These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Deimos Barret
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1041 - 2014-11-26 05:40:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Deimos Barret
+1 Thank you for continuing to try to level the playing field.

That said, since you banned all the bot miners, and another couple dozen thousand are about to quit, think you can like... fix the economy still? Mineral prices are about to skyrocket even more.

Maybe fix those faucets, eh? Incursions*coughcough*

Add significant sinks too maybe? NPC-costs keep going down, and isk-injection keeps going up. Couple that with the (good) increasing crack-down on automated resource gathering, and you're looking at 100m isk T1 cruisers in another year or two.


Also, something, something, Plush.


*edit* Don't get me wrong. I have multiple accounts too. The difference is I actually PLAY each account. I don't just clone my gaming experience across them. I could get into the bittervet rant of BACK IN MY DAY... we had one account and if our corp had a scout alt amongst it we were DAMN THANKFUL, etc etc. Truth be told, I'd be okay seeing plex removed from game, it would curtail the bullsh*t alt-war to a minimum, but oh well. It's here, it's staying, and CCP's loving it so hey :D
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1042 - 2014-11-26 05:40:32 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
It's a fact that CONCORD on grid results in a decreased CONCORD response time, which is a problem for someone trying to manually gank with multiple accounts, as each subsequent shooter after the first will suffer an efficiency loss.


Actually the squad's assigned to them until their ship's destroyed, as long as everyone shoots at (very) approximately the same time everyone gets the full response time.

Ah I see.

So unless there's a CONCORD on grid when you agress, it will have to take a timer to spawn them?

Can a CONCORD that has killed a ganker immediately kill someone else who was already agressed 2 seconds ago, or will it essentially only start killing other people if they agress in front of it?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Carmen Electra
AlcoDOTTE
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1043 - 2014-11-26 05:41:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Carmen Electra
Yikes! As an ISBoxer user, I've been pretty hesitant to chime in on this thread since it's pretty clear that the GD population isn't too hot on us 'boxers.

CCP: Tip of my hat to you for being willing to make such a gutsy move. I respect that you're willing to exchange the extra subscription revenue for the possibility of a better EVE in the long term. I agree that ISBoxer is likely bad for the overall health of the game for reasons that have been thorougly covered in this thread.

I started using ISBoxer to earn ISK faster, but it quickly became a playstyle unto itself. It put a particularly new and interesting spin on EVE for me. I have 15 accounts, and after this new policy takes effect, I will have absolutely no use for 12 of them. Given that this amounts to what is effectively a permaban for 12 of my accounts, this feels severely punative. I'm sure you can understand how this would be frustrating given that I have always played by the rules.

This puts me and others in a pretty tight spot. I've spent about a year carefully planning and tending to my ISBoxer fleet and it was nearly unbearable to log them in tonight knowing that my creation was about to be pretty much erased. "What you build has value" has been a marketing line in the past, and is what draws many people to EVE. What I've built is about to have no value Sad

If the last couple of release cycles are any indicator, EVE is headed in an exciting new direction. I'm torn because part of me is very excited to see what unfolds, but part of me will know that many people, myself included, were thrown under the bus to achieve EVE 2.0.

There must be some way to follow through with this excellent new direction for EVE without imposing what feels like a severe punishment on players who, though perhaps unpopular, have played by the rules.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#1044 - 2014-11-26 05:44:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Masao Kurata wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
It's a fact that CONCORD on grid results in a decreased CONCORD response time, which is a problem for someone trying to manually gank with multiple accounts, as each subsequent shooter after the first will suffer an efficiency loss.


Actually the squad's assigned to them until their ship's destroyed, as long as everyone shoots at (very) approximately the same time everyone gets the full response time.

Which is my point: all shooters need to shoot at the same time in order to achieve normal efficiency. This means either multiple players shoot at the same time using one account each, or one player uses software to accomplish the same thing with multiple accounts.

A single player manually shooting with multiple accounts is getting penalized in a way that is not applied to any other form of alt usage in the game. Seriously, I can't think of a single other one.

So if CCP goes through with this without extra modifications, they're basically saying that one player, at the expense of extra input effort, can use alt accounts with the efficiency of multiple players using single accounts for any activity except freighter-ganking (i.e., "being mean to others"). There's also the matter of multiple bombers, but that's such a fringe case that I doubt CCP is balancing around it anyway, as I said before.

My issue here is the precedent this rule change sets.

Alavaria Fera wrote:
Masao Kurata wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
It's a fact that CONCORD on grid results in a decreased CONCORD response time, which is a problem for someone trying to manually gank with multiple accounts, as each subsequent shooter after the first will suffer an efficiency loss.


Actually the squad's assigned to them until their ship's destroyed, as long as everyone shoots at (very) approximately the same time everyone gets the full response time.

Ah I see.

So unless there's a CONCORD on grid when you agress, it will have to take a timer to spawn them?

Can a CONCORD that has killed a ganker immediately kill someone else who was already agressed 2 seconds ago, or will it essentially only start killing other people if they agress in front of it?

The first CONCORD spawn (for the first ganker) will start killing the second ganker before the second CONCORD spawn appears for the second ganker, as long as it's finished killing the first ganker first.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1045 - 2014-11-26 05:47:02 UTC
EaTCarbS wrote:
The toxicity in this thread from the general player base displayed toward multiboxers is really disconcerting. Almost makes me embarrassed to call myself an EVE player.

You're not new here, are you?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Kajurei Delainen
Doomheim
#1046 - 2014-11-26 05:50:09 UTC
The last few months of game changes have all left us wondering...why does CCP want to scew the solo player and small groups?

Reducing capital jump distances mostly hurts the smaller operators that relied on capitals to get product to market from 0.0. Only the big alliances can now afford the chains and fuel to move products...everyone else is reduced to moving product through choke points.

If you wanted to get rid of capital power projection, and move the game towards sub cap fleet fights and roams, why not open up more transit points from 0.0 to low and high sec?

ISBox allowed the solo player or small groups to leverage their play experience with their wallet, time, and effort, to be able to take part in game content that would otherwise never be available to them.

CCP is all about letting certain parties like CODE. / Goons to Hi-Sec suicide kill small / solo players in empire; or reduce income from PI by making it a taxable and sov warfare related infrastructure - again hurting the small operators or solo players, and or cutting them off from that aspect of the game.

If its the biggest alliance wins this game, and to hell with everyone else; everyone else will go play Elite Dangerous, Star Citizen, or a multitude of other games.

CCP please consider not hurting the solo or small operators in the game. Small startups employ the most people, EVE's economy should reflect that also. Cutting off parts of the game from all but the largest groups of players is bad for business imo.

If you're going to ban people for automation, how about a ban for the people that suicide gank in hi-sec, or grief small groups with countless war decs, and on and on. ISBox is the least of your worries for the longevity of our player base.



Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1047 - 2014-11-26 05:53:39 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
So is this a veiled suicide-ganking nerf? Because a big portion of freighter ganks is done by single players, or small groups of players, with multiple accounts each. There's no way that some dude with a bunch of bombers, or derpy miners sucking at Veld, are responsible for this change.

I'm not a CCP dev, but 20 plus ISboxer mining fleets would have been plenty of reason for this long ago were the decision mine. Killing other multiboxed activities facilitated by the same would just be the icing on the cake.

That said it's not a change in eve without someone getting a persecution complex over it.

Something tells me that CCP isn't targeting miners, because mining is already suicidally-boring, and quite frankly, CCP needs all the miner bots it can get to supply the market with ore. Granted, we can let the invisible hand take over and pay the 50 ISK per unit of Trit that it's actually worth in a normal gameplay environment, so this isn't as troubling from this perspective.

However, in the case of suicide-ganking, it's much more worrisome, because that means that CCP is targeting it as an activity in a way that's different from decreasing the server-wide mineral output. Unlike any other activity in the game, freighter-ganking is one that relies on multiple participants in one form or another, and the time constraints inherent to it mean that one person can't do it as efficiently by slowly, manually tabbing through windows and activating the gankers one at a time.

Now, it's fine if CCP wishes to say that freighter-ganking should be a group thing, that's fine. But then they shouldn't hold it to a double standard, and change current game mechanics so that the activity is as alt-friendly as all others. It's a fact that CONCORD on grid results in a decreased CONCORD response time, which is a problem for someone trying to manually gank with multiple accounts, as each subsequent shooter after the first will suffer an efficiency loss. This type of penalty doesn't exist for someone manually mining with multiple accounts, whether or not they're using multiboxing software (the only difference they'd experience is an increase in effort).

CCP is literally saying that freighter-ganking is the only activity in the game that will now penalize small groups of players using alts in comparison to multiple players using one account each. And I personally don't think that such a double standard should exist.

PS: I don't multibox or gank freighters.

Just about all of what you have said holds true for anything but mining when it comes to tasks that hold a benefit for command broadcast multiboxing. 1 player bomber groups and incursions fleets come to mind in addition to gankers. In the former case it makes controlling a group of bombers unfeasible at best and in the latter case trashes efficiency while creating significant potential for losses.

There also seems to be some idea that all activities should have the same effort and character number requirements, as that would be necessary across all activities to prevent "selective" nerfing.

I don't think it an exaggeration to say that more than one multiboxing activity is dying because of this, including single player freighter ganking, but then I don't have any issue with the loss.
Deimos Barret
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1048 - 2014-11-26 05:54:55 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
[quote=Tyberius Franklin][quote=Destiny Corrupted]
... However, in the case of suicide-ganking, it's much more worrisome, because that means that CCP is targeting it as an activity in a way that's different from decreasing the server-wide mineral output. Unlike any other activity in the game, freighter-ganking is one that relies on multiple participants in one form or another....



So wait. You're saying that these people are going to have to go make FRIENDS with other REAL PEOPLE playing this MMO?.. To do that thing that SHOULD require multiple PEOPLE to do? HEAVENS! Lol Don't get me wrong. I think freighters dying his hilarious. Do I think one dude should hit F1 and have 15 tornados fire? Hell no. If you want to kill people that badly, make a corp and meet people who like killing people too. Isn't that the point?
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#1049 - 2014-11-26 06:00:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Just about all of what you have said holds true for anything but mining when it comes to tasks that hold a benefit for command broadcast multiboxing. 1 player bomber groups and incursions fleets come to mind in addition to gankers. In the former case it makes controlling a group of bombers unfeasible at best and in the latter case trashes efficiency while creating significant potential for losses.

Mining and running incursions doesn't have the same time constraints that dealing with CONCORD does. You can have enough tank on an incursion ship to have enough time to cycle between your 3 Guardian alts and focus your RR; CONCORD, on the other hand, is a kill trigger.

Deimos Barret wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
[quote=Tyberius Franklin][quote=Destiny Corrupted]
... However, in the case of suicide-ganking, it's much more worrisome, because that means that CCP is targeting it as an activity in a way that's different from decreasing the server-wide mineral output. Unlike any other activity in the game, freighter-ganking is one that relies on multiple participants in one form or another....



So wait. You're saying that these people are going to have to go make FRIENDS with other REAL PEOPLE playing this MMO?.. To do that thing that SHOULD require multiple PEOPLE to do? HEAVENS! Lol Don't get me wrong. I think freighters dying his hilarious. Do I think one dude should hit F1 and have 15 tornados fire? Hell no. If you want to kill people that badly, make a corp and meet people who like killing people too. Isn't that the point?

You didn't actually read what I wrote, did you?

What I said was that as far as suicide-ganking goes, the requirement to make friends in order to conduct this activity shouldn't be held to a double standard, since there's no requirement to make friends for any other activity in the game, due to the fact that using alts is as, or even more efficient than doing it with other players.

You don't need to have friends to cyno your capital ship around the universe, you don't need to have friends in order to run a mission and salvage at the same time, and you don't need to have friends to casually tab through multiple clients during the course of a strip miner cycle. But you will need friends to gank freighters. Double standard.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Dracarys.
#1050 - 2014-11-26 06:01:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
there's 2 possibilities behind this.

the first is they want to let multiboxing continue at the cost of limited human input rates, and slowing down your rig.

the second is they want to improve on the way multiboxing happens in EVE.

the things that make me hopeful are: the prevalence of multiboxing, power of 2 promotions, and the trend of Seagull. I doubt this is just as simple as suddenly pulling the plug on multiboxers with nothing better in store.

as for the story about reimbursements... you really gotta stop believing these likely stories that CCP gives as reasons.

I personally don't know what all the secrecy is for. No other game is looking to EVE to copy innovative game design.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1051 - 2014-11-26 06:04:11 UTC
Carmen Electra wrote:
...There must be some way to follow through with this excellent new direction for EVE without imposing what feels like a severe punishment on players who, though perhaps unpopular, have played by the rules.

Carmen, I can certainly feel for your situation today.

We have a guy in Alliance that is in a similar position to you. He maintains a 12 character incursion running fleet to run Vanguards. That's his source of income in the game and it's fed straight back into his Corporation to fund his ship replacement program. He recruits new players and provides them with fully fitted ships to go lose in lowsec pvp.

Far from doing anything wrong, he's encouraging everything good about the game at his own personal expense to train and maintain a fleet of characters that he ISBoxers.

I know you are similar, in terms of using the ISK to support other in game activities that are very much in line with what many in GD see as legitimate forms of play.

I hope CCP somehow amends their new policy before it's introduced so that people who use ISBoxer legitimately can continue to use it in the future.
Toxicblu3
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1052 - 2014-11-26 06:05:12 UTC
Fantastic change.

Now fix offgrid links please
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1053 - 2014-11-26 06:05:30 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Deimos Barret wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
[quote=Tyberius Franklin][quote=Destiny Corrupted]
... However, in the case of suicide-ganking, it's much more worrisome, because that means that CCP is targeting it as an activity in a way that's different from decreasing the server-wide mineral output. Unlike any other activity in the game, freighter-ganking is one that relies on multiple participants in one form or another....



So wait. You're saying that these people are going to have to go make FRIENDS with other REAL PEOPLE playing this MMO?.. To do that thing that SHOULD require multiple PEOPLE to do? HEAVENS! Lol Don't get me wrong. I think freighters dying his hilarious. Do I think one dude should hit F1 and have 15 tornados fire? Hell no. If you want to kill people that badly, make a corp and meet people who like killing people too. Isn't that the point?

You didn't actually read what I wrote, did you?

What I said was that as far as suicide-ganking goes, the requirement to make friends in order to conduct this activity shouldn't be held to a double standard, since there's no requirement to make friends for any other activity in the game, due to the fact that using alts is as, or even more efficient than doing it with other players.

You don't need to have friends to cyno your capital ship around the universe, you don't need to have friends in order to run a mission and salvage at the same time, and you don't need to have friends to casually tab through multiple clients during the course of a strip miner cycle. But you [b]will[/b[ need friends to gank freighters. Double standard.

Incursions and WH site runners should be able to reasonably solo all of their content as well by this logic. We've had a double standard for a while, and while it wasn't linked to the number of people it WAS linked to the number of clients.

All of there activities that could be multiboxed will be losing efficiency, but if other activities have a bar set in a place where multiple people are needed to accomplish a task then that means there is room in the game for it and no reason to homogenize effort or player count requirements.
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1054 - 2014-11-26 06:06:38 UTC
Kajurei Delainen wrote:
... to leverage their play experience with their wallet...


There's your problem. There's a name for games that let you experience better results with pumping in more RL-money. I don't think just this will fix everything but it's a good start.

Lots of respect for CCP to make the decision. This will probably be a noticeable drop for their income for the short term at least.

This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.

crazyamorgianos amorgianos
Mediterranean Anarchy
#1055 - 2014-11-26 06:09:15 UTC
Good job CCP
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1056 - 2014-11-26 06:10:36 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Just about all of what you have said holds true for anything but mining when it comes to tasks that hold a benefit for command broadcast multiboxing. 1 player bomber groups and incursions fleets come to mind in addition to gankers. In the former case it makes controlling a group of bombers unfeasible at best and in the latter case trashes efficiency while creating significant potential for losses.

Mining and running incursions doesn't have the same time constraints that dealing with CONCORD does. You can have enough tank on an incursion ship to have enough time to cycle between your 3 Guardian alts and focus your RR; CONCORD, on the other hand, is a kill trigger.
Time constraints are irrelevant, you either suffer loss in efficiency when doing it or you don't. And in an incursion if you aren't needing to cycle through engaging targets fast enough to run you ragged on top of running those logi you aren't making isk at any appreciable rate. You're just tanking rats. You may not lose a ship, but not losing a ship, to concord or anyone else isn't exactly the most honest measure of the total loss due to this change. Suggesting it is seems rather dishonest.
Ger Atol
Antiquity Research Division
#1057 - 2014-11-26 06:11:33 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Carmen Electra wrote:
...There must be some way to follow through with this excellent new direction for EVE without imposing what feels like a severe punishment on players who, though perhaps unpopular, have played by the rules.

Carmen, I can certainly feel for your situation today.

We have a guy in Alliance that is in a similar position to you. He maintains a 12 character incursion running fleet to run Vanguards. That's his source of income in the game and it's fed straight back into his Corporation to fund his ship replacement program. He recruits new players and provides them with fully fitted ships to go lose in lowsec pvp.

Far from doing anything wrong, he's encouraging everything good about the game at his own personal expense to train and maintain a fleet of characters that he ISBoxers.

I know you are similar, in terms of using the ISK to support other in game activities that are very much in line with what many in GD see as legitimate forms of play.

I hope CCP somehow amends their new policy before it's introduced so that people who use ISBoxer legitimately can continue to use it in the future.



CCP move the goal posts again. Many people multibox with ISboxer in VGs to support so much in game content, this is not something the whining hordes see, but they will when the trickle down effect disseminated form this. So many accounts gonna expire :)
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#1058 - 2014-11-26 06:12:35 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Incursions and WH site runners should be able to reasonably solo all of their content as well by this logic. We've had a double standard for a while, and while it wasn't linked to the number of people it WAS linked to the number of clients.

All of there activities that could be multiboxed will be losing efficiency, but if other activities have a bar set in a place where multiple people are needed to accomplish a task then that means there is room in the game for it and no reason to homogenize effort or player count requirements.

Once again:

- Incursions and Sleepers are not kill triggers, and are already done solo by single players with alts.
- No other activity gains efficiency from multiboxing. The only thing that multiboxing does for other activities is decrease the effort of input required to conduct them. Meanwhile, suicide-ganking will suffer an actual efficiency loss, due to the necessity for more accounts.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Dracarys.
#1059 - 2014-11-26 06:14:31 UTC
Ger Atol wrote:

CCP move the goal posts again. Many people multibox with ISboxer in VGs to support so much in game content, this is not something the whining hordes see, but they will when the trickle down effect disseminated form this. So many accounts gonna expire :)

Yeah, ISBoxer subscriptions, maybe.

Goalposts need to move sometimes, because not everything sits still while you do nothing to iterate.
Jibaja
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1060 - 2014-11-26 06:15:00 UTC
Carmen Electra wrote:


I have 15 accounts, and after this new policy takes effect, I will have absolutely no use for 12 of them. Given that this amounts to what is effectively a permaban for 12 of my accounts, this feels severely punative. I'm sure you can understand how this would be frustrating given that I have always played by the rules.

This puts me and others in a pretty tight spot. I've spent about a year carefully planning and tending to my ISBoxer fleet and it was nearly unbearable to log them in tonight knowing that my creation was about to be pretty much erased. "What you build has value" has been a marketing line in the past, and is what draws many people to EVE. What I've built is about to have no value Sad


There must be some way to follow through with this excellent new direction for EVE without imposing what feels like a severe punishment on players who, though perhaps unpopular, have played by the rules.


So where was it that they said you can't use ISBoxer? i believe you stlil can. you just can't use the broadcast feature unless, as they said is logging in and whatnot.