These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2921 - 2014-12-30 08:47:55 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
RE: Adrie

Ok, I'll disagree with that point, since EVE is already what it is with a mix of F2P and P2P, and I think adding more players would mean more revenue. In other words, if it's likely true, it's also true right now, and even by percentages, more players means more revenue.

So. Why they would do such a thing is revenue, which they would gain.

My second main issue with your statement is the presumption that making EVE not-clunky means appeasing childish, selfish behavior, and also that you said it.

I'm not concerned with things like people's personalities, and I think it's a waste of time and words to be judge players when the goal is whether they have enough fun to pay money.

And Nolak, I don't know where you got the prompts for all those words. If it's in response to my comment to Adrie, I'll need each paragraph summarized with their main statements and conclusions (per paragraph). Reading that post feels like wading through knee-high water.


The case you made about having a clunky UI just because we have so much information available, be it useful or useless, a few pages back. I really disagree with the streamlining of the UI as a whole. What we have now is the middle road of being playable, but also being highly customizable. Sure, you could compartmentalize information from the overview (and it's columns) onto the target box, but the information would still be there. If I fly a railgun or artillery boat, I need to see the transversal of the target to shoot at the correct time. If I fly missile boats, I need to see the target velocity to make an educated guess on if I can hit the target and determine the maximum projected range I have. A ceptor orbiting at 20km against my HAMS flying 28km doesn't mean I will hit it because it can outrun that missile for a tad too long.

Information can be shuffled around between elements but I cannot come up with a whole UI package which gives the necessary information to not be an idiot who just shoots primaries from a swarm relying on RNG giving good enough rolls to alpha through the tank. The reason the new industry UI works (in my opinion) is because they also changed the mechanics and made data which was previously required fully moot (slots). If making the UI more streamlined means losing features which are either old and cumbersome or actually useful, it has to take a long discussion on if we can ditch information people use daily just to satisfy the cravings of someone who is not used to depth in games.

Making Eve "non-clunky" means it's going to be more accessible to a larger audience, but if the underlying mechanics are not changed, the player base which lacks the attention span to learn a game for 6 months is not going to stay no matter how pretty and functional the UI itself is. Someone once compared this to the chicken and egg problem, but I had to disagree back then and I still would due to us not having either side of the discussion in a state which could support the other; to make eve accessible we need to gut the UI and gut the game mechanics to get more mainstream players.

I'm not sure the game would survive that.
Daneau
Roprocor Ltd
#2922 - 2014-12-30 09:08:48 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Rain6637 wrote:
is this the twilight zone?

Yes. I mean no. Take the blue pill.

I didn't mean you with the earlier remarks btw *ahem*. There was an older topic used to justify multiboxing where someone posted snaps of their screens with a handmade keyboard input. Your 8 inch screens are quite cute compared to that. Although the plyboard wall mount, batman logo, plastic cup and strumpet figurine.... anyway, moving along.

What's that ball thing in the final snap though? I want one.


http://www.bodystore.com/3/sv/artiklar/abilica-fitnessboll-75-cm

Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2923 - 2014-12-30 09:28:37 UTC
Adrie. your post assumes EVE cannot be improved to appeal to everyone while retaining its functionality. I'm not sure if you're being difficult or if you're just unimaginative. I'm not sure why you would find it acceptable for a video game to be flawed like this.

I'll keep your post in mind for my second UI suggestion for replacing the eyesore that is overview. As for the other things like multiboxing, I have several threads open in F&I, one in particular, for ways to stream multiboxing, which is a product that is being sold.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2924 - 2014-12-30 09:37:29 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:
The case you made about having a clunky UI just because we have so much information available
I may be misreading, but think the comments was made as in making all of the changes required to cater to the more casual market, not just UI changes.

I'm with that too. I think that EVE in it's current state is destined for failure, as new players are required to keep the game running, but new player retention is so low. Changes like this current once, which attacks dedicated players (only dedicated players are going to be running 30+ accounts) aren't particularly smart, since those players you know you've already drawn in and kept. I think there's plenty of room for middleground, where players can come in and have mindless fun without damaging the spirit of EVE.

Personally, I think they've overlooked PvE too much. If PvE were more involved and engaging, it would draw more people in. If it then encouraged you to move out of your comfort zone and endanger yourself for significantly improved rewards, it would go a long way to bridging the gap between the "level my raven" players and the solid PvP aspects. As it currently stands most new players jump into PvE then either get bored and quit, or stay doing that forever. The mechanics as they are encourage you to smash PvE with ruthless efficiency and turn it into a grind.

The UI though was pretty terrible and now it's more terrible, since it's basically the same but now takes considerably more from your computer.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2925 - 2014-12-30 09:39:44 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
Adrie. your post assumes EVE cannot be improved to appeal to everyone while retaining its functionality. I'm not sure if you're being difficult or if you're just unimaginative. I'm not sure why you would find it acceptable for a video game to be flawed like this.


Nobody's saying that EVE cannot be improved. We're saying that EVE was marketed towards a niche subset of the MMO universe, and changing that will lose CCP some of it's hardcore fans, and will change what it means to play EVE / be a fan of EVE. We're saying that we don't want EVE to turn into a WoW clone with spaceships.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2926 - 2014-12-30 09:50:20 UTC
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2927 - 2014-12-30 10:08:25 UTC
EVE already has hardcore (small gang pvp, WH, pirate, super pilots, trading mogul, etc) and casual (level my raven, mine a belt) players though. Attempting to open the door for the WoW players who are used to "die, respawn, no loss of stuff", lack of scams, and general attitudes will be disastrous.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2928 - 2014-12-30 10:25:40 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
EVE already has hardcore (small gang pvp, WH, pirate, super pilots, trading mogul, etc) and casual (level my raven, mine a belt) players though. Attempting to open the door for the WoW players who are used to "die, respawn, no loss of stuff", lack of scams, and general attitudes will be disastrous.
EVEs PCU is in decline and they a hemorrhaging both players and devs, so it can't really get much worse. Besides, nobody is saying "turn it into WoW". The problem with people like you is that when someone says "make it more accessible", you hear "take away everything that makes EVE what it is". You realise there's room for middleground, right? It is possible for them to make the game more appealing to the more casual market while also retaining the more "hardcore"* players and keeping to the fundamental design of EVE. Sure, the moment you cater to casual players, you'll get the minority whining about how it's turned into hello kitty online, and the usual nonsense (and funnily enough those same people will still not quit anyway) but the game would continue. Take highsec awoxing removal for example. It's a small step to help newer players more easily move from NPC corps to player ones, and sure, it's made some people rage to no end, but overall it's a good change.

* I use the term "hardcore" very loosely, since there's noting really "hardcore" about EVE. When you consider how easy it is to become rich, you consider ships to be more like ammo, and you look at how you need to actively choose to put yourself in danger, you realise there's not really that much of a hardcore element. There's not even real consequences. Anything I want to do that might have consequences I can just use alts for. If I want to gank or scam someone, I can just use an alt. Killrights? Bounties? Reputation damage? Naaaah.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2929 - 2014-12-30 10:37:56 UTC
If there's room for middleground, these people have yet to show me. Dojos, sure, I was all for that. Re-balance SOV, awesome. Removal of highsec AWOX, I can understand. But then what? The perma-death thing with the 20m sp toons? Thera, which turned into a 24/7 camper heaven? Making it harder for smaller corps to live in WH space by adding in unneeded danger to rolling holes?
If the new player gates can take a person into lowsec or null while avoiding the gatecamps and the guy in Rancer, awesome. That'd do a great deal to give people who would normally never set foot outside of highsec a taste of danger. But attacking multiboxing like it's the one thing keeping players away while ignoring the underlying issues is messed up.
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#2930 - 2014-12-30 12:03:06 UTC
*breathes heavily*

Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

20. All posts must be related to EVE Online.

Posts regarding other companies and products or services are prohibited and any content of this nature will be removed. Posts regarding other games are however permitted on the Out of Pod Experience forum for the purposes of discussion only.

23. Post constructively.

Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

Please be mindful of the forum rules before continuing to post in this thread. I've removed numerous posts on the last couple of pages which were completely off topic.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Solecist Project
#2931 - 2014-12-30 12:27:34 UTC
ISD Decoy wrote:
*breathes heavily*

Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

20. All posts must be related to EVE Online.

Posts regarding other companies and products or services are prohibited and any content of this nature will be removed. Posts regarding other games are however permitted on the Out of Pod Experience forum for the purposes of discussion only.

23. Post constructively.

Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

Please be mindful of the forum rules before continuing to post in this thread. I've removed numerous posts on the last couple of pages which were completely off topic.

Wow you must have huuuuge lungs! :O

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2932 - 2014-12-30 12:36:02 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
Adrie. your post assumes EVE cannot be improved to appeal to everyone while retaining its functionality. I'm not sure if you're being difficult or if you're just unimaginative. I'm not sure why you would find it acceptable for a video game to be flawed like this.

I'll keep your post in mind for my second UI suggestion for replacing the eyesore that is overview. As for the other things like multiboxing, I have several threads open in F&I, one in particular, for ways to stream multiboxing, which is a product that is being sold.


I'm not being unimaginative as such, I'm choosing not to exert energy on something which is not needed in my head as it has two possible results: regression or removal of features. I've seen and I remember your cones for tracking in space and it is a novel idea. What I see in that is 300 cones on my screen blocking everything I see OR having to target every single ship to see which one I can hit. This approach is easier to understand and would help newer players to understand the tracking pattern, but I cannot fathom having to click every single thing on my overview just to find a favourable angular velocity. You'd have to cater to both ways or implement nothing, we all know how much CCP likes options in our UI's.

Personally I don't find the game flawed in regards of how information is presented in the UI to the point where the "little things" thread is not sufficient in providing the expected improvements. Other MMO's I've played in which ahve supported LUA scripting I've always stripped away as much graphical fidelity and replaced it with as much information in the smallest container imaginable. This is to me the perfect UI, it doesn't include flashing colors, it doesn't include newest in UI design, it includes the necessary information to play the game presented in a way which is easy to instantaneously find and utilize. On top of that, if information is crucial to your performance in-game (in eve, capacitor, HP levels, in other games character health, resouces etc) that information cannot be obscured in any way. Currently I have the option of looking at the highly effective capacitor flower and it even separates the amounts in clearly understood segments on top of providing a percentual readout at the same time. It's all the information necessary to utilize the capacitor effectively. Could it use a bit less room on the UI? Yes. Is it bad design to the point of cluttering up my screen? No.

I've have yet to see a replacement to the overview which is both functional and provides all the information I need to make decisions effectively. Remember, this implementation has to scale to hundreds of objects on the overview, not just 1v1 elite PvP.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2933 - 2014-12-30 12:48:05 UTC
That cone is just one part of the ways to replace overview. Don't worry, I have fleet engagements in mind, and as a result it also scales down to just 1 target.

The point of bringing up the UI is an overall game design goal of making EVE accessible to all players. Experienced and novice, uniboxers and multiboxers.

A basic game design strategy is balancing things to equal the best strategy, or item, or gameplay mechanic. Recently this was done to recons to bring them up to par with the Falcon. Doing the same thing to multiboxing would require bringing one-client players to the same level of efficiency as multiboxed clients.

What was done with ISBoxer was the opposite, in this case--the most effective thing was brought down.

It might sound like a good move, but it still leaves the gap between a single-client player and a multiboxing player. So in the interest of good balance and addressing what EVE is... uniboxers need some type of buff. This rule announcement should be complemented with more in-client support.

I'm assuming we can agree that EVE has condoned multiboxing long enough to consider multiboxing part of its identity.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Lexxy Roxx
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2934 - 2014-12-30 15:05:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexxy Roxx
Hello

after i send a Ingame Petition and i cant get clarification i now try here to get clarification.

I'm using a G19 Keybord and using a function key to let my drones engage the target or coming back to my drone hangar. Is that ok ?
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2935 - 2014-12-30 15:44:16 UTC
yeah that's fine.

Rain6637 wrote:
Just got a GM response to a support ticket, and it says binding a G-key to F1 through F8 is legal.

I was also referred to this post

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Lexxy Roxx
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2936 - 2014-12-30 16:01:53 UTC
THX
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#2937 - 2014-12-30 16:05:05 UTC
Binding one key to one key, that's fine.

Binding one key to press multiple, that's less fine.

https://twitter.com/Fuzzysteve/status/545972376115376130 See the response from CCP Random.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2938 - 2014-12-30 16:13:12 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Binding one key to one key, that's fine.

Binding one key to press multiple, that's less fine.

https://twitter.com/Fuzzysteve/status/545972376115376130 See the response from CCP Random.
Well according to Rain's GM response, pressing multiple is fine too. Perhaps as a CSM member you might be able to let CCP know that as it currently stands there's enormous confusion over what is and isn't allowed, and while historically it seems multiple keybinds were fine, there now seems to be confusion around that even within their own GM team. It looks like depending on who gets a look at your case, legality will vary.

At the end of the day, CCP can ban whatever they want to ban, and the majority of us will be fully willing to follow those rules, but both we and they need to actually know where we stand to do that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#2939 - 2014-12-30 16:22:15 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Binding one key to one key, that's fine.

Binding one key to press multiple, that's less fine.

https://twitter.com/Fuzzysteve/status/545972376115376130 See the response from CCP Random.
Well according to Rain's GM response, pressing multiple is fine too. Perhaps as a CSM member you might be able to let CCP know that as it currently stands there's enormous confusion over what is and isn't allowed, and while historically it seems multiple keybinds were fine, there now seems to be confusion around that even within their own GM team. It looks like depending on who gets a look at your case, legality will vary.

At the end of the day, CCP can ban whatever they want to ban, and the majority of us will be fully willing to follow those rules, but both we and they need to actually know where we stand to do that.



Given that Random is part of the security team, and what he's said later on in that thread, I'd err on the side of caution.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2940 - 2014-12-30 16:28:44 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Given that Random is part of the security team, and what he's said later on in that thread, I'd err on the side of caution.
As would I, but then you have varying levels of erring, and you're back to there being potential unfairness where some people are doing what another person would consider over the line yet not getting punished. All of it still doesn't change that there is far too much confusion and far too little communication going on with this whole change. Many valid questions have been raised regarding this change, but if we raise petitions, we told to post here, and if we post here we're ignored. Surely you can understand why that would be frustrating?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.