EVE General Discussion

A fundamental miss is considering this from only a PvP perspective. A multiboxing PvP'er will be situationally at a disadvantage when engaging a group of individuals, but in PvE, with considerably fewer chances of the unexpected and largely singular need for awareness the benefits shine. Further, the limitations of PvP'ing with multiple clients will work towards assuring that while isk earning is being multiplied without considerable long term effort, isk expenditure for PvP will be capped at what a smaller number of clients can field, adding triviality to losses.

I'm sorry, what? Literally everything you've posted was "I don't want to exert the effort that ISBoxers do ergo they should not be allowed to multibox", "I know nothing about what a group of trained players can do in regards to alpha strikes and general fleet PVP, especially small scale T3 wormhole PVP", and "I know nothing about an economy".

And in your second paragraph you again make the rather ludicrous assumption that multiple accounts do not require $$$ or PLEX to start, do not require time to skill, do not require $$$ or PLEX to keep them active every month, do not require major adjustments on the player's part, and do not require untold hours of fiddling with settings, windows, and VFX that would otherwise be spent earning ISK with a single account.

As I and many others have pointed out countless times, there's a thousand threads in F&I talking about balancing bombers, mining, and incursions. Browse those, specifically the ones regarding the activation code for bombs, the minigame for mining to reward active players that aren't boxed, and reducing ISK payout while increasing LP payouts, then look me in the eye and tell me that none of those would hurt ISBoxers.

Again, not the least bit surprised by this intentionally failed interpretation. You are entirely determined to not hear any opposing arguments. You will continue to mischaracterize opposing views and pretend that only complete incompetents ever make mistakes or move outside of perfect unison and all have identical in game skillsets to support synchronization.

Quick rundown of a simple pair of concepts.

1. Initial investment for a permanent advantage from out of game assets doesn't counterbalance that permanent advantage. Lets be generous and give you 100 hours of actual configuration to bring such a setup to functionality. At 10 clients in an isk earning activity you have restored parity with a single account player in 10 hours of gameplay. This conceptually overshadows by a wide and far margin any initial efforts by being quickly compensated and never stopping to return a reward. It also requires the same effort after that initial investment.

2. The plex or $$$ argument reaks of the expectation to have a P2W scenario more so than now. And with plex it becomes even worse. Not being able to broadcast commands reduces the effectiveness and accuracy of multi-boxing as well as at a point capping the number of concurrent clients that can be used. If all accounts are making plex and more the ability to add more clients near perfectly adds that extra income beyond plex for each client running. A non-assisted multi-boxer runs at a lower return per client and if saturated a lower client count. This creates a clear advantage.

I made no assumptions regarding what it takes to run several accounts, I know because I DO run several accounts.

So what you are saying is that we have ways to do this including mechanically retool everything to rid us of the vast majority of even unassisted multi-boxing, and for that matter adding annoyances to solo boxing. I've already stated to you that they would hurt multi-boxers, and in the same post told you that the effects wouldn't be limited to multi-boxers, hurting those who don't use tools the worst. To be honest this position doesn't even make sense. the result is still the effective elimination of assisted multi-boxing, but at the expense of wiping out unassisted multi-boxing and creating annoyances in solo client play.

Also increasing LP payouts/decreasing isk specifically confuses me as this does nothing but move the multiplied income to another source. Even if you are counting on market saturation of LP goods to lower overall income the result is still the same in that both single and multi-client players are using the same saturated market but with the multi client players still having more stock to sell. Comparatively it changes nothing (seriously calling into question your barb about understanding the economy after that one).

Some of what you describe makes sense when trying to eliminate all multi-boxing, but that isn't the stated goal. Also there is no justification regarding this issue itself to damage solo play. Captchas and codes especially are very poor player experiences. Making solo players endure them because of some multi-boxers makes far less sense than banning the activity of the offending multiboxers. Such a suggestion reeks of retaliatory intent, ruining everyones experience if yours is nerfed.

You are making a good argument to ban ISBoxer entirely Lucas.

The general broadcast ban was aimed at multiple account users using any form of software to play EVE, despite not doing any research into the penalties the usage of ISBoxer incurs. I do apologize for not making enough of a distinction from multi-account users, multiboxers, ISBoxers without broadcasting, ISBoxers with broadcasting, and people who claim they have single accounts but know all about ISBoxer. I will attempt to make better distinctions in the future. I do hope you weren't triggered by my misplaced pronouns.

Right, but VideoFX isn't multicasting, so it will be within the rules. It's not really different from sticking the windows side by side, but you can do it with 50 windows without them being too tiny to see.

How? How exactly is this affecting the game in negative ways? People keep saying this, yet when asked what exactly is being affected they start mumbling about ice and looking at their feet. Following this change there will be no improved gameplay. Multiboxers will still have the advantage over non-multiboxers because players with more characters can do more than players with 1. The only difference is that the multiboxers will have to click a few more times. Considering how little input is required (mining for example takes around 6 clicks every 10 minutes) this is pretty much irrelevant.

Still though, they aren't improving the game. They are attacking a playstyle because the vocal minority doesn't like it. It's like if they made concord react twice as fast. They wouldn't be removing ganking, but they'd be attacking the playstyle. The difference being that if they did that they'd actually be improving the game for the vocal minority, where in this case the effect will be practically nil.

There have been in the past. Honestly, I'm not going to sit around arguing about CCPs crappy support and risking getting myself banned for talking about stuff that is off the table. Hopefully one day you'll get you're ass banned for something you didn't do and realise there's sod all you can do about it though. Then you'll know.

I have multiple monitors and multiple PCs as well. Should that be banned too, since I can tile so many windows across my monitors without using any tools at all?

At the end of the day, people will optimise their play to gain the most advantage over competitors. Regardless of what rules they put in place, this will always be the case. Don't like it? Think it's unfair? Well life isn't fair. If you don't want to put he effort in to optimising the way you play, don't come whining every time someone does better than you.

By the way, when you say "people like you", you do realise I haven't used isboxer in a long time, right? I've actually resubbed it specifically because this rule change is coming in and I wanted to get a setup which requires no broadcasting. The thing is I make far more isk roflstomping the market, using custom built analytics tools so I don't need to even thing about what to trade, where and for how much. I guess I should also be banned for that too right?

Well ISBoxing isn't banned. So too bad. And no, ISBoxing makes running accounts more efficient. Even just the windows layout, quick switching and CPU/FPS management which have no direct gameplay benefits make it a much smoother experience overall.

So, an ISboxer mining ice is a 'player' but the solo ice miner next to him is a 'whining carebear'?

One of my favourite things about the Eve forums is the casual use of the supposed insult' 'carebear' to descibe anyone who holds a contrary view.

Dear Lucas, I was a happy chap when my Dominix had a 10% drone tracking bonus, but those whinging carebears moaned and cried to CCP and got the tracking bonus nerfed.

So I can see where you are coming from with this.

With regard to ISboxer, I would be pleased if everyone in the game (except me of course) used ISboxer all the time to mine so that my ships become dirt cheap.

I am broadly opposed to ISboxer because being ganked by 10 players seems 'right' being ganked by on player controlling X ships with one key press just seems wrong to me.

My favourite ISbox defence thus far is, 'but it took me ages to set up, so I should be allowed to continue to use it as currently allowed'

'etc? what are you doing?
Whats is the Challenge? , well. tell me in what combination you have used it. or you just have watched youtube videos? And if you dislike, it doesn't mean that everyone dislikes it, but for others it might be funny? every player might have different things they like and prefer, so. yeah.