (looks like this:
http://www.akaipro.com/product/apc40)
If I convert MIDI signals to keystroke signals and play the game in such a setup, will it be considered as broadcasting / automation? |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
376
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 18:27:35 -
[5006] - Quote
Professor Humbert wrote:Hello, I have a bunch of MIDI control surfaces lying around (Launchpad, APC40, etc). Basically, these are flat control surfaces with lots of buttons and knobs, sending out MIDI signal to my computer (looks like this: http://www.akaipro.com/product/apc40) If I convert MIDI signals to keystroke signals and play the game in such a setup, will it be considered as broadcasting / automation?
is it an unfair advantage that isnt available to another regular player without your skills? Cause the answer is likely yes.
Legacy - An EVE Online Blog
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Blade McRavinger
Blade's Of Hell
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 05:59:55 -
[5007] - Quote
Professor Humbert wrote:Hello, I have a bunch of MIDI control surfaces lying around (Launchpad, APC40, etc). Basically, these are flat control surfaces with lots of buttons and knobs, sending out MIDI signal to my computer (looks like this: http://www.akaipro.com/product/apc40) If I convert MIDI signals to keystroke signals and play the game in such a setup, will it be considered as broadcasting / automation?
i would have said its fine, its a controller any one of us can buy and use, its simple to convert the keystrokes to keyboard strokes.
but id submit a ticket and ask just in case.
let us know though i have a MIDI around here i can put to use
|
Professor Humbert
Project Fruit House
Solyaris Chtonium
5
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 17:58:11 -
[5008] - Quote
Blade McRavinger wrote:Professor Humbert wrote:Hello, I have a bunch of MIDI control surfaces lying around (Launchpad, APC40, etc). Basically, these are flat control surfaces with lots of buttons and knobs, sending out MIDI signal to my computer (looks like this: http://www.akaipro.com/product/apc40) If I convert MIDI signals to keystroke signals and play the game in such a setup, will it be considered as broadcasting / automation? i would have said its fine, its a controller any one of us can buy and use, its simple to convert the keystrokes to keyboard strokes. but id submit a ticket and ask just in case. let us know though i have a MIDI around here i can put to use
OK, I've managed to setup some MIDI -> Keystroke conversion with BOME MIDI Translator.
Just simple ESC, Dock and Undock for testing
Tested with Launchpad, APC40, and Maschine Studio and all work great.
Now... just need to get a firm answer from CCP if this is OK.
|
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2015.11.04 02:14:31 -
[5009] - Quote
Professor Humbert wrote:Blade McRavinger wrote:Professor Humbert wrote:Hello, I have a bunch of MIDI control surfaces lying around (Launchpad, APC40, etc). Basically, these are flat control surfaces with lots of buttons and knobs, sending out MIDI signal to my computer (looks like this: http://www.akaipro.com/product/apc40) If I convert MIDI signals to keystroke signals and play the game in such a setup, will it be considered as broadcasting / automation? i would have said its fine, its a controller any one of us can buy and use, its simple to convert the keystrokes to keyboard strokes. but id submit a ticket and ask just in case. let us know though i have a MIDI around here i can put to use OK, I've managed to setup some MIDI -> Keystroke conversion with BOME MIDI Translator. Just simple ESC, Dock and Undock for testing Tested with Launchpad, APC40, and Maschine Studio and all work great. I've stopped doing anything further coz don't know if playing like that is acceptable or not. Now... just need to get a firm answer from CCP if this is OK.
They will not respond to a question like this from a forum post
They will take a while to reply to the petition you should send in
You should expect the answer to be something along the lines of "If you aren't sure, don't do it'
You will be frustrated
There is nothing you can do
/ballad
E: Sorry i wasnt entirely sure what you were referring to till i clicked the link
AS I UNDERSTAND IT: If you have button 1, to send undock to client 1, and button 2 to send undock to client 2, that is broadcasting (in their definition of the words)
If you set it up so that Button 1, sends undock to whatever client is open and focused on, that is keybinding
Putting this into the context of F1, if i bind button 1 to F1, that is simply keybinding.
If however button 1 SENDS F1 to client 1, that is illegal (theres a slight difference its just difficult to explain)
I think what you're trying to do is setup that tablet so that you can play off of it instead of a central key/mouse combo.
Such a setup would let you "bind" buttons to send specific acts to specific clients which is probably more efficient than playing the regular way.
If you think you can get around the broadcast issue by binding a row of buttons to X number of clients, to say, make them all undock, autopilot, etc, it would allow you to press the row of buttons without having to swap between clients to do the same action.
Sorry for terrible text, i can elaborate on a specific section further if needed |
Lady of Enterprise
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 06:04:53 -
[5010] - Quote
The game is on the wane, and the banning of people using automation to run multiple accounts has seen the population drop from consistent 50,000 + players, to less than 30,000. Despite what bs CODE. / Goonswarm want to preach, people have left the game since this ban has been put in place.
Why?
Some of the best content of the game is not doable w/o several people or several accounts. There are always more people out there interested to build and explore alone, then there will be who wish to be forced into groups with a-holes that most people would not give the time of day to.
Those solo players have to be provided a rich game experience also, or they will not stay, and they have not. Who wants to be in a game where you constantly reminded that if you don't join a group of scum to get access to the best parts of the game, then one never will?
Work on that problem first, start unlocking the good game content to solo players. |
|
|
Intar Medris
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Phoenix Company Alliance
240
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 14:41:22 -
[5011] - Quote
Lady of Enterprise wrote:The game is on the wane, and the banning of people using automation to run multiple accounts has seen the population drop from consistent 50,000 + players, to less than 30,000. Despite what bs CODE. / Goonswarm want to preach, people have left the game since this ban has been put in place.
Why?
Some of the best content of the game is not doable w/o several people or several accounts. There are always more people out there interested to build and explore alone, then there will be who wish to be forced into groups with a-holes that most people would not give the time of day to.
Those solo players have to be provided a rich game experience also, or they will not stay, and they have not. Who wants to be in a game where you constantly reminded that if you don't join a group of scum to get access to the best parts of the game, then one never will?
Work on that problem first, start unlocking the good game content to solo players.
A lot of the decline has to do with with the ban on input broadcasting. Most of them that did it ran missions or mined. You don't need multiple people to mine or run missions. Only purpose multi boxing serves there is to earn more ISK per hour. It wasn't uncommon to come across 10 man mining fleet controlled by one person using ISBOXER. They would wipe clean whole systems in just a couple hours. To be honest it was getting quite ridiculous. You had one with HUNDREDS of accounts that mined ice. He wipe while ice belts in an hour or less making 10,000,000,000s ISK a DAY IN HIGH SEC! If EVE needs a bunch ISBOXERs to stay alive, which it doesn't, then it's already dead.
Do yourself a favor and get out of the NPC corp. Most player corps are quite friendly. It's only the ELITE PVP corps that are typically ran by assholes, and even then there are some very nice PVP corps out there.
I try to be nice and mind my business just shooting lasers at rocks. There is just way too many asshats in New Eden for that to happen.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6935
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 17:52:21 -
[5012] - Quote
Intar Medris wrote:A lot of the decline has to do with with the ban on input broadcasting. Most of them that did it ran missions or mined. You don't need multiple people to mine or run missions. Only purpose multi boxing serves there is to earn more ISK per hour. It wasn't uncommon to come across 10 man mining fleet controlled by one person using ISBOXER. They would wipe clean whole systems in just a couple hours. To be honest it was getting quite ridiculous. You had one with HUNDREDS of accounts that mined ice. He wipe while ice belts in an hour or less making 10,000,000,000s ISK a DAY IN HIGH SEC! If EVE needs a bunch ISBOXERs to stay alive, which it doesn't, then it's already dead.
Do yourself a favor and get out of the NPC corp. Most player corps are quite friendly. It's only the ELITE PVP corps that are typically ran by assholes, and even then there are some very nice PVP corps out there. You do realise that the crazy high account ISBoxer players were very rare right? And even without ISBoxer there are people running 20-30 account groups, because mechanics in EVE are stupidly easy. It's definitely not uncommon to come across 10 man fleets run by one dude now. Pretty much go to any ice belt in highsec at the right times.
Also, the ISK they made might seem high if you get your isk from solo running missions, but traders make more for less effort and require less characters to plex, and there's loads of them. So if you problem is people making loads of isk in highsec, where's your posts to get trading banned? I question your 10b isk/day from ice mining too, since that would mean that the player mined a minimum of 20 complete ice belts in a day with no competition and without destroying their own profit margins by shifting that much ice constantly.
The truth is EVE doesn't need ISBoxer to survive, but it's just another playstyle destroyed. It doesn't "need" ganking, missioning or exploration to survive either, but removing them just limits what people can do, which is bad.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
242
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 19:01:05 -
[5013] - Quote
Lady of Enterprise wrote:The game is on the wane, and the banning of people using automation to run multiple accounts has seen the population drop from consistent 50,000 + players, to less than 30,000. Despite what bs CODE. / Goonswarm want to preach, people have left the game since this ban has been put in place.
Why?
Some of the best content of the game is not doable w/o several people or several accounts. There are always more people out there interested to build and explore alone, then there will be who wish to be forced into groups with a-holes that most people would not give the time of day to.
Those solo players have to be provided a rich game experience also, or they will not stay, and they have not. Who wants to be in a game where you constantly reminded that if you don't join a group of scum to get access to the best parts of the game, then one never will?
Work on that problem first, start unlocking the good game content to solo players.
what content is only available to groups other than incursions that need such a fleet that a single person with 2-3 accounts can not do on there own? |
Intar Medris
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Phoenix Company Alliance
243
|
Posted - 2015.11.10 15:15:50 -
[5014] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Intar Medris wrote:A lot of the decline has to do with with the ban on input broadcasting. Most of them that did it ran missions or mined. You don't need multiple people to mine or run missions. Only purpose multi boxing serves there is to earn more ISK per hour. It wasn't uncommon to come across 10 man mining fleet controlled by one person using ISBOXER. They would wipe clean whole systems in just a couple hours. To be honest it was getting quite ridiculous. You had one with HUNDREDS of accounts that mined ice. He wipe while ice belts in an hour or less making 10,000,000,000s ISK a DAY IN HIGH SEC! If EVE needs a bunch ISBOXERs to stay alive, which it doesn't, then it's already dead.
Do yourself a favor and get out of the NPC corp. Most player corps are quite friendly. It's only the ELITE PVP corps that are typically ran by assholes, and even then there are some very nice PVP corps out there. You do realise that the crazy high account ISBoxer players were very rare right? And even without ISBoxer there are people running 20-30 account groups, because mechanics in EVE are stupidly easy. It's definitely not uncommon to come across 10 man fleets run by one dude now. Pretty much go to any ice belt in highsec at the right times. Also, the ISK they made might seem high if you get your isk from solo running missions, but traders make more for less effort and require less characters to plex, and there's loads of them. So if you problem is people making loads of isk in highsec, where's your posts to get trading banned? I question your 10b isk/day from ice mining too, since that would mean that the player mined a minimum of 20 complete ice belts in a day with no competition and without destroying their own profit margins by shifting that much ice constantly. The truth is EVE doesn't need ISBoxer to survive, but it's just another playstyle destroyed. It doesn't "need" ganking, missioning or exploration to survive either, but removing them just limits what people can do, which is bad.
That's ice. Try managing those those same 10+ accounts in a standard high sec belt. Most rocks will last only 2 cycles before becoming depleted. Quite the handful without isboxer.
I try to be nice and mind my business just shooting lasers at rocks. There is just way too many asshats in New Eden for that to happen.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6935
|
Posted - 2015.11.10 15:53:08 -
[5015] - Quote
Intar Medris wrote:That's ice. Try managing those those same 10+ accounts in a standard high sec belt. Most rocks will last only 2 cycles before becoming depleted. Quite the handful without isboxer. Generally you are mining ice, as that's where the efficiency is best.
Even with ore though, it's not actually too difficult to control. I know because I historically have run 20 accounts with no ISBoxer (I didn't feel the ISBoxer sub costs were worth the benefit). As long as you have something to tile your clients so you can rapidly swap between them (eve-o preview for example) then it's really not much effort. Bear in mind that a cycle is like 90-100s or something in a maxed skiff with boosts. 18 miners, 1 booster, 1 hauler, assuming that 2 cycles is a rock gone, you need to change rocks and unload into the hauler 18 times every 3 minutes. With a huge amount of ease you can keep everyone cycling and still have enough idle time to play sleeping dogs.
The thing you miss though is that even with ISBoxer, you have to target each client individually, otherwise you'll get a huge problem with them all targeting the same rocks and killing each others efficiency. The only benefits ISBoxer had is it allowed you to undock together (my solution, never dock) open all your cargo holds, and turn on defenses together (my solution, bind all of my keys close to each other then headbutt the keyboard for each client once at the start) and shift cargo from the miners to the hauler (the only real benefit and as mentioned above, really not a big deal since you're manually targeting each anyway). The real truth is that manually multiboxing has always been more efficient for mining than broadcasting until you get get to 30-40 clients because broadcasting promoted lazyness which reduced efficiency.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Globby
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
282
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 14:44:52 -
[5016] - Quote
I'm glad CCP finally punished the cheaters, +1 CCP I'm with you all the way on this change. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6938
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 16:41:31 -
[5017] - Quote
Globby wrote:I'm glad CCP finally punished the cheaters I fully agree, getting rid of those hyperdunk cheaters was a good call.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Arcano Dentist
SwEaTy ArMpIT RaIDeRs
Phoenix Company Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2015.11.22 13:54:53 -
[5018] - Quote
Is there one guy dominating the universe with 100 boxed accounts? No. Do you come across one guy running a gate camp with 20 boxed ships? No.
Most multiboxers are mining or Ratting. Fact. So why does this bother people? |
Marsha Mallow
2746
|
Posted - 2015.11.22 22:00:09 -
[5019] - Quote
Arcano Dentist wrote:Is there one guy dominating the universe with 100 boxed accounts? No. Do you come across one guy running a gate camp with 20 boxed ships? No.
Most multiboxers are mining or Ratting. Fact. So why does this bother people?
The same applies to bots. Explain the difference please.
Knowing they have more SP than I do isnGÇÖt going to stop me from taking the fight if I was going to take it.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
250
|
Posted - 2015.11.23 01:08:20 -
[5020] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Arcano Dentist wrote:Is there one guy dominating the universe with 100 boxed accounts? No. Do you come across one guy running a gate camp with 20 boxed ships? No.
Most multiboxers are mining or Ratting. Fact. So why does this bother people? The same applies to bots. Explain the difference please.
there isnt one other than one breaks the eula. |
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6939
|
Posted - 2015.11.23 14:47:53 -
[5021] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Arcano Dentist wrote:Is there one guy dominating the universe with 100 boxed accounts? No. Do you come across one guy running a gate camp with 20 boxed ships? No.
Most multiboxers are mining or Ratting. Fact. So why does this bother people? The same applies to bots. Explain the difference please. Well the main difference is efficiency. A bot can sustain 100% efficiency continuously for as long as it runs. A broadcaster will find his efficiency per character drops quite drastically. Up to about 30 characters a broadcasting miner for example will actually find his efficiency below that of a manual multiboxer.
Another pretty big difference is that most larger scale botters do so to generate isk for RMT, while multiboxers tend to do it for the enjoyment. Botters will also be less likely to be seen in massive smartbombable blobs. I mean think about it, that big group of 20 characters all mining together, they get reported constantly by people who don't like them so they are under heavy scrutiny. That one guy here, one guy a region over, another 5 jumps from that, far less scrutiny. Bots don't needs to be grouped as each one thinks for itself. I'd wager that far more individual "solo" characters are bots than behemoth groups.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
6521
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 21:36:23 -
[5022] - Quote
Eleven months later & people are still bitching about this. And I thought I had problems.
This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6943
|
Posted - 2015.12.01 08:32:57 -
[5023] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Eleven months later & people are still bitching about this. And I thought I had problems. Well they haven't really done much else worth talking about to be fair. It's basically this and sov.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Elyia Suze Nagala
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
40
|
Posted - 2015.12.06 12:27:22 -
[5024] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Eleven months later & people are still bitching about this. And I thought I had problems.
Amen. I'd like to see this discussion remove from the number one spot in GD. There is literally no point in keeping it. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
6527
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 03:21:44 -
[5025] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Eleven months later & people are still bitching about this. And I thought I had problems. Well they haven't really done much else worth talking about to be fair. It's basically this and sov.
I hear they also banned the goblin from here because he went full Trump mode. You could post about that.
This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6950
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 15:20:44 -
[5026] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Eleven months later & people are still bitching about this. And I thought I had problems. Well they haven't really done much else worth talking about to be fair. It's basically this and sov. I hear they also banned the goblin from here because he went full Trump mode. You could post about that. Haven't heard a thing about it, sorry bro. I'm pretty much just waiting for CCP to announce their near full attention on VR and their phasing out of historic new eden content.
Anyway, FF7 is out once again now though so all else is irrelevant.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
6538
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 22:10:47 -
[5027] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Eleven months later & people are still bitching about this. And I thought I had problems. Well they haven't really done much else worth talking about to be fair. It's basically this and sov. I hear they also banned the goblin from here because he went full Trump mode. You could post about that. Haven't heard a thing about it, sorry bro. I'm pretty much just waiting for CCP to announce their near full attention on VR and their phasing out of historic new eden content. Anyway, FF7 is out once again now though so all else is irrelevant.
Enjoy paying hundreds of dollars for a remake of the same crappy game you played 17 years ago.
This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6950
|
Posted - 2015.12.10 17:46:32 -
[5028] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Eleven months later & people are still bitching about this. And I thought I had problems. Well they haven't really done much else worth talking about to be fair. It's basically this and sov. I hear they also banned the goblin from here because he went full Trump mode. You could post about that. Haven't heard a thing about it, sorry bro. I'm pretty much just waiting for CCP to announce their near full attention on VR and their phasing out of historic new eden content. Anyway, FF7 is out once again now though so all else is irrelevant. Enjoy paying hundreds of dollars for a remake of the same crappy game you played 17 years ago. Well at the moment I'm enjoying paying -ú9 to play the exact same game I played 17 years ago, with trophies! Thanks!
I'm a massive FF7 nerd though so as long as the remake isn't too ruined I'll probably pay and extortionate amount of money for whatever super special edition they do. I've bought like 3 copies on the PS1, a couple on the PC, and the Ps3/Vita one and such over the years. I'm such a nerd I even have the limited edition FF7 vinyl, twice (one to play and one to stay pristine).
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Globby
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
295
|
Posted - 2015.12.13 17:55:26 -
[5029] - Quote
+1 CCP I wholeheartedly agree with these changes. |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin.
DARKNESS.
788
|
Posted - 2015.12.13 18:33:16 -
[5030] - Quote
Globby wrote:+1 CCP I wholeheartedly agree with these changes.
Only about a year late but I'm sure they appreciate your +1.
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
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6953
|
Posted - 2015.12.13 21:17:12 -
[5031] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Globby wrote:+1 CCP I wholeheartedly agree with these changes. Only about a year late but I'm sure they appreciate your +1. He does it every month or so. I think he sped up when they took away his hyperdunking exploit cos now he all mad.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Random User83
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.15 12:18:50 -
[5032] - Quote
Still doing VG's just fine. Still Mining with my fleet of 12 just fine. I had to upgrade my PC to run 12 clients in windowed mode, but VG's are easy. 2 logi on one screen, 8 DPS on the other. No boxing, No broadcasting needed. easy peasy. Mining is just listening for asteroid depleted and alt tabbing through to find the one with no lazer cycling. Especially like the new launcher that lets you fire off 12 accounts at once without having to log in to each one individually +1 CCP!
I'm a strong independant alt that don't need no main...
|
Globby
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
304
|
Posted - 2015.12.30 21:10:40 -
[5033] - Quote
thank goodness ccp changed this. im glad all the input cheaters are gone. THANKS CCP!! |
Kaeto
M. Corp Engineering
Executive Outcomes
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.24 20:09:14 -
[5034] - Quote
still isn't clear if keyboard macros are allowed?
can I set my keyboard macro button to recall drones, set max speed, activate afterburner with one press?
the only mention I find in the eula ( http://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/eve-eula/ ):
"You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game."
recalling drones, set max speed, and activate afterburner does not facilitate rank or status at an accelerated rate.
Also in the beginning post of this thread:
"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."
does my example have consequences in the Eve universe? I would say no? They say "is not limited to", where can we find exactly what is included? The only reference in the EULA to macros is what I posted above. |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
869
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 17:20:15 -
[5035] - Quote
Kaeto wrote:
can I set my keyboard macro button to recall drones, set max speed, activate afterburner with one press?
Yes, go to the escape menu ingame and set the short cuts there. I think they are already set by default but you can change them to a key that suits you better.
No need for any third-party programs CCP has a lot of basic shortcuts already available. |
CyPhiR
Fusion Dynamic
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 11:00:54 -
[5036] - Quote
I have a suggestion and I just hope a Ccp Dev is reading ... All the arguments about what is and isn't legal according to the eula rules, why doesn't Ccp with all their brilliant staff and coders, just design their own multi boxing software. Hell, I'd rather use Ccp software than use something that might or might not get my account banned ... Ccp, please think about it because it's stupid little arguments like this that keep putting me off this game .. I love eve and my sp level shows that ... Please seriously consider making your own multi boxing software designed specifically for eve online. Thanks. Game on guys and keep up the good work. |
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
319
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 13:29:41 -
[5037] - Quote
Wow, this thread is still open? |
GALACTIC SOUL
The Miners of EvE
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 11:55:09 -
[5038] - Quote
CyPhiR wrote:I have a suggestion and I just hope a Ccp Dev is reading ... All the arguments about what is and isn't legal according to the eula rules, why doesn't Ccp with all their brilliant staff and coders, just design their own multi boxing software. Hell, I'd rather use Ccp software than use something that might or might not get my account banned ... Ccp, please think about it because it's stupid little arguments like this that keep putting me off this game .. I love eve and my sp level shows that ... Please seriously consider making your own multi boxing software designed specifically for eve online. Thanks. Game on guys and keep up the good work.
This does sound like a step in the right direction.
I think even just being able to link your accounts/clients in game in more user friendly way would be great.
For example in a fleet If I warp my clients to a gate I have to swap to every player and click "jump". It's annoying. But If I click a gate on each client I can select "warp and jump through gate". It would great to be able to warp my whole fleet and jump them all through gate. Same thing goes for docking my clients in station, Warp fleet and dock them all pls.
Another feature I would like to see for multiple clients is a follow command, so my client will follow my main like a pack of wolves behind me, jumping through gates and following me on missions. I would swap to the clients once mission or pvp location has been arrived at, I know auto pilot exists but it's slow, and you need to setup route on each client. Follow command would work for me here.
Generally speaking just make the game a bit more user friendly for multiple clients using little things like the above.
It would need some authentication token to create the link between accounts/clients, which would then link the characters. Allow those linked clients the follow command and upgraded fleet warp pls.
Rambling done. Good work CCP keep it up |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 12:40:25 -
[5039] - Quote
Sounds like you're really going to hate it if CCP get around to putting in their fleet warp changes.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
GALACTIC SOUL
The Miners of EvE
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:36:59 -
[5040] - Quote
Just found those fleet changes coming up, Yes I hate them. |
|
|
Rin Vocaloid2
DUST University
Ivy League
4
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 01:43:27 -
[5041] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Wow, this thread is still open?
I know, right? 2 freaking years. |
kraken11 jensen
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
Requiem Eternal
97
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 08:11:02 -
[5042] - Quote
I don't belive the fleet changes is going to happened, I just cant belive it. |
KC Kamikaze
Black Dragon Elite
Great Blue Balls of Fire
131
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 16:15:25 -
[5043] - Quote
GALACTIC SOUL wrote:CyPhiR wrote:I have a suggestion and I just hope a Ccp Dev is reading ... All the arguments about what is and isn't legal according to the eula rules, why doesn't Ccp with all their brilliant staff and coders, just design their own multi boxing software. Hell, I'd rather use Ccp software than use something that might or might not get my account banned ... Ccp, please think about it because it's stupid little arguments like this that keep putting me off this game .. I love eve and my sp level shows that ... Please seriously consider making your own multi boxing software designed specifically for eve online. Thanks. Game on guys and keep up the good work. This does sound like a step in the right direction. I think even just being able to link your accounts/clients in game in more user friendly way would be great. For example in a fleet If I warp my clients to a gate I have to swap to every player and click "jump". It's annoying. But If I click a gate on each client I can select "warp and jump through gate". It would great to be able to warp my whole fleet and jump them all through gate. Same thing goes for docking my clients in station, Warp fleet and dock them all pls. Another feature I would like to see for multiple clients is a follow command, so my client will follow my main like a pack of wolves behind me, jumping through gates and following me on missions. I would swap to the clients once mission or pvp location has been arrived at, I know auto pilot exists but it's slow, and you need to setup route on each client. Follow command would work for me here. Generally speaking just make the game a bit more user friendly for multiple clients using little things like the above. It would need some authentication token to create the link between accounts/clients, which would then link the characters. Allow those linked clients the follow command and upgraded fleet warp pls. Rambling done. Good work CCP keep it up
The follow feature exists. It's called group and it's used by clicking the little lines in teh upper left of the fleet window and selecting group from the menu ... maybe it's not "group" but its something similar.
|
Death Reactor
Arch Angels Assault Force
IT'S ONLY PIXELS
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 23:33:29 -
[5044] - Quote
Windows is a 3rd party application<-----The decision to prohibit people from using portions of each game into one window needs to be reversed. I can understand input automation and broadcasts but this particular part needs to be recinded. You can already almost do it with clever window positioning of the clients. CCP needs to be less about a player cannot get advantage over another and should go in the direction of a account cannot gain a advantage. I run 16 accounts and while i am in compliance with these rulings i feel they need to be changed. |
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
134
|
Posted - 2016.02.29 13:44:48 -
[5045] - Quote
The debate regarding ISBOXER type utilities rages on and rightly so, Fueled as it is by CCP's utter refusal to clarify the situation in detail and by the did and did not use factions often spurious claims.
Fact remains though and fact it is that CCP shot itself in both feet and the head over this matter in a single statement put out on page one were they not only laid down the ground work for the loss of many hundreds of active Dollar generating clients associated with there use but also in many cases that of the Main account holders themselves, Had I been in accounts I would have been taking a serous look at what those guys were smoking at the time to be honest when they thought this was a good idea.
The other side of the argument is one many of us have pondered on for a long time now, Why is CCP so Luddite in it's approach to third party software and utilities, after all here was a clear opportunity to cash in on something that players obviously found very attractive to there own individual game content generation and style, Several months ago I floated this idea in another thread that maybe a better approach would have been for CCP to buy the rights to ISBOXER, modify it's operation to suit Eve and then rent it's use at say a plex per month to players knowing they were in full control of how it interacted with the game overall.
Sadly this is not to be as CCP still refrain from either clarification of the position regarding such tools or giving the players what they so dearly would like to have, A suite of custom made tools they can trust that they can use without risking the ban hammer every time they turn on there computers.
Play fair CCP and do right by your customers. |
Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
1728
|
Posted - 2016.03.03 14:20:16 -
[5046] - Quote
Why is this thread still a thing?
Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
301
|
Posted - 2016.03.08 08:00:35 -
[5047] - Quote
And another idiot gets banned, RedThreat was streaming on Twitch apparently using isbox and using input automation on 26 accounts and got banned mid broadcast. He was also cutting and stitching windows somehow which is also illegal.
Awesome. |
tasman devil
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
74
|
Posted - 2016.03.08 10:00:44 -
[5048] - Quote
CyPhiR wrote:I have a suggestion and I just hope a Ccp Dev is reading ... All the arguments about what is and isn't legal according to the eula rules, why doesn't Ccp with all their brilliant staff and coders, just design their own multi boxing software. Hell, I'd rather use Ccp software than use something that might or might not get my account banned ... Ccp, please think about it because it's stupid little arguments like this that keep putting me off this game .. I love eve and my sp level shows that ... Please seriously consider making your own multi boxing software designed specifically for eve online. Thanks. Game on guys and keep up the good work.
you sir, have my upvote!
I don't belive in reincarnation
I've never believed in it in my previous lives either...
|
Anastis Beonis
Astronautica
Parental Supervision.
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.08 16:56:49 -
[5049] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Mierin Arthie wrote:How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard? for those that dont know what a kvm switch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch That doesn't broadcast, it just changes where input goes - it should be fine.
It should not be an issue. You are still only pinging once for each input per switch line. IS BOXER spamms multiple pings for each command untill the command is executed, which is what makes it easy to detect. Same with MAcro Keyboards etc.. they poll the commands so fast it would be impossible for a human to physyically do it... and thats how they know your doing it. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2660
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 21:04:16 -
[5050] - Quote
tasman devil wrote:CyPhiR wrote:I have a suggestion and I just hope a Ccp Dev is reading ... All the arguments about what is and isn't legal according to the eula rules, why doesn't Ccp with all their brilliant staff and coders, just design their own multi boxing software. Hell, I'd rather use Ccp software than use something that might or might not get my account banned ... Ccp, please think about it because it's stupid little arguments like this that keep putting me off this game .. I love eve and my sp level shows that ... Please seriously consider making your own multi boxing software designed specifically for eve online. Thanks. Game on guys and keep up the good work. you sir, have my upvote!
They are banning the practice and would then make a tool to enable it? |
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7389
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 10:55:27 -
[5051] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:And another idiot gets banned, RedThreat was streaming on Twitch apparently using isbox and using input automation on 26 accounts and got banned mid broadcast. He was also cutting and stitching windows somehow which is also illegal.
Awesome. You say "awesome" but he made it clear on the stream it wasn't a new thing he was doing and that he knows others who do the same, which just makes me question more how well CCP can actually enforce these rules. If they need someone to be live streaming EULA violations for them to notice, it would seem there's no real point in having the rule in the first place, since people will still be breaking it and going unnoticed, making the disparity between them and legitimate players even greater.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
302
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 12:11:16 -
[5052] - Quote
I don't really care how long it takes to catch them, as long as they do.
Lets face it, anyone who streams it live deserves everything they get. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7394
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 19:54:41 -
[5053] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:I don't really care how long it takes to catch them, as long as they do.
Lets face it, anyone who streams it live deserves everything they get. But that's the point, if they require someone to live stream it before they are able to catch them then they aren't really going to fill your "as long as they do" criteria. Not to mention that a near equally efficient method of multiboxing using eve-o preview has been explicitly allowed making it all a bit pointless.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Globby
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
321
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 20:23:41 -
[5054] - Quote
gj ccp +1 vote for stopping the cheaters. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7419
|
Posted - 2016.03.19 10:10:14 -
[5055] - Quote
Globby wrote:gj ccp +1 vote for stopping the cheaters. Wrong thread bud, the one about hyperdunking is somewhere else. But I agree, huzzah for ending the cheating!
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
guigui lechat
the no one
1
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 16:16:29 -
[5056] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:Sadly this is not to be as CCP still refrain from either clarification of the position regarding such tools or giving the players what they so dearly would like to have, A suite of custom made tools they can trust that they can use without risking the ban hammer every time they turn on there computers.
You are stubborn. The issue is not the tool, it's the usage. A usage was not correct and people kept using it : CCP added the "that's bad" to the EULA.
Now, you have questions, use your eyes to read and your brain to understand what's been written. If you have doubt that something may be forbidden, that often means you already know the answer. Up to you to play cat and mice. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7429
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 16:54:15 -
[5057] - Quote
guigui lechat wrote:You are stubborn. The issue is not the tool, it's the usage. A usage was not correct and people kept using it : CCP added the "that's bad" to the EULA.
Now, you have questions, use your eyes to read and your brain to understand what's been written. If you have doubt that something may be forbidden, that often means you already know the answer. Up to you to play cat and mice. But How Can The EULA Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Ka en Bauldry
Intrice
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.15 20:21:50 -
[5058] - Quote
Forgive me if it was already asked. But I have a keyboard which supports macro and I was thinking to create macro which hits Alt+D for me every second while I'm in WH. Is it considered as input automation and ban'able? Thanks in advance. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7483
|
Posted - 2016.04.16 14:24:13 -
[5059] - Quote
Ka en Bauldry wrote:Forgive me if it was already asked. But I have a keyboard which supports macro and I was thinking to create macro which hits Alt+D for me every second while I'm in WH. Is it considered as input automation and ban'able? Thanks in advance. If it's a button that you push once per second which just does Alt+D once, it's fine. If it's something you push once then it just does it on it's own every second, then it's not OK.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Ka en Bauldry
Intrice
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.28 22:49:50 -
[5060] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:If it's a button that you push once per second which just does Alt+D once, it's fine. If it's something you push once then it just does it on it's own every second, then it's not OK.
I can program the keyboard either way:
https://www.microsoft.com/hardware/en-us/help/support/how-to/keyboard/macros
The keyboard is:
https://www.microsoft.com/hardware/en-us/help/support/how-to/keyboard/use-sidewinder-x6-keyboard
Do we have other opinions here? :)
|
|
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
917
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 19:24:37 -
[5061] - Quote
As Lucas says, binding Alt+D to another key is fine.
Making your keyboard press Alt+D for you is not.
"I use copious amounts of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax' on a daily basis"
|
Ka en Bauldry
Intrice
0
|
Posted - 2016.05.09 17:00:12 -
[5062] - Quote
Thanks guys. |
kraken11 jensen
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
Requiem Eternal
98
|
Posted - 2016.05.23 15:25:39 -
[5063] - Quote
Just realized how many views this tread had, wow. and just, wow. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1940
|
Posted - 2016.06.12 18:29:58 -
[5064] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:Just realized how many views this tread had, wow. and just, wow.
Its only like 3/4 guys and all their alts. |
Angry Arnst
W.O.R.M-S.W.A.R.M
8
|
Posted - 2016.07.14 21:37:07 -
[5065] - Quote
So when ya gonna fix it so when -9.0 -10.0 can't freely jump about that's what I wondering sure a lot getting tired being ganked bye code for there bs claiming buy permit and what not you want fix make changes do something about that |
ISD Max Trix
isd community communications liaisons
352
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 13:26:02 -
[5066] - Quote
Removed a post for ranting and thread necromancy. Thread Closed as the discussion is done.
ISD Max Trix
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
I do not respond to Evemails.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 169 :: [one page] |