EVE General Discussion

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.

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 ;)

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.

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.

Edit: Even if bomber fleets were the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak it doesn't mean other broadcast usage wasn't a part of that load.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.