These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2501 - 2014-12-12 11:04:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
lols

I love the way you flit from one side of the argument to the other according to your whims.

One minute you're proboxing and accusing us all of QQing over boxers and having an emotional response - the next you want them to change core mechanics (possibly breaking the entire game) in order to have a more feasible fix for boxing...

Make up your mind.

Markets can be entered by any level of player, solo or boxed, they just need X amount of capital and knowledge of how the markets work.

Market trading is probably the only part of Eve where a solo, single account player CAN be more effective than any number of toons, whether boxed or played by individuals, so long as they play cleverly (and can raise enough capital to compete).

At one stage, I trained just one of my alts into trading and basically ended up buying and selling all of the faction ammo going in and out of Amarr for a period of weeks, making hundreds of millions a day - then I realised I was bored shitless playing 0.01 isk games all day and had better things to do with my life. If I'd wanted to scale that up, it would have required twice the amount of attention in maintaining buy and sell orders across two hubs.

EDIT: Thinking about it more, mirth is an emotional response, so perhaps I am, as you say, emotionally invested in this argument

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2502 - 2014-12-12 11:39:48 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
lols

I love the way you flit from one side of the argument to the other according to your whims.

One minute you're proboxing and accusing us all of QQing over boxers and having an emotional response - the next you want them to change core mechanics (possibly breaking the entire game) in order to have a more feasible fix for boxing...
My stance hasn't changed at all. I think this change is pointless and attacks the wrong players for the result they are aiming for, and will have very little impact at all. I support multiboxers existing because I don't judge how people play the game, like some people do. I'd prefer if overly simplistic game mechanics were more involved, which would naturally make multiboxing more difficult. It wouldn't be a goal to make multiboxing more difficult, but it would certainly have that effect.

Eli Apol wrote:
Markets can be entered by any level of player, solo or boxed, they just need X amount of capital and knowledge of how the markets work.

Market trading is probably the only part of Eve where a solo, single account player CAN be more effective than any number of toons, whether boxed or played by individuals, so long as they play cleverly (and can raise enough capital to compete).
Are you saying people can't enter into the tasks multiboxer perform? A miner can be in a barge in 8 days and a venture on their first. You don't have to run 50 accounts to make isk from mining, ratting or even ganking. Much like trading, it scales. A solo character could not be more effective than a certain number of players, because there's limits to how many orders you can have open, and you'd need to be constantly travelling between hubs.

Eli Apol wrote:
At one stage, I trained just one of my alts into trading and basically ended up buying and selling all of the faction ammo going in and out of Amarr for a period of weeks, making hundreds of millions a day - then I realised I was bored shitless playing 0.01 isk games all day and had better things to do with my life. If I'd wanted to scale that up, it would have required twice the amount of attention in maintaining buy and sell orders across two hubs.
Sounds like you were doing it wrong. Trading done right should require no more than about a half hour a day sorting out traders. You can play 0.01 games but if you pick the items right you don't need to. Ammo is usually a bad idea because everyone jumps on ammo for the margins.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Josef Djugashvilis
#2503 - 2014-12-12 11:49:49 UTC
Dear Lucas, I do not mean this to sound as insulting as it may appear, but given how much you post lately, are you a Tippia alt?

This is not a signature.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2504 - 2014-12-12 12:03:39 UTC
Uh, no. And I often post this much. Where have you been? I have my own fan club.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2505 - 2014-12-12 12:20:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
So you'd prefer to change 'overly simplistic mechanics' - even though a lot of players like those 'overly simplistic mechanics' and indeed the whole of pvp and pve combat relies upon the mechanics as they currently are...


So, essentially you want to play a different game and make the people that enjoy the current game, play a different game...

right.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#2506 - 2014-12-12 13:36:12 UTC
My, my.

I thought this crying has stopped around page 102 but the most butthurt goonie qqers are still here. Just how low are you willing to go with your crying to get free stuff from CCP?

This change is correct, as it removes one-button substitute-for-skill thingie. Same with jump drives. People who can't be leet anymore are naturally crying about it, and just won't stop, because they were getting free stuff by crying before and expect tears to work again.

Let's pray CCP stays tear-proof this time.

That said, CCP already gave in to tears on the game time tossing topic. That is worrying me. Dear CCP, if you were going to toss game time around anyway, you didn't need to wait till after christmas to start banning broadcasting tearbears. And if you weren't, then how about covering that tear damage hole in your resistances?

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2507 - 2014-12-12 13:43:30 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
So you'd prefer to change 'overly simplistic mechanics' - even though a lot of players like those 'overly simplistic mechanics' and indeed the whole of pvp and pve combat relies upon the mechanics as they currently are...


So, essentially you want to play a different game and make the people that enjoy the current game, play a different game...

right.
Much like how they decided that the industry mechanics they had back in the beginning of time needed changing, how sov mechanics need changing (and are soon to be changed), I think old mechanics which don't promote a player interacting with the game to play should be reviewed, yes. If a mechanic is simple enough to be used semi-afk, or broadcasted on scale (with broadcasting being nothing but a dumb repeater), then it clearly isn't a well designed mechanic. CCP know this, and their new release schedule was specifically designed so they can tackle older more complex problems like these. You're really grasping here to suggest that the game should just stay exactly as it is because someone's day will be ruined if you change their mechanic.

At the end of the day, the game evolves. It's nothing like it was when I joined in 2005. Mechanics which were way too simple back then are now fleshed out (including space itself).

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2508 - 2014-12-12 13:49:00 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
I thought this crying has stopped around page 102 but the most butthurt goonie qqers are still here. Just how low are you willing to go with your crying to get free stuff from CCP?
lol, another "Everything comes back to goonies" guy. You realise most goonies are immensely happy with this change, right? Goon ratting is done AFK. It requires zero input, certainly not broadcast input, so they don't miss out on that. Most capital multiboxing is done manually, with the only ISBoxer capital pilot I know not being in the CFC. And most importantly, this entire change was brought about because a single player managed to take out a whole CFC fleet using multiboxed bombers.

Basil Pupkin wrote:
This change is correct, as it removes one-button substitute-for-skill thingie. Same with jump drives.
It takes considerably more skill and understanding of game mecahncis to use ISBoxer. They've not banned ISBoxer though, so those skilled players can continue to multibox in other, legal ways.

Educate yourself before posting on a topic.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#2509 - 2014-12-12 14:00:04 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Basil Pupkin wrote:
I thought this crying has stopped around page 102 but the most butthurt goonie qqers are still here. Just how low are you willing to go with your crying to get free stuff from CCP?
lol, another "Everything comes back to goonies" guy. You realise most goonies are immensely happy with this change, right? Goon ratting is done AFK. It requires zero input, certainly not broadcast input, so they don't miss out on that. Most capital multiboxing is done manually, with the only ISBoxer capital pilot I know not being in the CFC. And most importantly, this entire change was brought about because a single player managed to take out a whole CFC fleet using multiboxed bombers.

Basil Pupkin wrote:
This change is correct, as it removes one-button substitute-for-skill thingie. Same with jump drives.
It takes considerably more skill and understanding of game mecahncis to use ISBoxer. They've not banned ISBoxer though, so those skilled players can continue to multibox in other, legal ways.

Educate yourself before posting on a topic.


Please, less butthurt, it's painful just reading this, I can only imagine how it is writing it.

First 25 pages contain a crap load of goon PITA. You can't deny that. Then they switched to posting alts without even changing the lines. Then they organized petition spam (extreme form of goon tears), doing it from their mains again. It's all here, documented in this very topic!

Now please educate me on the following topics (but please do so after subduing the pain, I may not bear reading it again):
1) Where in my post did you see a reference to multiboxing in general?
2) Where in my post did you see a reference to ISBoxer in particular.
3) Where in my post did you see a reference to game activities, such as ratting?
4) You are so desperate to prove you're still leet, that you even went to denying the fact that input broadcasting is a substitute for skill. Do you really think so? What are your reasons?

One thing I did learn from your post. It appears that goon tears not just went along with the change, but brought it, and now trying to fight yesterday's tears with today's tears to roll it back. Goonies be goonies, really...

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2510 - 2014-12-12 14:12:32 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Now please educate me on the following topics (but please do so after subduing the pain, I may not bear reading it again):
1) Where in my post did you see a reference to multiboxing in general?
2) Where in my post did you see a reference to ISBoxer in particular.
3) Where in my post did you see a reference to game activities, such as ratting?
4) You are so desperate to prove you're still leet, that you even went to denying the fact that input broadcasting is a substitute for skill. Do you really think so? What are your reasons?
I apologise. I was under the impression that you'd read the topic of the thread before posting. Now I realise you literally searched around for a CFC member posting so you could whine a bit about them. What's the matter, get recruitment scammed?

And perhaps if you want to see why input broadcasting takes skill to properly utilise you should try it out. Guarantee you'd not even finish setting up before your head exploded.

Basil Pupkin wrote:
One thing I did learn from your post. It appears that goon tears not just went along with the change, but brought it, and now trying to fight yesterday's tears with today's tears to roll it back. Goonies be goonies, really...
Actually "goonies" don't want it rolled back at all (not that something that hasn't come out yet can be rolled back) since it's beneficial to them. And if you read my posts, you see that while I don't agree with this change I have no problem with other changes which make multiboxing more difficult by altering gameplay mechanics to be more involving for the player.

You see, something you missed is how little impact this change will actually have on ISBoxers anyway. Look about the thread for "round robin" and "VideoFX". These are two techniques that will still be allowed from January the 1st, which allow nearly as much control as input broadcasting. VideoFX is particularly powerful, allowing you to merge multiple clients into a single screen (it can basically look like a ship has 20 mining lasers for example, with each actually being on a different client).

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2511 - 2014-12-12 14:36:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Lucas Kell wrote:
Much like how they decided that the industry mechanics they had back in the beginning of time needed changing, how sov mechanics need changing (and are soon to be changed), I think old mechanics which don't promote a player interacting with the game to play should be reviewed, yes. If a mechanic is simple enough to be used semi-afk, or broadcasted on scale (with broadcasting being nothing but a dumb repeater), then it clearly isn't a well designed mechanic. CCP know this, and their new release schedule was specifically designed so they can tackle older more complex problems like these. You're really grasping here to suggest that the game should just stay exactly as it is because someone's day will be ruined if you change their mechanic.

At the end of the day, the game evolves. It's nothing like it was when I joined in 2005. Mechanics which were way too simple back then are now fleshed out (including space itself).

Now that you mention it, perhaps trading needs to be made more involving as well rather than just 30mins a day of adjusting your orders...maybe a tetris mini-game to shuffle your stock around or a mini FPS with a pricing gun...

And yes change is good, hopefully this change will have a positive effect and they follow up on people sidestepping the new intentions of this ruling by expanding their scope to include window switching macros...

And with that we've gone full circle back to where I was several pages ago - sidestepping this ban is a futile effort because CCP's intent has been made pretty clear - dodging their intent on technicalities will just lead to more stringent policies in the future to eliminate the loopholes.

Auf wiedersehen pet.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2512 - 2014-12-12 15:02:13 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Now that you mention it, perhaps trading needs to be made more involving as well rather than just 30mins a day of adjusting your orders...maybe a tetris mini-game to shuffle your stock around or a mini FPS with a pricing gun...
Absolutely! I mean not a minigame, I think they are pretty dire and I'm sure there are better ways of making a mechanic more involved, but certainly yes, trading is another example of a mechanic that needs to be improved.

Eli Apol wrote:
And yes change is good, hopefully this change will have a positive effect and they follow up on people sidestepping the new intentions of this ruling by expanding their scope to include window switching macros...
Which they won't, because as previously stated there's no reliable way to tell if someone is using one of thee methods or not. So the change will be broadcasting, and perhaps ISBoxer specifically if they decide to go that route (doubt it). Hence my belief that the change is pointless.

Eli Apol wrote:
And with that we've gone full circle back to where I was several pages ago - sidestepping this ban is a futile effort because CCP's intent has been made pretty clear - dodging their intent on technicalities will just lead to more stringent policies in the future to eliminate the loopholes.
And yet, you've still not managed to explain what that clear intent is. The only clarity is they don't want broadcasting, which round robin and VFX are not, so using them isn't sidestepping. It's only sidestepping if you assume their goal is to attack multiboxers specifically, in which case logging on multiple clients at all is sidestepping.

The sort of it is this: They've banned broadcasting, and only broadcasting. Everything else (that was OK to do before this change, i.e. no automation) is fair game and thus will be used until they do something to target that too.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#2513 - 2014-12-12 15:14:58 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
any grr boxer person left this thread 25-100 pages ago which also has all the things you are trying to point out to them repeated over and over.

You are the one that suggested people might leave to go play other games that aren't out yet I just supported them in that should they choose to take that route. I never told anyone to quit you where the one that suggested there might not a reason to play this game anymore.


Eli and Tyr are still here. As well as the others who pop in just to say "grr boxers" and then disappear.

While I did suggest (and have been told by other boxers) that some will leave for other games, you told me to unsub simply for continuing a discussion and I quoted your exact phrasing in my previous response. If you wish to delete or edit what you said as some form of retroactive "no I didn't, you're changing my arguments", go right ahead. Such narrow-mindedness will get you nowhere IRL, not to mention EVE.




I NEVER told you to unsub or to stop talking about it the topic. you are the one saying people might unsub and go play other games (which weren't out yet) cause of this change. I was just joining you in that if people really dislike the change than maybe it time to move on to other games where you like the changes that are made to those games.

my exact wording

it if you really disagree with it then unsub and sit around waiting for the other games to come out.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2514 - 2014-12-12 15:22:51 UTC
To be fair, that does kinda read like you saying the classic: If you don't like it, unsub.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

kraken11 jensen
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#2515 - 2014-12-12 15:52:24 UTC  |  Edited by: kraken11 jensen
It's kinda funny/weird/annoying?'etc, to see some people think that some Things is so simple Lol when the facts is that it's not Attention omg, i have learned a lot. But i have way more to learn. and simple? no way. lol. But challenging, yep :) I enjoy the Challenge trying to get better... And its not like eve is easy, its so simple doing 1 small mistake that can result in so much loss in game) (trust me, i have lost a lot off ships) and for People saying that it's so easy getting it setup and going etc. probably never have tried. (unless it's me that totally suck at it) lol. (and setting it up in the easiest way might not be hard, but if you would try doing anything like you have seen on youtube without 10's or maybe 100's of hours invested. probably would be unable to do the same. and normally more accounts is better than one, and there is no one denying it. but per character it might be less efficient? well, it would depend. a lot about the circumstances. And investing a lot off time in eve might normally ''pay off'' and think about that if you work for 1 hour. you can pay for an plex with would've taken you 3-6 hours each day with 5 accounts (and used 2 days to have mined enough to buy 1 plex if mining 3-6 hours as i said( 5 accounts ) and that is a lot off time. So, i dont see any reson to ''hate'' big scale miners. they use loads off time i guess. or big scale whatever.
(and even if you would need 2 hours of work be able to pay off an plex) it is still way less time invested than an higesec miner need to do to be able to pay something like that off with isk. (and that's a lot off hours) (and indeed, there are some miners who like mining)

LolBig smilePiratePLolCool

Edit: <3
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2516 - 2014-12-12 16:03:20 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
I NEVER told you to unsub or to stop talking about it the topic. you are the one saying people might unsub and go play other games (which weren't out yet) cause of this change. I was just joining you in that if people really dislike the change than maybe it time to move on to other games where you like the changes that are made to those games.
my exact wording
it if you really disagree with it then unsub and sit around waiting for the other games to come out.


You either just told me to unsub, or you were trying (and failed) to tell OTHER people to unsub. If you're trying to say something else and don't have the right phrasing, either don't say it, or call up your grade 8 English/Grammar teacher and apologize for sleeping in class.

All I did was echo the thoughts presented to me by some fellow boxers; nothing more. Or do I really have to go around and ask people who said what because some forum warrior can't understand that I interact with other users?
Josef Djugashvilis
#2517 - 2014-12-12 16:14:31 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Uh, no. And I often post this much. Where have you been? I have my own fan club.


Stop staring in the mirror, it will really cut your fan club numbers down Smile

This is not a signature.

Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#2518 - 2014-12-12 16:18:20 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
I NEVER told you to unsub or to stop talking about it the topic. you are the one saying people might unsub and go play other games (which weren't out yet) cause of this change. I was just joining you in that if people really dislike the change than maybe it time to move on to other games where you like the changes that are made to those games.
my exact wording
it if you really disagree with it then unsub and sit around waiting for the other games to come out.


You either just told me to unsub, or you were trying (and failed) to tell OTHER people to unsub. If you're trying to say something else and don't have the right phrasing, either don't say it, or call up your grade 8 English/Grammar teacher and apologize for sleeping in class.

All I did was echo the thoughts presented to me by some fellow boxers; nothing more. Or do I really have to go around and ask people who said what because some forum warrior can't understand that I interact with other users?




You are the one that brought up people unsubing cause of the change to go play other games that aren't out yet. I merely echoed that.

If people feel so strongly disagree with a change in this or in any game they play they should find a new game. One that they like the changes and the vision of the devs in.

Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#2519 - 2014-12-12 16:24:46 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
To be fair, that does kinda read like you saying the classic: If you don't like it, unsub.



cause its still valid.

This change has been like many others lots of tears, lots of attacking and defending the change and lots predictions on the health and state of the game. All without even see how these changes play out.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2520 - 2014-12-12 16:55:58 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
You are the one that brought up people unsubing cause of the change to go play other games that aren't out yet. I merely echoed that.
If people feel so strongly disagree with a change in this or in any game they play they should find a new game. One that they like the changes and the vision of the devs in.


Your phrasing was poor, so of course I misunderstood what you were trying to say, however that doesn't change the fact that you're attempting to deny them the opportunity to voice their concerns and ask CCP to change something that they see as detrimental. Thankfully, CCP's forums do not work that way.