These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#781 - 2014-11-25 21:49:21 UTC
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.

Evil RatKid
FunGu Arsten
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#782 - 2014-11-25 21:49:33 UTC
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
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#783 - 2014-11-25 21:50:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Stygian Soul
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
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#784 - 2014-11-25 21:50:17 UTC
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
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#785 - 2014-11-25 21:50:22 UTC
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
Doomheim
#786 - 2014-11-25 21:52:19 UTC
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.
Jessica Duranin
Doomheim
#787 - 2014-11-25 21:56:36 UTC
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!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#788 - 2014-11-25 22:01:36 UTC
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.
Jon Hellguard
X-COM
#789 - 2014-11-25 22:08:03 UTC
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
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#790 - 2014-11-25 22:08:40 UTC
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?
Jedediah Arndtz
Jedediah Arndtz Corporation
#791 - 2014-11-25 22:10:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jedediah Arndtz
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

Edit: Also RIP Battle Cube and his glorious Tournament Machariels
Sentenced 1989
#792 - 2014-11-25 22:11:07 UTC
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

Epic Arc Guide
Jessica Duranin
Doomheim
#793 - 2014-11-25 22:11:35 UTC
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
#794 - 2014-11-25 22:12:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
So long as the Isboxer folk who are going to rage quit with their zillion 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
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#795 - 2014-11-25 22:14:07 UTC
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!"
Ming Vue
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#796 - 2014-11-25 22:14:22 UTC
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
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#797 - 2014-11-25 22:14:34 UTC
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.

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.
Contract Wench
Argentum Holdings
#798 - 2014-11-25 22:15:47 UTC
Makhpella wrote:
Hi CPP if I warp squad do I get banned?


CCP technically this is input broadcasting. Please remove fleet based warps.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#799 - 2014-11-25 22:15:53 UTC
Jessica Duranin wrote:
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.
That wasn't my statement. I'm arguing the opposite.
Jedediah Arndtz
Jedediah Arndtz Corporation
#800 - 2014-11-25 22:16:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jedediah Arndtz
Balder Verdandi wrote:


We're grown ups, we can handle it.




What? We're adults? SINCE WHEN? WHY DIDN'T ANYONE TELL ME?!?!