EVE General Discussion

Nice reference to the Falklands War.

So, +1 from me good sir.

That's the problem with people making assumptions about how ISBoxer and multiboxing in general work. This is an untrue statement. Yes, by making a fleet of alts and multiboxing we remove the pain of organizing real people: Most notably scheduling, time constraints, and other people's decision making. But in so doing we take on a number of additional 'pains'. ISBoxer is not easy to set up or, even if set up properly, to maintain perfect control over every ship. It requires a fair bit of attention from the operator, even when just mining, to make sure all your ships are doing what you want them to and not flying off to Abu Dhabi and getting ganked. There is a trade off here. There are interesting decisions for us to make. Just not the ones presented by other people. Honestly, these decisions are the entire reason I multibox. They're fun. They're challenging. And I enjoy solving them and struggling against them. Flying a single ship is frankly easy and boring once you've done this sort of boxing.


This is where playstyles come into play. Not every player is required to mine rocks. Not every player is required to fly a capital. Not every player is required to do missions. Not every player is required to multibox. But some do. Multiboxing is every bit as valid a playstyle as any other until CCP finally decides to ban it entirely. There is no reason they cannot coexist. And there is no reason to completely screw over a particular playstyle just because of a few edge case abuses. Has multiplexing been abused? Absolutely. Why? Because it creates an "unfair" advantage. But what constitutes unfair? CCP has already said an advantage is fine in allowing us to effectively multibox as many accounts as we can stand. Each person's capacity may be different. I'm curious to see what they will say when they stumble across the individual who really can run 20-30 accounts by himself to great effect. They'll be right back where they started.


And this is exactly why we created tools like ISBoxer to make these wrist-slashing parts of the game interesting again, since CCP clearly won't do it.

So, if CCP's big issue is that multi-boxing creates an unfair advantage, instead of taking our toys away and making our playstyle invalid (and in my case, several of my accounts that I had invested a good deal of money in and now have no use for because I can't manage all 9 any more without going nuts), just decide "how much is too much" and let us know that.

I'd rather them say "No more than 5 accounts.", "No more than 2 accounts" or "no more than 1 account" than to keep perpetuating their hypocritical stance of "having an advantage over others is fine, but only so much as your reaction time or sanity can stand."

If the issue is an unfair advantage, remove the advantage, or set a hard limit on it. But stop taking away our quality of life improvements that we used on crappy, crappy systems that CCP themselves apparently don't know how, or refuse to fix.

Mining is in no fashion 'obsolete'. You may want to get a dictionary and check what the word even means. Wait, here, I'll do that for you, wouldn't want you to try to overload yourself trying to do two things at once. That'd be far too much like multiboxing.

adjective
1. no longer produced or used; out of date.

Judging by the many miners flying around, judging by the large volumes of minerals that pass through trading hubs like jita, judging by the amount of players like myself that do mining, I can assure you, mining is not 'obsolete'. The process of mining is something that many, like yourself, do not enjoy, and so you call for changes, at the expense of all of us who do enjoy it.

Mining is relaxing.
Mining is enjoyable.
Mining provides an active non-combat income source.
Mining can be done while talking to friends without a significant drop in productivity.

Mining is great how it is, to changing it? Myself and many of the others out there who actually mine, say no thankyou. Quit trying to change our gameplay just to suit your own agenda, so that people who don't like mining still won't mine, but those who enjoy it now, won't do it either.

"But mining pays out so little isk, it's not a comparable stream of revenue, it needs to be buffed/fixed/changed so it pays more."

Again, no. Supply and demand. There is demand for X amount of minerals on the market, and there are Y number of miners. The more desirable you make mining, the more Y increases, and thus, the value of minerals drops. Similarly, if you introduce new ships or methods that can attain minerals even faster, you will find that the amount of supply increases, whereas the demand does not, so again, we see a drop in the value of minerals.

The only way you are going to get mining to be more lucrative, short of adding lp/isk to mining, is by making mining LESS appealing to the majority. The current miners do it because they are comfortable making 15-50m an hour per character mining. If it was suddenly worth 80m an hour, active or inactive, enough people would bring mining ships out that it would very quickly be 15-50m an hour again.

CCP can do what ever they want as it's their game.

Also


You always knew ISBoxer or any other 3rd line program was technically banned, just not enforced. Guessing it's same as with old AP0 hack, CCP now has way to detect it more accurately and will start enforcing the rule.

I have 2 questions about this change of policies.

First.
I have 2 accounts and rarely use them simultaneously, but I am wondering will it be ok to use software like OnTopReplica to broadcast mouse clicks to a single account at a time. I'll elaborate: I can cut out part of the window of account 2 and put it on top of account 1 window. Then I can use the "Click forwarding" feature to transmit the click to account 2 while still having account 1 window active. It's still one click - one action on a single account in game, it just removes the annoying alt tabbing part, it's not possible to broadcast to multiple accounts with OnTop, only to one window it has replicated and I still have to click mods in account 1 to activate them.
I consider it just a way of window management, but a CCP response on that would be nice.

Second.
This has been asked a lot already. Fancy gaming peripherals and binding all resist mods to one button.
I found a GM post from 2011 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=117249#post117249
It says right there:

CCP please provide update on this policy, activating non-grouped modules on a single account with 1 key - yes or no.

Also, about this:

I am taking CCP Random's response as yes, because I am activating mod on one account at a time, but it's still too vague to be certain.

the ruling is pretty clear actually.

In regard wether ISBoxer is banned or not, CCP FoxFour wrote this in another section:



Source: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=385412

Technically banned? CCP has told us in writing this was not the case.

Yep, that's pretty clear. With words like that they should have give a heads up equal to the longest subscription they sell, i.e. 1 year.

the accelerated gameplay part be part of EULA for a long time already.
They just decided to strictly enforce this part upon isbotters since 1st of Jan. 2015,
however isbotter was against EULA since day 1 already.