EVE General Discussion

How long should one pause between words?

If I say "shieldsfire" , real fast, would that cause a ban?

Or should it be "shields" ... wait 5 seconds ... "fire"?

Just curious.

Given that keyboards like the Logitech G15 are not affected by this (tip: the keyboard is common within CCP itself), I don't see how there would be any problem with, say, a voice command of "hardeners on" that serially pressed the keys mapped to your hardener modules in the currently active client only.

What they're concerned about is sending commands to more than one client at once. If you say "hardeners on" and ships in two or more clients turn their hardeners on, then CCP has a problem with you.

I have no problem with that. I started boxing because I could, and because having pointlessly large amounts of isk for a single toon makes me happy, and because I like being able to decide to throw a pirate battleship at the other members of my family who play on a whim. Isboxing isn't my playstyle, but my preferred method of iskwhoring harder.

To me, ISboxer was a tool to implement force multiplication, just like shiny fits and hulls.I deliberately set up to avoid as much interaction on my part as possible, while being prepared for anyone who cam hunting me.

Well maybe CCP *does* have to ban any and all forms of modifying the client, organizing windows, external programs, and fiddling with the cache so people would realize that the "They came for the XXXX but I didn't say anything because I wasn't a XXXX" argument is completely bonkers.


Except that those were the three parts of ISBoxing that was "in the spotlight", so-to-speak, and had the most complainants about (from a minority of the game indeed). If CCP balanced those three activities, I would wager you 10b ISK that the number of "I'm butthurt because he's doing something different" complaints and posts in GD would drop by 99% if not 100%. From my dorm mate who is a first year med student, slapping a band-aid over a gash in the leg is temporary at best and will only cause problems down the road, when it'd be much simpler to perform the necessary surgery to save his leg and his life.


I'm attempting to say that treating the symptoms while ignoring the cure is not exactly the best thing to do. CCP would do much better by their userbase if they acknowledged that the areas discussed were not optimized and attempted to fix them instead of banning those who did the math and found that 2>1.

Because people have never argued a point that was wrong before . The people arguing for this change seem to have no knowledge of ISBoxer, which is why most of them think that this will make a profound difference. And no, the think that's wrong with it is "ZOMG THAT GUY MAKES MORE ISK THAN ME!" which is the same as any multiboxer, isboxer or not. I used to have the exact same complaint put against me when I ran completely manual multiboxing (it's unfair, you gain too much for a single player, etc, etc, etc)..

And sure, they could keep banning stuff until they fix the issue, but I guarantee they will end up banning all multiboxing before they fix the issue with bans.

That seems like you are saying that one cannot legitimately hold the opinion the command broadcasting is bad for the game. If it is, and I believe that to be the case than anything that effectively leaves it indistinguishable from broadcasting, where broadcasting is distinquishable advantageous unasisted multiboxing, should be banned.

We could go down this slippery slope, but I'm not as rationally I'd have a PvP opt in by now had any of the slippery slopes played out on this forum.

Incursions are in the spotlight, but your solution doesn't resolve the issue in regards to brocasted multiboxing so it missed the mark. It's a solution for a different problem which leaves the issue this change is designed to resolve untouched.

Mining sure, but if captcha's for bomber are just a nuisance. You're 1 of 3 on the concepts you cite without a detrimental impact on game play for non offenders. The fact that others gameplay with a single client is expendable and single client runner income nerfable so you can still retain an advantage seems pretty close to the "They came for the XXXX but I didn't say anything because I wasn't a XXXX" argument you decried above.

They can't treat the cause. As you said 2>1, but that is intentional for actually making social connections and cooperation worthwhile. The other cause is the relative ease of command inputs, so the 2 causes together are that this is a social game which doesn't have a horribly frustrating control scheme. You either have to break the consistency of the controls or nullify group advantages to treat the cause, both of which punish people not being targeted by this change.

It objectively accomplishes banning multicasting regardless of the opinions an individual player has on it's effectiveness in some other unstated goal, the effect on other players responses or CCP's efficacy in enforcement.

The level of interaction becomes irrelevant if a single person can handle it because command broadcasting directly multiplies that responsiveness across the other clients. That's why only inconsistency in inputs, rather than quantity of inputs, can act against this issue. And fundamentally they have never done that. Rather, they've left the user with the capacity in the client alone to dictate how their inputs are configured. That capacity would need to be broken and input not statically mapped to actions.

Of the examples given a mining minigame does this, and so do captcha's. So herein we have the issue. Do we introduce "minigames" to all inputs? Use captcha's to turn on guns in incursions? I suppose we could replace all missions and incursions with minigame like systems, like hacking, but is that a positive change?

Not if the interaction is specific to the client and the specific time it's being done, not exactly the same for every client performing it. For example, try using ISBoxer broadcasting to simultaneously probe down multiple wormholes. It won't happen.

Broadcasting is not intelligent behaviour. It does exactly the same on all clients. The only reason it works is because certain game mechanics are far too simple and require no thought. Beyond that though, it's obvious that even with broadcasting gone, there's still going to be exactly the same problems with people finding multiboxing unfair.

No, the mechanics need to be looked at in detail, not quickly glanced over with "how can we jam a fix in here". They are long overdue for an overhaul on several game play mechanics, certainly not least of which is mining which has been needing an overhaul for several years. Into each of these mechanics they need to make people have to think about what they are doing and act on their circumstances at the time, not just do exactly the same steps every single time and get exactly the same output.

No, you gave no reason, acting as if the change was put in for the specific reason of making the change. Like why should I turn left? Because I'm turning left. It's the action, not the reason. But seriously, I'm done arguing with you about it. Whatever you want to run off and think the reason is, go right ahead. I'll remain here with reality.

That's what I was doing. Exploring the concept of what it takes to ensure client a has to be doing something different than client B. In the case of combat PvE that is never the case because reducing incoming damage and mitigating hostile repair always makes you want to have all your clients do the same thing. So are you saying the core fundamentals of all of Eve's in space combat is flawed?

Also to what point should this scale? How do we prevent small groups from broadcasting tasks in groups? Or is 2 players with 20 broadcasted clients not an issue while one guy with 10 is? As it is now each client acting individually is horrendously undesirable and that issue goes far deeper than content design into core mechanics and simple math. Resolve that and we're fundamentally playing a different game.

I've been constantly giving the reason present that the issue is what the capability brings. You claim this isn't the case but that seems like a mechanism to say that everyone but you is wrong about how this impacts the efficacy of multiboxing.