Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The real question is this:

do you feel like you can not compete?
do you feel like others are getting an advantage?
do you feel like others are getting more return from their time ingame?


> you can compete as ccp has stated they are not against it
> what advantage is there when it is allowed and you too can do it if you choose to?
> has it not always been a min-max setup for most players to spend as little time on PVE to PVP?


Yes i believe multiboxing has alot of great features and it improves my game, gameplay. But in all honnesty, you are discussing the wrong issue.
isboxer to multibox =/= ability to multibox

There are many other ways to multibox, some that you might not know about. As said before, there will always be other software packages, and even the odd mechanical setup to multibox. Hardware changes can make multiboxing possible too...


So if isboxer is banned you can still do the same thing through other means, and we will keep having this threadspam on every other program, pc setup etc...
So stop making shitthreads about only one of many software packages and other crazy inventions one might have ( woodensticks) and ask ccp to remove the ability to multibox?


Either you force 1 client per player or allow multiboxing -> banning one software package will do nothing... pretty simple...

People talking about three clients per computer are simply being stupid. CCP will never implement a restriction like that. What kind of sound business model is that?

For another thing, how many people here have actually used ISBoxer? Because I'm seeing a lot of claims about it that do not square with my own experience.

One, it is very clunky and generally finds a way to **** you. It does not work that well with Eve's interface. It really only works at all if you have all your clients perfectly configured and in carefully controlled circumstances. It works if you are using identical ships all doing the same thing to the same target. If your UI gets at all ****** up you are totally screwed.

I've been on the receiving end of Ammzi's bomb runs and it sucked. I've also totally killed one of those Bomber wings when something went wrong on a gate and they could not evade.

For that reason, I don't n use ISBoxer for PVP, except to sit three snipers off a gate at range. Even that is a pain unless someone broadcasts a target.

As a small gang FC, I'd rather have eight people in my gang than one player with eight alts.but sometimes you take what you can get.

The thing I like most about ISBoxer is that it makes it so I can see most of three clients info on one screen at the same time. Before I had to alt tab frantically to make sure all my ships were still shooting the rats.

CCP should build these abilities into the game so I don't have to rely on third party tools to have some control more than two of my six accounts at once.

[qote=Iain Cariaba]
1) There is a hardware method of replicating the main features of any command multicasting software, thus the reason multicasting software is permitted by CCP. I'm not refering to the sticks and tape method. Go google "usb multicaster" and find it yourself, I'm not posting the link again.[/qute]


banning isboxer is proposing a ban on 9mm guns, and alloving 45mm relvolvers to be sold aslong as you dont know who uses them?


[qute=Iain Cariaba]
2) If CCP were to ban all command multicasters, they would have to ban using the MacOS, because the ability to multicast commands is native in MacOS. I'd guess that alienating Mac users would take a good chunk out of the budget, since CCP still makes a Mac client.[/qute]

ill hand you some tinfoil.. make a hat

[qute=Iain Cariaba]
3) Looking at the thread, I see all the usual anti-ISBoxer people posting. Guess what, one average ISBoxer has more subs than all of you combined, therefore represents a larger chunk of the subscription base. Want to guess who CCP is more likely to listen to?[/qute]

following your pattern, you say multiboxing is allowed until X clients , anything more is bannable? So your solution is to only have "X-client-multiboxing online"? > I refuse to go down to stupid level and rename a software package to make it look like its a botterprogram.... as the software pack has zero influence on your issue... its just one of many.


[qute=Iain Cariaba]


you dont need software... , nor does the EULA prevents me from using the software under its strict lettering... you should learn to read the full thing, and not pick half of the words out of a sentence. Try to understand them too before talking about what they mean...



[qute=Iain Cariaba]
Seriously, people, stop the pathetic whining. If the bad [/qute]


Agreed, bad game design is bad, so remove all ability to multibox. Can you now stop beeing butthurt about one software package and start directing your issues towards the real issue -ccp allowing more then 1 client per player.

All in all you seem to hate ISboxer, Innerspace? Can i give you this:
http://www.liquidsilver.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/eve-keyboard.jpg
This is totaly legal right!

Give everyone the ability to multibox.

It can be server side or client side, the difference would not be significant.
(Server side could be more practical, as client side would scale limited by hardware purchased by real life money, creating an indirect form of pay-to-win from one viewpoint)

You would have the accounts linked to each other through the account management tool.
It would be a violation of the eula to transfer accounts to another player on this level, as that would be account sharing.

The player themselves is the limiting factor in this.

The player would log into the master account, and have two options regarding each slave account.
Direct control, (swap into the slave account directly, for first person traditional play).
Indirect control, which would be logging that account in as a menu driven set of choices, while maintaining control from the master account in direct mode.
This might resemble a fleet screen UI, more than anything else.

Ship fittings, inventory control beyond basic, all of these would require direct control.

Group actions, would be possible through Indirect control.

EVE should be all inclusive, as software goes, concerning options for play.

I would call it Legion.

Thread locked.

The Rules:
17. Redundant and re-posted threads will be locked.

As a courtesy to other forum users, please search to see if there is a thread already open on the topic you wish to discuss. If so, please place your comments there instead. Multiple threads on the same subject clutter up the forums needlessly, causing good feedback and ideas to be lost. Please keep discussions regarding a topic to a single thread.