These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Brutus Le'montac
#1001 - 2014-11-26 02:43:48 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
wont this just mean that a person has to bind more keys to there keyboard. f1 can be guns on client 1 f2 guns on client 2. So I would say see how the changes shake out once they are live. I'm sure the isboxer that tries will still find ways to do most of what he does and still be legal, just with a little more thought and planning in the set up. Along with the fact that isboxer is will to make changes to better adapt there program to the game.


you still have to alt tab to every client and then press the correct keybind to activate it,

if you are in client 1 and use keybind for client 2, client 2 will not read the input and wont respond.

only the client "on top" will recieve input and read it, till you select the second client " on top"

Thought is dangerous; lack of thought, deadly!

Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#1002 - 2014-11-26 02:44:30 UTC
Max Kolonko wrote:
Steppa Musana wrote:
CCP can save almost the entirety of their mining alt ISBox subscriptions by allowing us to jettison cargo or move cargo to an Orca using broadcasting.

Without that ability it's too much of a hassle to mine and I personally will be retiring my entire fleet over it.

Cry


good


good

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.

DH Bergamont
Masters of Zen
Nomad Alliance
#1003 - 2014-11-26 02:51:56 UTC  |  Edited by: DH Bergamont
Phoenix Jones wrote:
DH Bergamont wrote:
Banning Is Boxer it will bring a lot of satisfied people in EVE but only on short period of time, banning that program from a form of using it for mining ops it will get to increasing prices of ships and equipment in EVE universe, so it means there will be no more small gangs while small gang will be countered with larger and more organized group, so there you are getting again large scale fights with limited engagement, while every FC will first calculate ship reimbursement

this means small gangs of people who can not afford to lose fitted cruiser that cost 150 mil are dead.

second thing is that price of PLEX will for a first period of time drastically fall down, while there will be no more multyboxing after that due lower income on selling plex some of people might stop bringing PLEX on market while there is no reason to pay 15$ for few cruisers

and third is that CCP will suffer large loss on subscription income, while each serious miner in eve have minimum of 10 mining accounts, and there is many of them in eve

my opinion is that with banning IsBoxer from this game will slow down playing tempo and with time it will become expensive and slow boring thing where most of players will calculate do they can afford to lose ship today or not



The problem with the logic is that if cruisers jump to 150 million, the typical person, crazy person, or anybody, won't bother buying them. Market gets flooded, people want to sell it, price drops. The market balances itself out in the end.

Not worried about it (then again I fly around in crap made from gas not rock).

You cannot use the threat of "the market" as a reason to change or not change something.



150 mil T2 fitted, it´s chained reaction, less miners less ore, less ice. less ore is resulting in higher prices of minerals and with that ships, less ice is resulting higher prices of ice products, and with that higher price of POS fuel, higher price of that is resulting with prices of moon materials, and everything what is based on POS even living in WH

PS: even with only this announcement i have few billion increased wallet in last 30 minutes
Draconis Rebellious
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1004 - 2014-11-26 03:03:07 UTC
WOOT!!!

Very much in favor of this decision. Thanks CCP!
Robart Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
#1005 - 2014-11-26 03:08:16 UTC
To those worried about higher equipment prices, do you remember when CCP first introduced titans, and thought that eve players would never build more than a hand-full, just because of the massive expense and size of them? CCP has underestimated the ability of players, despite having a hell of a lot more in the way of information as far as production. And with higher prices of trit ETC coming because of these changes, i predict that the smaller guys, many of which i knew, who got out of it when the margins were so low they were being bled dry, will return. It takes a certain crazed mindset to actually like mining, so it isn't like they will come out of the woodwork.
But at one point, before the margins crashed, i ran 5 toons on 3 computers, and had to go up and down a flight of stairs to do it. If you think dedicated miners, or even the people who currently get the easy mode on boxing stuff, are going to entirely give up as profits rise, then you are out of your collective minds. I've a bundle of barges i don't use anymore, because i found other, actually profitable things to do with my time. But i think i may put them back into service, and take advantage of my newly upgraded computers.

I will miss Bikkus, our awesome Korean HQ boxer, and his 40 NMs. I'll miss seeing fungu, Nolak, Cube, Nuabi, and Scruffy destroy anything on grid. But honestly, the more boxers proliferated, the less profitable it was to be a real person. The better the site times an incursion boxer could eke out of a given value of ships made it so it was either shiny or boxing to really make isk, which meant that the faucet drip rate kept going up, despite it going into fewer pockets, as more and more sites went to a hoard of toons all run by one person.

I've seen the effects of boxers on incursions, and mining, Two of the stereotypical carebear activities, from the inside. It was great, so long as the boxers liked you, or you could manage to trawl up enough friends to beat them out short term. But as boxing increases in scope, the ease of abuse of it increases. after all, take two guys running for the same amount of time, enough to say plex 3 accounts, and some spending money. the guy who's running a single toon, he makes enough for his three accounts, and is pretty much tapped. the guy multiboxing, he can start up 6 more accounts, and wait the several months for them to train (not an insubstantial investment of time and plex, i admit) . But if he just goes to a minimum survivable spec for HQs, (i'm an incursioner primarily, so i'll stick with what i know), it only takes 3 months. every three months, he has the potential to triple his income and account base. the bar is even lower for VGs, far what i've seen.

This is ignoring the inactive isk sources, be it research or PI, both of which are tedious pains in the ass to do manually, PI from experience, and research from what i've heard. The potential for massive market manipulation also exists, as you can get around limits on numbers of buy orders, or contracts. (although i've yet to hear of someone actually putting this harebrained idea i came up with into practice, so obviously it's a pretty terrible one, since i am dumb, and admit it.)

Then take gank catalysts. The justification for the suicide ganking mechanic i've usually heard is that if you can get enough people together to hit a target, then you shouldn't be immune. But if it's one player behind it, which by the cries of some people here, seems somewhat plausible, although i doubt many of the actual organizations do it, since they have the people, and getting people together to do it is their point. Then it becomes My 20 cheap ships should be able to kill your one expensive ship, cause i bought this program from some guy that lets me pretend i have friends. The arguement for requiring co-ordination among people as a justification is entirely valid. I enjoy seeing when it goes wrong, honestly. That it works so well is a testament to the work these people have put in. I don't want anyone thinking that i don't like seeing work put into whatever facet of eve that you enjoy. I may curse and ***** when ganked, and in the past, i've certainly been the fool for people like CODE. but that's what makes eve brilliant.

It is my firm belief that determined effort and social action are what should be the make/break point for eve. It is after all, a sandbox where CCP insists that all of our actions matter. I do however have a serious problem when one guy can go ahead, and after paying a fee to some group of people, win at whatever actions they take, because their volleys are perfectly synced, the spacing precise. That makes eve pay to win. And it isn't even supporting the people who make the game, or run it. That's what i take offense at, beyond all the various occupations that boxers may take up, making them either unprofitable, or taking up finite resources. Or both.

You want to pay to win at eve, pay CCP. buy the bloody plex, buy a titan, and throw enough isk around people pretend to be your friends. Don't go buy some program that you can pretend makes you better at what is ultimately a social game, because you no longer need other people.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1006 - 2014-11-26 03:08:21 UTC
I would like to request that CCP consider allowing Broadcasting to be used to update skillqueues, whether it be adding skills to the queue via broadcasting throughout, or only allowing one to hit "Accept" at the very end of manually-adding skills to the queue.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1007 - 2014-11-26 03:08:31 UTC
ITT: players assuming their myopic reasons for disliking ISBoxer are shared by CCP.
Jeanette Leon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1008 - 2014-11-26 03:11:24 UTC
Brutus Le'montac wrote:
Kouga Pegasus wrote:
Brutus Le'montac wrote:
are logitech keyboards with macro keys now also prohibited ( if i use the 1 or more of the 18 macro keys)?

if so please send me the info i need to claim 150$ from ccp for a new keybord, or send me a gamer keyboard that does not have macro keys ccp, tyvm in advance.



This includes, but isn’t limited to:

• Activation and control of ships and modules


SAME QUESTION HELLOO CCPP i am asking tooooo



aslong as i use it for 1 client only, to activate all my hardners for example it isnt broadcasting to multiple clients so should be allowed?

its so nice that ccp i so clear about this, instead off dropping 1 long list of should and shouldnts, and then withdraw in the dark, oow wait, they are doing just that aint they....



With a two strike permaban policy I'd surely appreciate some clarification on that aswell
Juvenius Drakonius
#1009 - 2014-11-26 03:12:28 UTC
This is a good measure, hard and log clap by my part

There is no shame in saying you don't know something, and there is no glory in keeping knolege to yourself.

NEDM500
South of Heaven Ltd
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#1010 - 2014-11-26 03:13:03 UTC
If you can't control multiple characters competently without a script doing the heavy lifting for you, what are you doing that is worth letting you continue to do so?

good call CCP, drawing the line between people playing an MMO as they would an RTS and people who aren't satisfied with the limitations associated with being a single char.
Hulky Boy
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#1011 - 2014-11-26 03:28:11 UTC
It took me 2 weeks to learn how to use is-Boxer well, people like to have a cry because they don't have the initiative to learn how to use it them selves, why should some be punishing for pushing their limits in eve. If i wanted to play on one toon the X series is a much better game. Also CCP you just lost more subscriptions than you realise and once again added to the already rapid rise in the price of plex. I will soon ill be lucky to log on in the Australian time zone now and find more than 1000 people in tranquility. In all it was a fair playing field because every body could do it but only the brave and resourceful dared try.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#1012 - 2014-11-26 03:31:54 UTC
Hulky Boy wrote:
It took me 2 weeks to learn how to use is-Boxer well, people like to have a cry because they don't have the initiative to learn how to use it them selves, why should some be punishing for pushing their limits in eve. If i wanted to play on one toon the X series is a much better game. Also CCP you just lost more subscriptions than you realise and once again added to the already rapid rise in the price of plex. I will soon ill be lucky to log on in the Australian time zone now and find more than 1000 people in tranquility. In all it was a fair playing field because every body could do it but only the brave and resourceful dared try.


Your stuffz, can I haz them?

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.

Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#1013 - 2014-11-26 03:35:03 UTC
Brutus Le'montac wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
wont this just mean that a person has to bind more keys to there keyboard. f1 can be guns on client 1 f2 guns on client 2. So I would say see how the changes shake out once they are live. I'm sure the isboxer that tries will still find ways to do most of what he does and still be legal, just with a little more thought and planning in the set up. Along with the fact that isboxer is will to make changes to better adapt there program to the game.


you still have to alt tab to every client and then press the correct keybind to activate it,

if you are in client 1 and use keybind for client 2, client 2 will not read the input and wont respond.

only the client "on top" will recieve input and read it, till you select the second client " on top"


isoboxer has this function to switch windows easily
Brenner Freeman
#1014 - 2014-11-26 03:35:16 UTC
Hulky Boy wrote:
It took me 2 weeks to learn how to use is-Boxer well, people like to have a cry because they don't have the initiative to learn how to use it them selves, why should some be punishing for pushing their limits in eve. If i wanted to play on one toon the X series is a much better game. Also CCP you just lost more subscriptions than you realise and once again added to the already rapid rise in the price of plex. I will soon ill be lucky to log on in the Australian time zone now and find more than 1000 people in tranquility. In all it was a fair playing field because every body could do it but only the brave and resourceful dared try.

cool story bro
Commentus Nolen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1015 - 2014-11-26 03:37:14 UTC
Actually the ban would be easy to get around by any programer worth his salt. A random number generator set within a certain ms second range could simulate a player going from one screen to another on a multi-screen setup. While it will kill large fleet multi-boxers, six ships are quite doable.

Trying to combat this will affect multi-boxers who do not use software to control their accounts.
Andreas Askiras
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1016 - 2014-11-26 03:45:03 UTC
I feel this is about the right level for the game, and always felt allowing input replication was unbalanced.

Having your 100 player fleet destroyed by one player with 30 accounts in bombers, simply not fun.

Having your 100 player fleet destroyed by 30 players in bombers, may not be fun, but you can appreciate it - kind of like we appreciate Rooks and Kings pipebombing even when we are the victims of it. Not to mention all 30 of those players had a lot of fun pulling of a successful bombing run. With input replication, only one guy had fun, and everyone else just felt frustrated.

Having said that, I don't mind people playing with multiple accounts in PvP, as long as they have to manage each one. It is reasonably hard to play with more than one account for most things, and it lowers reaction times - so it seems like a reasonably fair trade off.

I'm not worried about the effect this will have on the market. Right now mining in null is just a bit less than most PvE in isk/hour, if material prices rise even a little, people will switch to mining, and the market will balance out. Also this doesn't actually kill running multiple accounts for mining, just makes it harder, so some people will keep doing it (just maybe with 5 accounts instead of 50).

Lower plex prices would be great for most people. And might even result in some people coming back if it becomes easier to PLEX again. I know lots of people who left because it was too hard to PLEX with one account.

Overall between the force projection changes, the awesome new trailer, and now this, I'd say I'm very pleased with the direction CCP Seagull (and all the CCP Devs) have been taking the game.
Cordo Draken
ABOS Industrial Enterprises
#1017 - 2014-11-26 03:50:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Cordo Draken
I don't like swearing, but about F'ing time CCP! You just saved your game from ISO Boxer only gameplay.

Thank you!

So no more "Incursion Runner #1-20"
Or "Ima ganker #1-50"
Or "LOL EULA Miner#1-99"

That's just pure awesome!

Whomever said, "You only get one shot to make a good impression," was utterly wrong. I've made plenty of great impressions with my Autocannons 

Tear Jar
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#1018 - 2014-11-26 03:53:06 UTC
Commentus Nolen wrote:
Actually the ban would be easy to get around by any programer worth his salt. A random number generator set within a certain ms second range could simulate a player going from one screen to another on a multi-screen setup. While it will kill large fleet multi-boxers, six ships are quite doable.

Trying to combat this will affect multi-boxers who do not use software to control their accounts.


Isboxer has said they won't do this. If Isboxer did this they would quickly get the program banned from Eve.
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#1019 - 2014-11-26 03:55:02 UTC
DragonHelm III wrote:
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Ama Scelesta wrote:
RIP ISBoxer?


ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not.

For god's sake CCP stop all the bluster and give a straight answer

ISBOXER banned or not? It just needs a yes or no

All this crap about terms like Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing mean squat to me as I have no idea what they are.


Really? You can't comprehend that?
Brutus Le'montac
#1020 - 2014-11-26 03:56:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Brutus Le'montac
Lady Rift wrote:
Brutus Le'montac wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
wont this just mean that a person has to bind more keys to there keyboard. f1 can be guns on client 1 f2 guns on client 2. So I would say see how the changes shake out once they are live. I'm sure the isboxer that tries will still find ways to do most of what he does and still be legal, just with a little more thought and planning in the set up. Along with the fact that isboxer is will to make changes to better adapt there program to the game.


you still have to alt tab to every client and then press the correct keybind to activate it,

if you are in client 1 and use keybind for client 2, client 2 will not read the input and wont respond.

only the client "on top" will recieve input and read it, till you select the second client " on top"


isoboxer has this function to switch windows easily


right but even then, it requires more input to do so, i have no problem with using isboxer for window manegment or whatever, i do if it is used for synced strikes.

i also dont see a problem using keybaords that can use macro's. if ccp doesnt like that, then reimburse those who got one. or give a free keyboard upon joining eve with a big " CCP approved" sticker on the box.

Thought is dangerous; lack of thought, deadly!