EVE General Discussion

I'd accept your apology if you stopped trying to argue the accelerated gameplay clause was on a per human basis when it has been repeatedly reinforced by CCP that it applies on a per toon basis.

And if up-front investments for long-term payoffs are your concern, may I ask what you think of people training dedicated super / titan holders? They can sell for quite a bit for those who have the right contacts. Additionally, people who build and sell caps can make a lot of money compared to the initial investment of a BPO set, a POS, a quiet lowsec system, and the occasional mercenary defense contract.

I take back what I said about you seeming like a smart guy. One click to do the same thing in 5 separate clients is always, and will always be, faster than 5 clicks in 5 separate clients. Read it over and over again until you understand it. Per-character efficiency is increased, over standard multiboxing, by multiplexing multiboxing. That is what I am saying, that is all I am saying.



Are you mistaking me for the other people arguing with you? I'm cool with multiboxing, multibox away, I don't care. Just follow the rules, even if they change.



Yes, I've played since 2006 but these forums are new and confusing to me. Just because some people are self-interested doesn't mean everybody is. This change has plenty of merits on its own. The support from singleboxers and multiboxers in this thread is just additive and somewhat indicative.



They have been adjusting those rules over the last few years in this direction, now they pulled the trigger on a bigger change. Only time will tell if this will solve anything, but at the very least it should give any multiboxer pause before submitting parallel or near parallel input.



I only post on this toon, whether you believe me or not. And for the love of kittens or whatever else, nobody's f*cking playstyle has been banned. Multiboxing is still 100% viable. Isboxer is still 100% viable. Parallel input was banned, through whatever method it's achieved. If you think parallel input is a "playstyle" then no wonder you don't get it. Seriously, go fly 100 accounts, write your own 3rd party software to make it easier, use Isboxer or anything else. Just don't multiplex input to achieve parallel clicks in multiple clients. That's it, it's simple.

No, I mean allowed. CCPs old policy was that input broadcasting is allowed as long as one action created one action, regardless of how many accounts it happened on. As long as it wasn't automated, it was fine.

It's already against the EULA, it already should not be allowed, neither should any other site or application with gives any player an advantage by using it. But that's not going to happen, because this isn't about third party tools, it;s about whining carebears thinking "their" ice has been stolen away by isboxer. It will be spectacular when those same people realise that this change doesn't stop that happening, since even manual multiboxers can run a 20 man mining fleet with ease.

The income is generated when CCP gives you a PLEX for real life money. That is when you get the PLEX and when they get the money. The PLEX is created as an in-game item and is subject to the in-game market. Nothing that happens to the PLEX after it is acquired for real life money affects the fact that CCP now has your real life money. Do you think they put it in escrow until that PLEX's item ID is consumed or something? I can't find anything that even remotely suggests this is how it works.

Please explain to me where exactly I said anything like that. What I stated is that is plex gets low enough, some people simply won't buy it. They will grind isk rather than paying cash for it. they buy a plex to save them the grind time. If the grind time gets too low, they have no need to buy it. At no point did I ever suggest they would instead decide to risk their accounts by engaging in RMT.

To be fair I think most people were, since AFAIK it's non-refundable.

When you need to do the same thing in 5 windows at once, clicking once to make it happen is more efficient than clicking 5 times to make it happen. You can say you disagree over and over again but you aren't proving anything. I'm not saying multiplexing makes every action on every client more efficient, but it makes the same action more efficient on each client.

Done manually, the first client click is at full efficiency. The second client click is slightly delayed, and so is the third, fourth and fifth clicks. 4 out of 5 clients are at a reduced efficiency, that reduces your per-character efficiency compared to a single click hitting all 5 clients at once. How do you not get this. Multiplex is faster when you need to do the same thing on multiple clients at the same time.



I'm actually fine with multiboxing being desirable, EVE has been that way a long time. There aren't a lot of good ways to police a behavior, but I think this one is appropriate given their goal. We're never gonna agree on whether this is a good change or a knee jerk reaction, so I'm not gonna try to convince you. We're just wasting each other's time arguing this point.



The merit is that it is a data driven way to accomplish a goal. They get to draw the lines in the sand, we have to mind them. If people will ragequit over the loss of multiplexing or the loss of some efficiency then CCP is apparently prepared for that. They must think it's more important than the status quo and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that.



It was posted earlier in this thread that they changed the wording within the last couple years. And of course since their policies on multiboxing haven't changed it's perfectly ok for them to say they haven't changed. The multiboxing policy still says it's allowed. That's why they did it this way, so there's no confusion as to whether multiboxing is allowed... it is.



This is likely semantics but I don't consider multiplexing a multibox setup to be a playstyle. I consider multiboxing an activity, like mining or bombing or incursions, to be a playstyle. Enhancing that playstyle with multicasting is simply that, enhancing it.

Free popcorn! only! 5isk for large container, 2.5 for small. [the average logic i see on this forum]

/continues munching on said popcorn


Also, to those who haven't just thrown up their arms with this, are you ganking yet? if so i'd like to be humored by kms.

edit: only reason im still around currently to post things is the cycle of de-sub hasnt hit this acct yet.

Only to a limited degree. When plex prices go down, they are balanced out by more people usign them and less people buying them, which means an overall decrease in profit. Suggesting that a player who pays with plex doesn't contribute like a player who pays with cash is wrong, plain and simple.

Sigh... The characters don't have the exact same circumstances, so saying "well this guy is 100% efficient so they all must be close" is wrong. Say for example you are mining, you can mine 100 units per cycle.

Solo character - Firing at a rock with 50 units, he waits a half cycle, stops and locks a new rock. This means he is able to get as close to 100 units for every full cycle as he can.

Multiboxer - Same thing as the solo character with a slightly reduced efficiency where he is unable to be as accurate with timing. He can however ensure each character is firing at 1 single rock. so some rocks you get 100 per cycle, some 90, 80, etc.

Isboxer - Either all lasers get stopped/started, or they don't. You can't see which rocks each individual character is on without switching to them manually (which defeats the point), so some share rocks, some are overdepleting a rock, and in the worst cases multiple lasers are overdepleting the same rock. So you get whatever is left in each rock, could even be 1 unit. Sometime multiple character will hit one rock, so you might only get 30 units between two characters for example.

The end result is that per character efficiency - as in actual yield : potential yield ratio is highest for single players, lower for multiboxers and the lowest for isboxers.

By this I mean desirable from a gameplay perspective. As in you should get considerably more value for your character if you are able to pay complete attention, and less as you divide your attention. For example in mining, if asteroids sometimes hit yield pockets which you had to react to to gain a short yield boost, that would be an example of a change which supported more attention. Ice belts moving systems would be one that supported people actively seeking it out rather than turning up exactly 4 hours after the last one died. That's the kind of change I would support to reduce effectiveness of multiboxers.

Except it doesn't accomplish the goal. Multiboxers will be just as rife after January. The only thing that will have changed is that the line is closer to "normal" multiboxers, and a few ISBoxer user will have to hammer a single button 20 times instead of once when setting up. After setup it's back to VFX as usual.

They change the third party application policy wording, which happens often and made the legality of ISBoxer no more clear. When it was raised on the forums then then repeated that their policy on ISBoxer had not changed.

I'd argue that they've based their gameplay and character setups around the ability to broadcast their actions, and so it's a style of play. It might not be what you'd do or what other players would do, but it doesn't mean it's not a style.