EVE General Discussion

How about letting us log into the game with multiple characters from a single account using multiple machines (or even on the same machine)? That would be nice.

If anyone's on a crusade here, it's you. Please don't try to project your actions onto others.

Uh.... you do know that WoW has macro support right? It allows a player to re-direct keys on their keyboard to certain spells, abilities, and items in the game. If I could bind a macro to tell my ship to stop firing, swap crystals, and then continue firing, that'd be lovely.

You also assume that every player with multiple accounts puts in the same effort as everyone else with the same amount of accounts, and that ISBoxer somehow affects the income of each toon. I find that claim (with no supporting evidence, btw) funnyas I know a nullsec pilot who cranks out quite a lot of ISK with a relatively lower effort involved. EVE is all about min/maxing, and right now you and others like are annoyed that people found a new way to min/max in such a visible fashion, or because of some bizarre belief that ISBoxers aren't subjected to risk/isk, or that we somehow hacked into CCP's servers and gave ourselves free accounts. I dunno where these ideas came from, and I'm not sure I can get drunk enough to find out before I die to liver failure.

Look, if EVE manages to basically copy/paste ISBoxer into EVE, congrats. Still won't change the fact that the input ban was brought about by the SJW idiots of EVE, it won't change the fact that people won't trust CCP after this kerfluffle, and it certainly won't change the fact that people will think that CCP pulled a Sony by attempting to force the competition's product off the market so they can release a crappy version themselves.

I think it's simple, without all the video tricks. Basically more leadership commands like warp and regroup. Which is not so far-fetched, unlike the task of implanting ISBoxer into the client.

lock target, activate DPS, align to, jump, dock.

those are balance issues, while ISBoxer is an issue of CCP selling a product (multiple clients) without supporting it.

bombs and drones are broken for other reasons. bombs because they're AOE, and drones because they're automated.

I'm not sure what you mean by high horse. you'll have to explain that one to me before I can respond.

I can't really answer that, and I guess I'm treating it like a foregone conclusion because I'm mostly helpless to CCP's balance decisions. I think requiring a lock would fix drones, and bombs could use a bit less HP to bring them down from the 7x limit. I'd like to see both multibox support and module imbalance handled together. over this issue, even.

Updates seem to come slowly. Not sure what's up with that. I don't hold this issue against CCP -too much- because it makes sense to me how we got here. And it's just a situation, not necessarily one where one party has to "lose." By accident, the EVE client lended itself reasonably well to controlling multiple instances, and at some point CCP went with it and started peddling the idea. Then players wanted to make it easier, and some used ISBoxer.

I think, instead of being ok with ISBoxer for this long, CCP should have looked at what players were using ISBoxer for, and attempted to provide support for those actions in the client. I think then, the issues of scalability would make themselves more apparent, and faster, so they can be balanced.

I understand why some people think it would be a travesty to openly support multiboxing, but I think that goes back to the basic disagreement between players who are willing to play harder, and those who are not. However, with in-client support, any player can participate in the type of coordination and synchronization enjoyed by ISBoxer users.

Ethically, any dilemmas are solved by encouraging fleet gameplay (lol friends?) to make use of the ISBoxer-type multibox support that could be provided in the client.

I just see it as a matter of being a responsible merchant, and supporting their product. In the meantime, with ISBoxer out of the picture, collecting money for multiple subscriptions is just irresponsible on CCP's part. It strikes me as deadbeat behavior.