EVE Search - A Vote for Solidus is a Vote for Multiboxing!

Check My IP Information

All Channels

CSM Campaigns

A Vote for Solidus is a Vote for Multiboxing!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Solidus Obscura Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 12:49:04 - [1] - Quote Introduction Welcome prospective disciples of the Rorqual. While I normally would begin with a lengthy sermon as to why the Rorqual is the finest ship in EvE and that all capsuleers should aspire to fly one, I'm pretty late in posting this as it is! First, think about these questions: Are you satisfied with flying a single Ishtar for your dank ratting ticks or do you find it necessary to AFK five of them on all the Havens in the system? Do you hate HiSec incursion community voice comms so much that you have or will build an incursion fleet to clear sites all by yourself? Do you believe proper 'solo PVP' is baiting Svipuls into Medium plexes where your five recon alts are happily orbiting the beacon? Do you like to drop 10 or more bombers on hapless Provi ratters or AFK freighter pilots? Do you believe that unless you're making more than 1Bn ISK/Hr you're playing like a casual? If your answer to any of the above questions are yes or at least maybe, keep reading. Platform Do you enjoy multiboxing? I do. A lot. And there have been a lot of changes and new restrictions on multiboxing over the past few years - such as no broadcasting and partial window overlays. Some of these changes are fair and I have zero intent on trying to change the current EULA. However, there is a stigma that sometimes comes to multiboxers - a belief that they may be botting or skirting the rules. Suicide gank multibox pilots getting banned for nebulous reasons. Who on the CSM have stood for and defended multiboxers? How many times was multiboxing referenced in the last CSM summit? Well, if you vote for me, I'll stand for you! About Me I started out in E-Uni doing the normal new player things and eventually joined Mercenary Coalition to participate in my first large scale conflict since starting to play EvE. But it wasn't enough just being a single DPS or Logistics pilot in fleets. I needed to do more. Whether this was bringing in alt Links, spreading out cynos, readying a capital alt - I wanted to do more than just F1. It was around the middle of last year I saw a post on r/Eve claiming that you could make 1.2B an hour multiboxing Vanguard sites. Welp, here I am doing that and a bunch of other things with far too many accounts. I've done region-wide cloaky camping and salt mining, ice-belt clearing in one and a half hours mining (PRAISE THE RORQUAL!), infuriating Griffin swarms, 165 p0-p2 planets (yeah, that only lasted a month), and dropping 10 bombers on 'Snakes. I've got a few more things in the cooker as well (the Kusions can't have all the fun). I've also been involved with our Alliance Tournament team in addition to shooting stuff for profit, building API tools using XML through ESI (happy to share if requested), promoting mining cultural revolutions, and battled the menace that is ESS drama. So while I can hold the door on negative impacts to multiboxing, I also have enough experience to discuss other aspects of the game and relate back to the playerbase. Why I stand out There are a lot of big names on the ballot and four fewer spots to fill - I get it, I've got my work cut out for me. However, if you consider my platform and my accomplishments, some things stand out: Organizational capability, exposure to a wide range of EvE, and unadulterated efficiency. I feel these are strong attributes of an effective CSM member. And if you've been paying attention, I have a ton of bloody characters. I'm pretty damn invested in this game, so it's in my great interest to see it continue to grow and continue to be engaging. This is why I am running for CSM and why you should vote for me. Thank you for reading! (Side Note: Late Thread Posting, the Application was submitted within the deadline) Contact Reddit - Elowenn (Preferred) EveMail
Solidus Obscura Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 12:49:28 - [2] - Quote Reserved as that's the thing to do. /avoids reserving 10 times per habit.
Davlos Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition 114	Posted - 2017.02.23 13:52:53 - [3] - Quote Solidus may be a carebear scrublord, but he's our lovable scrublord. You have my axe... and my vote.
commander aze 241	Posted - 2017.02.23 14:51:12 - [4] - Quote So key braodcasting isnt likely to return. As it opens up a can of worms for botting and non human controlled input. What are your throughts on this. Also i run 4 accounts in incursions with no isboxer or anything. Its easy enough to do without it. Commander Aze For CSM XII https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=506400 Support the Community #Broadcast4Reps
Mareau Auscent Noir. Mercenary Coalition 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 15:26:25 - [5] - Quote +1 endorsement
Solidus Obscura Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition 1	Posted - 2017.02.23 16:32:24 - [6] - Quote commander aze wrote: So key braodcasting isnt likely to return. As it opens up a can of worms for botting and non human controlled input. What are your throughts on this. Also i run 4 accounts in incursions with no isboxer or anything. Its easy enough to do without it. Yeah, input broadcasting is very close to botting, albeit some MMOs allow it currently (WoW to my knowledge is one of them). I don't intend to advocate for change on that particular aspect. There are methods out there to quickly and efficiently perform actions on multiple clients legally (Eve-O Preview, a hotkey that opens the next window) - but the concern I have is that CCP reviews this activity server side rather than client side. What happens when a multiboxer gets good enough to get those inputs in on a single or two-tick cycle? This is what I want to look at further.
commander aze 241	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:21:43 - [7] - Quote So i run 4 of 10 accounts in an incursion. Now its muscle memory at this point but its also fair. With scroll time and that I rarely if ever have actions effect more than 1 account per second i think or i believe their system would be smart enough to see broadcasting happen serverside as its not easy to hit for instance vanguard incursions 10 accounts in the same 2 second window.. i run 4 screens and move the cursor between them doing everything manualy. I feel that this is fair as it falls in the EULA as fair game to do. Due to the past controversy over isboxer and key broadcasting what makes you think ccp would be amenable to this change considering the long term bans people have recieved over it currently? Should these people have their accounts reactivated retroactively? Commander Aze For CSM XII https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=506400 Support the Community #Broadcast4Reps
Solidus Obscura Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition 6	Posted - 2017.02.24 01:23:49 - [8] - Quote commander aze wrote: So i run 4 of 10 accounts in an incursion. Now its muscle memory at this point but its also fair. With scroll time and that I rarely if ever have actions effect more than 1 account per second i think or i believe their system would be smart enough to see broadcasting happen serverside as its not easy to hit for instance vanguard incursions 10 accounts in the same 2 second window.. i run 4 screens and move the cursor between them doing everything manualy. I feel that this is fair as it falls in the EULA as fair game to do. Due to the past controversy over isboxer and key broadcasting what makes you think ccp would be amenable to this change considering the long term bans people have recieved over it currently? Should these people have their accounts reactivated retroactively? It depends really - when you use a lot of accounts you want to be efficient. As long as you're not broadcasting, you can still get "good" enough to get multiple character actions out per tick. I would be able to bring these perspectives to CCP in a more direct fashion as part of the CSM. Ultimately it is up to CCP to enforce their EULA but if they were to review borderline cases and understand what could be done, legally, they could reconsider their choices. CSMs can only advocate and that would be my plan. :) Solidus for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=512158&find=unread
Gaara's sniper MLG1337420BlazeIt360TitanNoScopeCorporationSWAG Goonswarm Federation 39	Posted - 2017.02.28 14:13:45 - [9] - Quote judging by other time someone tried to go to csm as a multiboxer supporter it didn't go well. Unless you have MC vote brigading you .Maybe you have a chance then. You have my vote then.
Solidus Ozkavosh Molotov Coalition 2	Posted - 2017.02.28 15:28:05 - [10] - Quote Who are you and why did you steal my name?

Nissai Vries Roving Guns Inc. Mercenary Coalition 2	Posted - 2017.02.28 15:50:23 - [11] - Quote +1 Amazing guy, hard-working, smart and just generally really nice. Also he has a strong killer instinct so he ha the best combo of PVE and PVP knowledge and he's super driven. So yeah defo has my vote!
DeMichael Crimson Republic University Minmatar Republic 59671	Posted - 2017.03.02 14:43:40 - [12] - Quote Hello, My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes would you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ? Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election. DMC 'The Plan' \| California Eve Players \| Proposal - The Endless Battle
Solidus Obscura Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition 10	Posted - 2017.03.03 19:06:38 - [13] - Quote Gaara's sniper wrote: judging by other time someone tried to go to csm as a multiboxer supporter it didn't go well. Unless you have MC vote brigading you .Maybe you have a chance then. You have my vote then. Vote for folks you feel would do the best job, not who would get vote brigaded :P Solidus wrote: Who are you and why did you steal my name? DeMichael Crimson wrote: Hello, My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes would you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ? Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election. DMC Would you mind to clarify this? Do you mean in relation to Faction Warfare and the main four races, or in relation to Corporations/Missions and the effect of the standings? Solidus for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=512158&find=unread
DeMichael Crimson Republic University Minmatar Republic 59709	Posted - 2017.03.03 20:00:20 - [14] - Quote Solidus Obscura wrote: DeMichael Crimson wrote: Hello, My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes would you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ? Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election. DMC Would you mind to clarify this? Do you mean in relation to Faction Warfare and the main four races, or in relation to Corporations/Missions and the effect of the standings? Just the general overall aspect of Faction standings in-game which basically affects everyone. I just wanted to know your viewpoint about it and what changes you'd propose. DMC 'The Plan' \| California Eve Players \| Proposal - The Endless Battle
Solidus Obscura Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition 13	Posted - 2017.03.04 16:47:34 - [15] - Quote DeMichael Crimson wrote: Thanks for the reply. Just the general overall aspect of Faction standings in-game which basically affects everyone. I just wanted to know your viewpoint about it and what changes you'd propose. DMC As a mechanic it makes sense to have but it feels very archaic and there are limited ways to improve standings. Some ways are very esoteric and it's a grind if you're starting from low/negative standings. One thing to consider further is that things like markets and industry are moving away from NPC stations to citadels and these standings are having less relevancy. Perhaps if they were linked to other mechanics, like LP purchases/discounts (I think they have some impact but only for enabling purchase), it would help make them a bit more relevant - but this would be a low priority thing for CCP, I would assume. Solidus for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=512158&find=unread
DeMichael Crimson Republic University Minmatar Republic 59761	Posted - 2017.03.05 01:30:58 - [16] - Quote Solidus Obscura wrote: DeMichael Crimson wrote: Thanks for the reply. Just the general overall aspect of Faction standings in-game which basically affects everyone. I just wanted to know your viewpoint about it and what changes you'd propose. DMC As a mechanic it makes sense to have but it feels very archaic and there are limited ways to improve standings. Some ways are very esoteric and it's a grind if you're starting from low/negative standings. One thing to consider further is that things like markets and industry are moving away from NPC stations to citadels and these standings are having less relevancy. Perhaps if they were linked to other mechanics, like LP purchases/discounts (I think they have some impact but only for enabling purchase), it would help make them a bit more relevant - but this would be a low priority thing for CCP, I would assume. Hello and thanks for the reply. I agree there are limited ways to improve standings and most of them are indeed esoteric / unknown to most players. And yes you're right, currently the only way to repair negative Faction standings is to grind missions. Eve Online was based on having a balance in 'Risk vs Reward' and 'Actions vs Consequences' which makes this game great. In the past Characters use to be accountable for their actions in-game, now most everything has been dumbed down and turned into easy mode for the instant gratification crowd. That's something I don't want to see happen to Faction standings. Currently the in-game aspects of Faction standings : Positive Faction standings are the only way to access Cosmos Agents (one time access). Positive Faction and Corporation standings are needed to access Research Agents. All other Agents only require minimal amount of Faction standing for access (-2.00 or higher standing). High Faction standings reduce Market Broker fees and Reprocessing fees in NPC stations. At -5.00 or lower Faction standing, Empire NPC's will attack when in their space. In my opinion CCP made a big mistake when they removed the need to have Faction standings to anchor POS in high sec space. It made Faction standings more meaningful in-game than just a way to access Agents. Now I'd love to see more content pertaining to Faction standings be added to the game but at this time my inquiry is based more on the effects of negative Faction standings to the playerbase. Since it takes time for players to ruin Faction standings then it should also take some time to repair those standings. However the info to complete that task should be readily available and easily understood by players in-game. I created and shared the 'Faction Standing Repair Plan' with the playerbase on the forums back in 2010. Over the past 7 years it has helped countless amount of players to rectify what seemed like an unsolvable issue. In my opinion players need more options available to repair negative Faction standings then what I've listed in 'The Plan'. Most of those Event Agents can only be accessed once in the characters life. There's a lot of players in-game who don't read the forums and don't know that guide exists. They've basically accepted the fact they're cut off from engaging in available content due to negative Faction standings. Repairing those standings is a big task even for experienced players who are familiar with 'The Plan'. New players who haven't learned the game yet can easily mess up their Faction standings without even knowing it right from the start, resulting in no access to half of Empire space. Anyway, I just wanted to provide some feedback through the CSM for CCP to consider. I believe these options would definitely help players in-game. Faction standing repair process be implemented in-game to be very intuitive, not obscure (tutorial perhaps). Changes to Faction standings notify players with on screen pop up message (option to deactivate). Actions that would cause negative Faction standing trigger on screen pop up warning (option to deactivate). All Anti-Empire mission briefings have a warning to inform players those missions will incur negative Faction standings. Implement Tags for Standings in-game based on similar game mechanics as Tags for Security. Add NPC Agents to in-game Agent Finder for Faction standing repair (similar to proposal in my forum signature). Once again good luck with the upcoming election. DMC 'The Plan' \| California Eve Players \| Proposal - The Endless Battle
Cochise Chiricahua The Scope Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2017.03.08 19:58:59 - [17] - Quote 07 Candidate! First, thank you for your time and effort (both present and future) in representing the capsuleers of New Eden! TheyGÇÖre much appreciated. IGÇÖm preparing to cast my vote in the CSM12 elections. After reading the information you submitted, though, I still have a question. By way of background, I started in Eve as a hauler, moving freight in T1 industrials and gradually working my way up in both ships and cargo. However, I repeatedly found my progress impeded by gankers who would destroy my ship and steal my cargo. In low- and null-sec space, thatGÇÖs to be expected. You place your bet and take your chances. In high-sec space, however, this is very frustrating. Why have high-sec space at all then? This frustration drove me into anti-ganking, and IGÇÖve been a proud member of Thomas en Chasteaux's High-Sec Militia for several months now. So, my question. Where do you stand on high-sec ganking? IGÇÖll concede that ganking is a legitimate style of game play, as CCP has ruled. But I also feel that it should be difficult and dangerous (for the ganker) in the 30% of New Eden designated as high-sec space. In particular, IGÇÖd like to see CCP tweak the game mechanics so that the criminal flag generated by looting a ganked freighter in high-sec space follows all players who handle that loot, and otherwise make looting more realistic. (Thomas en Chasteaux's ideas, not mine.) As a member of the CSM, would you present such an idea to CCP? Would you push for its adoption? What other game changes might you consider to make high-sec ganking more difficult and less profitable? Regards, Cochise Chiricahua.
Solidus Obscura Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition 16	Posted - 2017.03.09 16:13:40 - [18] - Quote In response to Cochise Chiricahua: Suicide ganking is definitely a valid style of play and one that I will always support in this game. It is an important part of the game that makes it feel dangerous and forces players to think about their decisions, especially when hauling extremely valuable cargo. Historically, CCP has made suicide ganking increasingly difficult, especially with changes to freighter EHP. I believe the mechanics around performing a suicide gank and acquiring the loot from the gank are currently sound. As a multiboxer, I also support this style of play (and you'll soon have another crazy multiboxer to deal with :P, unless I am elected of course- cause :rip: my time). The only thing I would advocate change for is the ability to perma tackle a target through bumping. Bumping is a legitimate mechanic, I feel, to prevent targets from escaping through a gate. But as a mechanic to prevent a warp out, for an excessive period of time, I feel is unfair. Suicide ganks should be coordinated when the opportunity arises, not at the complete leisure of the gank team. I would like CCP to implement the three minute warp out mechanic they had previously proposed to force extra effort to keep a target 'permanently tackled.' However, I would balance this against the freighter EHP buffs that recently occurred (reverse them). I would like to see more man-mode suicide ganks on the gates but I don't feel it should take the increased number of gankers/DPS that the EHP buffs gave. Solidus for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=512158&find=unread


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.