These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Petition - Full ban of multi boxing programs which duplicate clicks.

First post First post
Author
Josef Djugashvilis
#341 - 2013-02-25 17:08:12 UTC
Kate stark wrote:
ITT; butthurt players who can't afford multiple accounts selectively reading the EULA in order to try and get isoboxer banned for.... no apparent reason what so ever.

this thread really does need locking, or something.


I can afford multiple accounts.

But I do not wish to multi-box.

Ergo, your reasoning is flawed.

This is not a signature.

Vicata Heth
Sensible People
Sigma Grindset
#342 - 2013-02-27 08:59:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Vicata Heth
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:


I can afford multiple accounts.

But I do not know how to multi-box.

Ergo, CCP should nerf it so I don't have to become better.


Fixed that for you.

Your logic is like saying "I can afford a carrier, but I don't want to carrier rat. So CCP should ban carrier ratting.". Rather than take advantage of the situation (by catching carriers while ratting in this example), you *****.

Someone who is multiboxing cannot give any one account their full attention. They are at a major disadvantage vs a fleet full of people running 1 account each. Key broadcasting does not work in all circumstances. Start pointing one of their pilots as they're warping the fleet away. But that would require some actual thought. You're right, we should ***** about it on the forums instead.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#343 - 2013-02-27 09:08:04 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Kate stark wrote:
ITT; butthurt players who can't afford multiple accounts selectively reading the EULA in order to try and get isoboxer banned for.... no apparent reason what so ever.

this thread really does need locking, or something.

I've posted that this thread should have been locked (or something else like "why is this thread still here") but I can't find it. Must have been ten pages ago.

EDIT: Oh, I guess it was only two pages ago. The discussion must be slowing down.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Vicata Heth
Sensible People
Sigma Grindset
#344 - 2013-02-27 09:10:00 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Kate stark wrote:
ITT; butthurt players who can't afford multiple accounts selectively reading the EULA in order to try and get isoboxer banned for.... no apparent reason what so ever.

this thread really does need locking, or something.

I've posted that this thread should have been locked (or something else like "why is this thread still here") but I can't find it. Must have been ten pages ago.

EDIT: Oh, I guess it was only two pages ago. The discussion must be slowing down.


I'm sorry, where does your name say ISD again?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#345 - 2013-02-27 09:23:45 UTC
Vicata Heth wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Kate stark wrote:
ITT; butthurt players who can't afford multiple accounts selectively reading the EULA in order to try and get isoboxer banned for.... no apparent reason what so ever.

this thread really does need locking, or something.

I've posted that this thread should have been locked (or something else like "why is this thread still here") but I can't find it. Must have been ten pages ago.

EDIT: Oh, I guess it was only two pages ago. The discussion must be slowing down.


I'm sorry, where does your name say ISD again?

Nowhere. What's your point?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Boobiq
Imperial Express
#346 - 2013-02-28 08:18:57 UTC
Isboxer should be banned, there are many miners with 50+ accounts and obviously this is meant for isk selling not ingame fun.
Dave Stark
#347 - 2013-02-28 08:23:22 UTC
Boobiq wrote:
Isboxer should be banned, there are many miners with 50+ accounts and obviously this is meant for isk selling not ingame fun.


if it's so obvious, where is your irrefutable proof that every person that owns that many accounts is involved in RMT?

also, there's a sadistic joy to be had in running a fleet of ships that log in after DT and strip a 20 belt system in a few hours to deny every one else in the system any ore. especially when you see how many "change asteroid respawn timer" threads there have been in the last few days, each one considerably worse than the last.
Boobiq
Imperial Express
#348 - 2013-02-28 08:41:48 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Boobiq wrote:
Isboxer should be banned, there are many miners with 50+ accounts and obviously this is meant for isk selling not ingame fun.


if it's so obvious, where is your irrefutable proof that every person that owns that many accounts is involved in RMT?

also, there's a sadistic joy to be had in running a fleet of ships that log in after DT and strip a 20 belt system in a few hours to deny every one else in the system any ore. especially when you see how many "change asteroid respawn timer" threads there have been in the last few days, each one considerably worse than the last.


Cant tell for sure, but it is not normal. If one uses multiclick soft then how is it really different from botting ? Imo it is the same. In one case a player writes a script (does multiple click in advance) and in other case player does them in real time (but clicks are multiplied). For me it is the same.

Quick solution - remove PLEX.
Dave Stark
#349 - 2013-02-28 08:43:59 UTC
Boobiq wrote:
how is it really different from botting ?


because multiboxing actually requires you to be playing the game, and provide an input?
Boobiq
Imperial Express
#350 - 2013-02-28 08:46:09 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Boobiq wrote:
how is it really different from botting ?


because multiboxing actually requires you to be playing the game, and provide an input?


Did you even read my post ? Botting also requires input to set it up.
Dave Stark
#351 - 2013-02-28 08:47:35 UTC
Boobiq wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Boobiq wrote:
how is it really different from botting ?


because multiboxing actually requires you to be playing the game, and provide an input?


Did you even read my post ? Botting also requires input to set it up.


yeah except everything requires input to set it up, so it's a moot point.
Dave Stark
#352 - 2013-02-28 08:48:52 UTC
quick guys, logging in requires an input! ban logging in!
Boobiq
Imperial Express
#353 - 2013-02-28 08:49:32 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
quick guys, logging in requires an input! ban logging in!


Obviously multiboxer ?
Dave Stark
#354 - 2013-02-28 08:53:08 UTC
Boobiq wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
quick guys, logging in requires an input! ban logging in!


Obviously multiboxer ?


Our survey said!..
Nummi Xenofont
Imperial Express
#355 - 2013-02-28 08:56:33 UTC
Future of the game - hordes of miners and a total of 10 real persons playing the game.
Boobiq
Imperial Express
#356 - 2013-02-28 08:57:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Boobiq
anyways it should not be possible for one man to do 50 man's job.

Anyone who is interested in killing multiboxers/botters contact me. (Suicide gankers needed)
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#357 - 2013-02-28 08:59:08 UTC
Here's how I see it:

Technically (and officially) it's not botting as such but to me it just feels "wrong". It's ofcourse very difficult to put a number on that feeling, is having 2 accounts wrong or how about 5? While having multiple accounts is just something that's part of EVE (I've ran up to 7 at some point) and while it's ofcourse very lucrative for CCP to allow it I do feel that there's a distinct difference between someone running a hauler alt, a scout, perhaps a cyno character or just simply juggling between his accounts and someone using software to duplicate his actions for all his accounts at the same time. It just seems wrong to see 12 [insert ship type] doing the exact same thing at the exact same time.

Ofcourse people will reply with "but you can build a rig that does that as well" and all kinds of similar semi-trolling reasonings, thing is that it's up to CCP and they don't need any logic for it as they simply decide what is allowed and what isn't. To me I'd not allow programs like isboxer, if someone wants to run multiple accounts that's fine but he'll have to personally control each and every one of them.

This "petition" won't go anywhere but having a reasoned debate (on GD, wtf am I thinking) on the subject is good and if enough people (other than "I don't/can't run more accounts so no one should" small people) raise their voice that just might change CCP's perspective on this. I'm fine with people having multiple accounts and using them, I'm NOT fine with people using special software to control their characters like an army.
Dave Stark
#358 - 2013-02-28 09:02:48 UTC
Boobiq wrote:
anyways it should not be possible for one man to do 50 man's job.

Anyone who is interested in killing multiboxers/botters contact me. (Suicide gankers needed)


why not? he's contributing the same subscription fee as 50 people.
if he shouldn't be allowed to do the same as 50 people, with his 50 accounts, then there's no way he should be paying the same as 50 people's subscriptions for those 50 accounts.
Boobiq
Imperial Express
#359 - 2013-02-28 09:09:06 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Boobiq wrote:
anyways it should not be possible for one man to do 50 man's job.

Anyone who is interested in killing multiboxers/botters contact me. (Suicide gankers needed)


why not? he's contributing the same subscription fee as 50 people.
if he shouldn't be allowed to do the same as 50 people, with his 50 accounts, then there's no way he should be paying the same as 50 people's subscriptions for those 50 accounts.


You are talking about multibox program not he/she.
Dave Stark
#360 - 2013-02-28 09:09:52 UTC
Boobiq wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Boobiq wrote:
anyways it should not be possible for one man to do 50 man's job.

Anyone who is interested in killing multiboxers/botters contact me. (Suicide gankers needed)


why not? he's contributing the same subscription fee as 50 people.
if he shouldn't be allowed to do the same as 50 people, with his 50 accounts, then there's no way he should be paying the same as 50 people's subscriptions for those 50 accounts.


You are talking about multibox program not he/she.


really? i'm talking about a multibox program, in a thread about multiboxing?
shocking.