EVE General Discussion

If CCP Seagull was willing to blatantly lie to people at Fanfest regarding multiboxing, and other devs were happy to lie at EVE Vegas about multiboxing, and if the evidence against CCP regarding reimbursements of multiboxer ganks wasn't there, then yes, I would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Back on topic: Most if not all of the boxers I've talked to subscribed on a per-month basis for each toon. They pushed back their "pay date" with PLEX, with the understanding that there may be months where they were not able to PLEX their accounts and thus they'd pay RL cash. I was personally happy doing a yearly deal because I didn't see any problems with mutlboxing as 1) Anyone could do it, i.e. it wasn't some super secret club like SA, and 2) I saw a post by a CCP Dev stating that multiboxing was not breaking the "accelerated gameplay" clause close to when I started, and was repeated / quoted by multiple Devs or GMs as I continued my EVE career.

Now what's happening is people are removing their payment plans from their accounts, and are going to attempt to PLEX without broadcasting. If they cannot, they've stated in chats that they will sell all their assets from their alts, sell the toons (if possible), stash some PLEX on their primary account, and either take a break, or attempt to play EVE while singleboxing. Again, this is just from the few I've talked to (around ten or so). Judging from this thread and the reddit thread, there's anywhere from 20-40 more who I've not talked to. Some of us are just going to try to find a new game, while others will become "that bittervet in local".

I don't exactly understand CCP's reasoning that multiboxing is somehow more toxic or damaging to the community (especially miners and indy toons) than CODE, but then again, I've seen more complaints about CODE in chats than I have against multiboxing, especially when I've had a chance to convo someone who complains about my multiboxing and I explain the downsides to it in detail.

You do realize that driving is completely ok now and will be ok come January? The only thing being banned is your ability to go over 50mph/80kmh.

Driving = OK.
Driving over 50mph/80kmh = NOT OK.

Except that in our eyes, the government suddenly limited EVERYONE to 50mph, even on highways, interstate parkways, racetracks, and private go-kart courses, simply because one very biased study with a very limited and very selective query pool found that people going over 50mph were at an elevated risk of causing an accident. The study was financed by people with a provable vested interest in having people drive slower and waste gas, and it conveniently ignored extenuating circumstances such as drunk drivers, icy roads, white-out conditions, hail, earthquakes, drag-racers, illegally modified cars, and one-in-a-million strokes of back luck.

You can wire up multiple cars to receive the same signal from a single "source", affecting acceleration, speed, braking, turning, and windows.

Just throwing it out there, you do know that you can still alt tab and do everything by hand. Using software to do it for you gives you an edge over someone without it.

Implying that the software is not readily available and requires filling out a 500 page application and costs $5,000.

Using hardware to improve your FPS, or changing your GFX settings to their lowest, or even paying for better internet gives you a measurable advantage over people with slow computers because you are able to receive information at an increased rate than they are and are able to react faster.

Implying that there is multiboxing software for Linux

And yet none of these things violate the EULA. You keep grasping at straws hoping something will work. Being older helps too, a younger person who has not yet encountered the concept of opportunity cost let alone understood it may run around doing dumb things in Eve that an older person...or an economist would not make. Are we to ban the economists too? Please point to that part of the EULA that is being violated in this case or any of the ones you have cited.

This is intriguing...are you saying there is a study about the effects of ISBoxer?

Yes. CCP monitored ISBoxer use and the CSM was presented the results at the Summer Summit. It was in the minutes, although few details were given.