These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#2001 - 2014-11-30 18:00:25 UTC
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? Shocked

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 - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"

Josef Djugashvilis
#2002 - 2014-11-30 18:13:29 UTC
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
Vanity Thy Name Is
#2003 - 2014-11-30 18:31:55 UTC
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

Minny boat flyer, unofficial squeaky wheel.

'Game Ethics and Morality Monitor' I remember promises.

Snark at 11-24/7/365.25. Overshare? Yup.

Yes it's my fault. And if you don't staap it I'll do it again. ;-P

No you can't has my stuffs OR my SPs.

Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2004 - 2014-11-30 18:35:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Cervix Thumper
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.
VIXIT CORP
United Alliance
#2005 - 2014-11-30 18:42:10 UTC
CCP thank you.

On my knees with my hands folded.

Thanks again
Josef Djugashvilis
#2006 - 2014-11-30 18:45:57 UTC
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
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2007 - 2014-11-30 18:50:27 UTC
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.

Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2008 - 2014-11-30 19:17:01 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
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. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

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
#2009 - 2014-11-30 20:06:44 UTC
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.. Roll
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#2010 - 2014-11-30 20:58:55 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Flips sign back to "Open".

Thread reopened, same rules apply!

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
#2011 - 2014-11-30 22:01:12 UTC
The Ironfist
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2012 - 2014-11-30 22:10:29 UTC
http://i.imgur.com/CxsdMHs.gif

Just gonna leave this here because its pretty accurate.
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#2013 - 2014-11-30 22:26:02 UTC
ShadowandLight wrote:
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.


Speechless Shocked

Would not read again. 0/10

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"

Josef Djugashvilis
#2014 - 2014-11-30 22:35:07 UTC
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
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2015 - 2014-11-30 22:37:52 UTC
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.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2016 - 2014-11-30 22:48:17 UTC
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.
Buldra
Thukker Corsairs
#2017 - 2014-11-30 23:00:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Buldra
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 Twisted
Udema is cesspool so i wouldn't go there Big smile
Some RandomAlt Assene
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2018 - 2014-12-01 04:41:18 UTC
RUS Commander, Boxing is overpowered, but knowing it .. why to promote it with buddy programs etc.
RUS Comannder
Writing Memoirs
#2019 - 2014-12-01 05:54:42 UTC
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.
RUS Comannder
Writing Memoirs
#2020 - 2014-12-01 06:41:07 UTC  |  Edited by: RUS Comannder
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, and I don't care if your care or what you think about my decision making criteria.

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. The following 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 until and if I ever stop enjoying it.

Thank you,