These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1841 - 2014-11-29 07:34:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
A fleet of 20 'nados managed by one person manually handling each client vs a fleet of 20 'nados managed by 20 players is at a severe disadvantage due to his or her divided attention. That changes the moment he or she no longer has to divide their attention, and can just push F1 once to fire 160 1400mm cannons simultaneously.


If you fly a 20b providence around in hisec, you will die. Doesn't matter if it's a boxer or a corp like VENGA. Also, stop hiring noobs in your gank fleet.


I don't have a gank fleet so I don't know what you're talking about.

As for dying just by virtue of flying around in a Providence, no, that's not true at all. Some people actually know how to fly freighters and haulers using proper caution and risk mitigation. We call it the "idiot tank" - we tank ourselves with stupid people, who are much easier targets.

Stop making excuses and treating me like I know nothing. Once again, we're not addressing multiboxing, we're addressing input broadcasting and multiplexing. So enough with the non sequiturs already, we're all adults here so ******* act like it.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1842 - 2014-11-29 07:36:43 UTC
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1843 - 2014-11-29 07:42:59 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I don't have a gank fleet so I don't know what you're talking about.

As for dying just by virtue of flying around in a Providence, no, that's not true at all. Some people actually know how to fly freighters and haulers using proper caution and risk mitigation. We call it the "idiot tank" - we tank ourselves with stupid people, who are much easier targets.

Stop making excuses and treating me like I know nothing. Once again, we're not addressing multiboxing, we're addressing input broadcasting and multiplexing. So enough with the non sequiturs already, we're all adults here so ******* act like it.


I mean a general "you" when I said "your gank fleet".

If you simply fly an empty Provi, only CODE would probably gank you for the giggles. I was positing if you flew in a Provi with 20b of :stuff: in your hold.

Also, there is not a doubt in my mind that every single ISBoxer who says "multiboxing" is referring to the ability to broadcast his actions. If you think for even a second that we misread CCP's post, then I pity you.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1844 - 2014-11-29 07:47:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I don't have a gank fleet so I don't know what you're talking about.

As for dying just by virtue of flying around in a Providence, no, that's not true at all. Some people actually know how to fly freighters and haulers using proper caution and risk mitigation. We call it the "idiot tank" - we tank ourselves with stupid people, who are much easier targets.

Stop making excuses and treating me like I know nothing. Once again, we're not addressing multiboxing, we're addressing input broadcasting and multiplexing. So enough with the non sequiturs already, we're all adults here so ******* act like it.


I mean a general "you" when I said "your gank fleet".

If you simply fly an empty Provi, only CODE would probably gank you for the giggles. I was positing if you flew in a Provi with 20b of :stuff: in your hold.

Also, there is not a doubt in my mind that every single ISBoxer who says "multiboxing" is referring to the ability to broadcast his actions. If you think for even a second that we misread CCP's post, then I pity you.


I don't need your pity, but you will have to accept the rule change.

So you might want to think about saving that pity for yourself.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Alexia Marhx
The Witch's Den
#1845 - 2014-11-29 07:52:54 UTC
Fonac wrote:
I'm seriously lacking faith in the eve population, that they can understand such a policy... All it takes is a few clicks, and bam you're doing something illegal.


Like in real life... You grab a gun and in a couple seconds you can turn into a murderer...
Madd Adda
#1846 - 2014-11-29 07:59:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Madd Adda
Why are we arguing over this? We don't make the rules, but we have to follow them or leave. I'm all for expressing one's own opinions, but what do we have to gain by arguing? If they were so easily swayed by words on their forums, do you think that jump fatigue would have gone through? Turning back now, on this decision, would be worse than just following through on their word.

Carebear extraordinaire
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1847 - 2014-11-29 08:02:04 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I don't need your pity, but you will have to accept the rule change.


Again, why is it that multiboxers are somehow exempt from being able to argue against a change that affects them?

You go to any other subforum with a CCP post about a change, and you will not see someone say "You are not allowed to discuss this even if it affects you."
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1848 - 2014-11-29 08:04:21 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:
Why are we arguing over this? We don't make the rules, but we have to follow them or leave. I'm all for expressing one's own opinions, but what do we have to gain by arguing? If they were so easily swayed by words on their forums, do you think that jump fatigue would have gone through? Turning back now, on this decision, would be worse than just following through on their word.


What is: Reversal of stealth bombers decloaking each other for 500.
Madd Adda
#1849 - 2014-11-29 08:08:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Madd Adda
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
Why are we arguing over this? We don't make the rules, but we have to follow them or leave. I'm all for expressing one's own opinions, but what do we have to gain by arguing? If they were so easily swayed by words on their forums, do you think that jump fatigue would have gone through? Turning back now, on this decision, would be worse than just following through on their word.


What is: Reversal of stealth bombers decloaking each other for 500.


I can't speak for CCP, if they chose to nerf that, then they must have had good reason. If that reason is related to multiboxing, then it'll probably be in a patch update rather than a EULA clarification.

Carebear extraordinaire
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1850 - 2014-11-29 08:25:06 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:
I can't speak for CCP, if they chose to nerf that, then they must have had good reason. If that reason is related to multiboxing, then it'll probably be in a patch update rather than a EULA clarification.


Just because CCP makes a change doesn't mean it's good or with thought.
Madd Adda
#1851 - 2014-11-29 08:31:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Madd Adda
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
I can't speak for CCP, if they chose to nerf that, then they must have had good reason. If that reason is related to multiboxing, then it'll probably be in a patch update rather than a EULA clarification.


Just because CCP makes a change doesn't mean it's good or with thought.


How do you define "good" in this context? Good for you? Good for the player base? Good for CCP? Aside from that, I would think that a great deal of thought goes into every change.

Carebear extraordinaire
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1852 - 2014-11-29 08:33:47 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
I can't speak for CCP, if they chose to nerf that, then they must have had good reason. If that reason is related to multiboxing, then it'll probably be in a patch update rather than a EULA clarification.


Just because CCP makes a change doesn't mean it's good or with thought.


How do you define "good" in this context? Good for you? Good for the player base? Good for CCP? Aside from that, I would think that a great deal of thought goes into every change.


What is the Incarna expansion...
Madd Adda
#1853 - 2014-11-29 08:43:37 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
I can't speak for CCP, if they chose to nerf that, then they must have had good reason. If that reason is related to multiboxing, then it'll probably be in a patch update rather than a EULA clarification.


Just because CCP makes a change doesn't mean it's good or with thought.


How do you define "good" in this context? Good for you? Good for the player base? Good for CCP? Aside from that, I would think that a great deal of thought goes into every change.


What is the Incarna expansion...





I'll go out on a limb here and say it was the noble exchange (with the possibility of game breaking micro transactions at its launch) you were referring to? Thought went into its creation, and thought went into its replacement.

Carebear extraordinaire
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1854 - 2014-11-29 08:53:48 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:
I'll go out on a limb here and say it was the noble exchange (with the possibility of game breaking micro transactions at its launch) you were referring to? Thought went into its creation, and thought went into its replacement.


What are: The Incarna Riots....

Hint: It's not like the Boston Riots when they were overexcited they won a game....
Madd Adda
#1855 - 2014-11-29 09:01:44 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
I'll go out on a limb here and say it was the noble exchange (with the possibility of game breaking micro transactions at its launch) you were referring to? Thought went into its creation, and thought went into its replacement.


What are: The Incarna Riots....

Hint: It's not like the Boston Riots when they were overexcited they won a game....


Are you saying that you're going to gather up all the multiboxers and just sit in Jita, spamming nonesense? More power to you, buddy. In all honesty though, comparing this to Incarna is just ridiculous.

Carebear extraordinaire
kraken11 jensen
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#1856 - 2014-11-29 09:29:13 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
It jives with the stipulations in the OP. only allowing one client at a time means you won't be affecting -anything- in an adverse or imbalanced way. So multiple accounts would be limited to people who do industry or research chains, and such. It seems to be the pure game people want. I'll be honest with you, fleeting with 8k DPS in subcaps including logi is kind of broken, don't you think. if I eat someone alive with a multiboxed setup, even if I didn't use keystroke broadcasting... I still faceroll them by using 8 clients. key broadcast changes nothing



:)
kraken11 jensen
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#1857 - 2014-11-29 09:31:23 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
I can't speak for CCP, if they chose to nerf that, then they must have had good reason. If that reason is related to multiboxing, then it'll probably be in a patch update rather than a EULA clarification.


Just because CCP makes a change doesn't mean it's good or with thought.


You're right :)
Sadly.
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#1858 - 2014-11-29 10:22:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Chris Winter
I'm actually now of the mind that multiboxing at all gives an unfair advantage and should be banned. One player, one account.

People who can afford to have multiple accounts can provide themselves with mining or combat boosts without having to do anything at all on their second character other than sit somewhere in space. They can assign fighters to themselves, thereby drastically increasing the power they wield without requiring any additional work.

Industrialists can dodge the per-character manufacturing/invention/etc slot limitations and give themselves effectively unlimited slots--and due to the recent changes to Advanced Industry, a day-one alt makes just as much profit on a manufacturing job as a max-skilled character does.

Miners can acquire significantly more ore than other people, and by combining their drone flights defend themselves in areas of space where they wouldn't normally be able to.

Wormhole residents can rat in relative safety by having a do-nothing alt sitting cloaked on a wormhole entrance waiting for people to come in. Same for people ratting in null--they can have an alt in the next system over to give themselves advance warning of possible hostiles.

Multiboxers can cyno themselves out of danger, completely negating the teamwork aspect of jumping.

These and other things create a massive divide between the haves and the have-nots, moreso than isboxer does.

One client logged in per player at a time. It's the only way to be fair to all players and encourage playing with other PEOPLE instead of just playing by oneself, and one's offgrid boost alt, and one's fighter assist carrier, and one's scout alts.
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
#1859 - 2014-11-29 10:31:35 UTC
Chris Winter wrote:
One client logged in per player at a time. It's the only way to be fair to all players and encourage playing with other PEOPLE instead of just playing by oneself, and one's offgrid boost alt, and one's fighter assist carrier, and one's scout alts.


And how are you going to enforce that?
So my family living at the same address as me are banned from playing EVE at the same time as me?
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#1860 - 2014-11-29 10:34:19 UTC
Pak Narhoo wrote:
Chris Winter wrote:
One client logged in per player at a time. It's the only way to be fair to all players and encourage playing with other PEOPLE instead of just playing by oneself, and one's offgrid boost alt, and one's fighter assist carrier, and one's scout alts.


And how are you going to enforce that?
So my family living at the same address as me are banned from playing EVE at the same time as me?


Accounts are registered to a real-life individual owner. So, John Smith and his brother Jack Smith can each play on one account that's registered to them.