FAQ  •  Register  •  Login

Important update to EVE Online rules coming January 2015

Moderator: MiRai

<<

bugme143

User avatar

Posts: 47

Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:31 am

Post Tue Dec 16, 2014 4:09 am

Re: Important update to EVE Online rules coming January 2015

Kamikaze wrote:so why the nerf? It's a pretty logical question I suppose. ISBoxing being bad for the game is the same as saying a player fleet is bad for the game.


Because as we've seen with GTA V, the companies listen to the vocal minority without bothering to fact check, or do proper research.
I'm an EVE bro with extended knowledge of incursions. Feel free to contact me here.
<<

Jeran

Posts: 59

Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:57 am

Post Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:51 am

Re: Important update to EVE Online rules coming January 2015

bugme143 wrote:
Jeran wrote:
bugme143 wrote:1) :getout:
2) Define "small"
3) :getout:
3) :getout:


So in response to your reasonable point - that would be number 2 - I'd put it at 3-5 accounts if you want to stay mostly sane, and 5-10 if you're willing to lose some efficiency.

EVE does suffer from game design that promotes multiboxing, and some of that isn't easy to fix. Mining, incursions, afk ratting, full bomber wings, capital ships, and so on all have inherent mechanics that make it really easy to use a ton of them at once (or as many as you need; 10 or 20 or 40 or whatever in the case of incursions). Unfortunately, they also all kinda break the game in various ways when played like that. Multiboxed bombers and capital ships are an example for PvP, since the former becomes both a requirement and also a harshly limiting factor in doctrine design, and the latter leads to unbreakable rr blobs and tanking til downtime; Incursions and mining are the obvious pve examples, with the former being a straight up stupid isk faucet and also competing with actual group content, and the latter causing issues with single account miners (which, as terrible as mining is, should be a more profitable option for new players).

I'm sure you have just as many reasons against this, but I think mine are the right ones =)


Jeran has leveled up!
Jeran has learned Dodge!
Jeran must delete a move in order to learn Dodge! What move shall that be?
>Delete "Craft careful arguments with supporting evidence and reasoning"
Congratulations!

You made the claim that this was a great change. I asked for your reasonings and your evidence. You dodged.
I asked for you to define small, which you did answer. You also pointed out that the game design itself was broken, but failed to process it in your mind it seems. You want to limit everyone to a certain number of accounts, and that makes you no better than those who whine "He has more/can control more accounts than me, ban him". There is nothing a multibox fleet can do that a trained fleet of single boxers can do just as well if not better. Attempting to argue "bu-bu-but he makes more isk / all his responses are in a single tick" is stupid because you're trying to compare BRAVE to PL, or a kitchen-sink fleet to ISN Primary line members. ISN is known (in the incursion world) for flying to the extreme limits of tank and DPS, which is what most ISBoxers do.
You claim it was "reasonable", when everyone has a different definition of "reasonable". CCP had a wide array of options to choose from, and they chose the least "reasonable" in terms of actually thinking about a problem and attempting to cure the disease, not simply treat the symptoms.
You claimed that ISBoxing large numbers was "undoubtedly bad". I asked for your reasonings and your evidence. You dodged.

So far, you've dodged most if not all of my critique of your one-line trollbait. I look forward to reading your next post of dodges.


Cool! Here are three more dodges for you:

1. I specifically gave four examples - stealth bombers, capital ships, incursions, and mining - where I think multiboxing at a large scale is a bad thing for the game.

2. My general argument is that the removal of mouse and key broadcasting is a very reasonable way to nerf the multiboxing that is enabled by poor game design - note that you can still do all these things, it just no longer scales nearly as well - while not nerfing the multiboxing that is cool for the game (small stuff, basically).

3. I'm pretty sure the definition of reasonable in these circumstances is what an average person would consider to be reasonable, which is why everyone doesn't get to have their own definition =P Unfortunately for you, you probably aren't the average person in this regard, which probably explains how upset you are about these changes. I am genuinely sorry that your playstyle has likely been nerfed, I recognize that it sucks for you, but I also think it's a good thing for the game.

CCP had a wide array of options to choose from, and they chose the least "reasonable" in terms of actually thinking about a problem and attempting to cure the disease, not simply treat the symptoms.


I find it quite ironic that you say this while at the same time asking me for citations. Talk about hyperbole! Surely the least reasonable would have been banning all multiboxing, or trying to pick specific scenarios to ban ("no more mining groups greater than five"), or banning specific programs ("no more isboxer"), or probably other cases. I'm surprised you can't recognize any of the advantages to the approach that CCP took.
<<

bugme143

User avatar

Posts: 47

Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:31 am

Post Tue Dec 16, 2014 1:51 pm

Re: Important update to EVE Online rules coming January 2015

I've proposed useful changes on the EVE forums many times, as well as calling out people such as yourself for your hypocrisy on the whole "multiboxing scales perfectly so it's bad" all the while bending over backwards attempting to defend station trading, something which earns far more ISK and can scale thousands of times better than multiboxing.

I've yet to see a capital fleet that was multiboxed to the same extent as TheWis.
Multibox bombers can easily be nerfed by requiring a 4-digit arming code for a bomb to be effective.
Multibox mining can be fixed by reducing output for "afk mining" while introducing a minigame to reward players who are attentive. This also has the added benefit of rewarding players for not going AFK.
Multibox incursions can be tweaked by reducing the ISK payout and increasing the LP payout, forcing players to use the ISK sink that is the LP store more, and encouraging players to either interact with other people via places like the Concord LP channel, or it'll force players to buy minerals or tags off the market and spend ISK that way.

The average player thinks that anything over 2 toons is cheating somehow, so I'd take it with a grain of salt. When I was using one account, I didn't look at someone who could afford to pay for two as some sort of cheater or hacker because I wasn't a retard. I understood that if they wanted to pay for multiple accounts, that's their choice.

You keep using weasel words that mean different things to different people's interpretations such as "reasonable" which makes me think you are a troll. When players are allowed to dictate a company's actions and use words that can later be interpreted differently by different GMs, bad things happen.
I'm an EVE bro with extended knowledge of incursions. Feel free to contact me here.
<<

Jeran

Posts: 59

Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:57 am

Post Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:46 pm

Re: Important update to EVE Online rules coming January 2015

bugme143 wrote:I've proposed useful changes on the EVE forums many times, as well as calling out people such as yourself for your hypocrisy on the whole "multiboxing scales perfectly so it's bad"


Otherwise good ideas combined with personal attacks, no wonder your ideas aren't getting much attention or traction! I bet that would be quite frustrating.

all the while bending over backwards attempting to defend station trading, something which earns far more ISK and can scale thousands of times better than multiboxing.


Which I haven't even brought up, but ok, this whole conversation does make a lot more sense when I realize you're conflating me with and then arguing with a person or people that are not me.

I've yet to see a capital fleet that was multiboxed to the same extent as TheWis.


There are, however, quite a few people who run 5+ carriers/dreads/supers, and I think that even on that level it's problematic. Because of the number of mods and the complexity of things like refitting, lacking mouse and key broadcasting makes multiboxing more than a couple capitals much harder. Which, again, I think is a good thing. I don't need to extend it to 90 ship multiboxing for this argument to have merit.

Multibox bombers can easily be nerfed by requiring a 4-digit arming code for a bomb to be effective.
Multibox mining can be fixed by reducing output for "afk mining" while introducing a minigame to reward players who are attentive. This also has the added benefit of rewarding players for not going AFK.
Multibox incursions can be tweaked by reducing the ISK payout and increasing the LP payout, forcing players to use the ISK sink that is the LP store more, and encouraging players to either interact with other people via places like the Concord LP channel, or it'll force players to buy minerals or tags off the market and spend ISK that way.


Don't disagree, but as I pointed out previously, being able to come up with a better solution doesn't make the current solution the worst solution.

The average player thinks that anything over 2 toons is cheating somehow, so I'd take it with a grain of salt. When I was using one account, I didn't look at someone who could afford to pay for two as some sort of cheater or hacker because I wasn't a retard. I understood that if they wanted to pay for multiple accounts, that's their choice.


Quite the persecution complex. Also, this is another classic "citation needed" on your part. Maybe you're just paying too much attention to loudmouths on forums and/or the voices in your head?

You keep using weasel words that mean different things to different people's interpretations such as "reasonable" which makes me think you are a troll. When players are allowed to dictate a company's actions and use words that can later be interpreted differently by different GMs, bad things happen.


Reasonable is a weasel word? What other ones have I used? I'd like to start a list because your theory of language is both hilarious and enlightening.
<<

angeldogsuit

Posts: 29

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:09 pm

Location: Vancouver USA (Washington state, folks)

Post Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:18 am

Re: Important update to EVE Online rules coming January 2015

Here are 2 things I have played with, but with the season being what it is, I'm constrained on time.

1. Place mouse over desired button while configured to activate when pressed (maybe f1) and have the mouse configured to change to the next screen on release. Bada Bing! Work you way through all your accounts pretty hastily, one button move per action and one account at a time.

2. Our big problem is being seen as a crowd, all moving in synch like 5000 North Koreans dancing because they are so happy starving on the annniversary of their slavitude on one of the two TV news feeds out of that country each year. Here is something our corp of 70 who are mostly in the game for social reasons and used to get grief when all of us old guys showed up in one belt and maybe only half the miners could CBA'd to even light up a miner. So we started to put just enough miners in one system so when the miners were full, we'd wake up (on TS) our hauler who would lumber out of the station and set our cargo holds free. We would put out 15-18 mining ops in 15-18 systems, maybe two in one system if it had lots of belts. We were wore the same corp tag, but weren't sequentially numbered or anything. Problem solved. Using the remaining features of ISB by splitting up your forces might help you present a smaller footprint. Of course that was pre-code days but there have always been buttflaps whose only pleasure is your displeasure. In the field of psychology, we refer to them as anti-social with homicidal tendencies. Now, half of our mining fleets are DPS in Vindis, Machs and Nightmares. We might be old, but we are old Infantrymen and Special Forces. We don't play fetch for anyone. We don't spread out as much, and move around when ganksters arrive in the system, meaning you have to find systems that are not on prime routes with lots of ships just passing through. It's fun to lead them around and right into a 15 DPS ship ambush who have had time to get there while we played cat and mouse - the more jumps we do the sloppier they get.

So how about it, Lax? Can you do a wizard for config files so all of our windows match line up on the master? Value added Feature which would Benefit most and might not take very long to pump out.

Just an observation. CCP does not want to name a program to ban if it has one feature in it they accept. Just liking managing people, you concentrate on specific unwanted behaviors and avoid using broad brush labels. Now if a program is named "Bots R' US - we defeat EVE", that one will probably get the ban hammer.

The GM stated, I'm paraphrasing roughly, he is more concerned with 20 people with accounts than 1 person with 20 accounts. Please keep in mind he is talking about his listening to 20 people with accounts and 1 person with 20 accounts. The accounting department and the bottom line are concerned about both as for them 20=20. So the GMs have to dance the dance of the Veils using the oh so vague EULA and TOS to do whatever the hell they want to until they get a call from someone high enough up the chain of command to have carpet on their floor.

Jeran and Bugme - get a room... Whenever you get down to arguing about whose metaphor (or maybe it is more of a simile, or semaphore or petit four) has more merit.. the real issue has lost your interest.

Happy Holidays!
<<

bugme143

User avatar

Posts: 47

Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:31 am

Post Thu Dec 18, 2014 3:08 am

Re: Important update to EVE Online rules coming January 2015

Jeran wrote:Otherwise good ideas combined with personal attacks, no wonder your ideas aren't getting much attention or traction! I bet that would be quite frustrating.

You come into our forums, forums that host people who fly 5, 10, 20, even 40 accounts, and you attempt to tell us that these are good changes, while not providing any proof or evidence, and you expect us to not think you're trollbait and react accordingly? :lol:
Also, read some of the anti-ISBoxer posts on the GD thread. You know, the ones that say "everyone who does something different than I do is cheating" and "I didn't read the OP, all ISBoxer is banned". Read some of the insane arguments they make that, with zero effort required, can be used to justify banning massive station trading, indy, and 3rd party programs like EVEMon and EFT. Please forgive me if I'm sick and tired of defending what I do from someone who should by all rights know better.

Jeran wrote:Which I haven't even brought up, but ok, this whole conversation does make a lot more sense when I realize you're conflating me with and then arguing with a person or people that are not me.

No, but people who argue against ISBoxer tend to use arguments that can be used to argue against massive station trading or industrial activities, namely, the so-called "scaleability" and the "ease of use".

Jeran wrote:There are, however, quite a few people who run 5+ carriers/dreads/supers, and I think that even on that level it's problematic. Because of the number of mods and the complexity of things like refitting, lacking mouse and key broadcasting makes multiboxing more than a couple capitals much harder. Which, again, I think is a good thing. I don't need to extend it to 90 ship multiboxing for this argument to have merit.

I'll agree that you can't easily multibox caps refitting off each other using broadcasting all the time, however again we run into the problem of, where do we limit people at? 6? 7? Why those arbitrary numbers?

Jeran wrote:Don't disagree, but as I pointed out previously, being able to come up with a better solution doesn't make the current solution the worst solution.

No, but at the same time it doesn't excuse CCP amputating the limb because of minor, easily repairable, nerve damage in the hand. If CCP had told us that the ban was a temporary measure while they looked at it in depth, you can rest assured I'd be the first person to tell other boxers to calm down and let CCP work this out.

Jeran wrote:Quite the persecution complex. Also, this is another classic "citation needed" on your part. Maybe you're just paying too much attention to loudmouths on forums and/or the voices in your head?

You're correct, I should have posted "in my observation/experience of conversations in-game and on the forums". And if I have a persecution complex, maybe it's because I've seen the kinds of things people post in local when I'm moving systems.

Jeran wrote:Reasonable is a weasel word? What other ones have I used? I'd like to start a list because your theory of language is both hilarious and enlightening.

Straight from Merriam-Webster:
weasel word (noun): a word used in order to avoid being clear or direct.

"Reasonable" is a weasel word because it relies on an unclear definition of what is considered "Kosher" by players, and can be changed at any time. It is open to interpretation by all sides of the discussion, and what may be reasonable for me may not be reasonable for, say, Wheniaminspace, or TheWis. As an example, I wouldn't mind if CCP told us we're limited to 10 accounts online and "doing stuff" at a time, however, for someone like TheWis, he'd find it unreasonable to have to sell or deal with all his accounts.

Also, the timeframe given to us was kinda meh, but I must give CCP credit for telling their accountants to reimburse or otherwise transfer the time on recently paid accounts.
I'm an EVE bro with extended knowledge of incursions. Feel free to contact me here.
<<

MiRai

User avatar

Vibrant Videographer

Posts: 2906

Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:30 pm

Post Thu Dec 18, 2014 4:28 am

Re: Important update to EVE Online rules coming January 2015

bugme143 wrote:
Jeran wrote:Otherwise good ideas combined with personal attacks, no wonder your ideas aren't getting much attention or traction! I bet that would be quite frustrating.

You come into our forums, forums that host people who fly 5, 10, 20, even 40 accounts, and you attempt to tell us that these are good changes, while not providing any proof or evidence, and you expect us to not think you're trollbait and react accordingly? :lol:
Also, read some of the anti-ISBoxer posts on the GD thread. You know, the ones that say "everyone who does something different than I do is cheating" and "I didn't read the OP, all ISBoxer is banned". Read some of the insane arguments they make that, with zero effort required, can be used to justify banning massive station trading, indy, and 3rd party programs like EVEMon and EFT. Please forgive me if I'm sick and tired of defending what I do from someone who should by all rights know better.

If you're going to continue to call people names and accuse them of trolling you'll find that others are going to take you less seriously around here since this place isn't entirely open to the public and requires that the person posting have, at least, an active trial (for multiboxing software, nonetheless) to post here. Just because someone supports multiboxing and multiboxes themselves, doesn't mean that they have to automatically agree with other multiboxers on any topic, and it certainly doesn't mean that they have to support those who multibox an unrealistic amount of accounts at one time just because they can.

You can say, "Define what an unrealistic amount of accounts is," but I think that will be defined come January 1st, 2015.
<<

enth

Posts: 33

Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 7:32 am

Post Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:30 am

Re: Important update to EVE Online rules coming January 2015

PvE in Eve is a necessity if you PvP, you need to pay for your losses somehow. The only way I could endure, maybe even sometimes enjoy PvE in Eve was multiboxing. Not only because it made me space-rich, but because it gave me a challenge to control my multiple ships and tweak the setup. hell, even setting up ISBoxer and customizing it was more than half the fun.

CCP is retarded, their recent changes, starting with Hyperion, and now the ban of broadcasting across multiple characters killed it for me.
Im selling all alts, and continue to pvp with my main, until I run out of money, which will take a while.

I want to thank the ISBoxer team, mainly Lax, for your excellent software and your outstanding support. You made the game very enjoyable for me.

Enthropic out

o7
<<

bugme143

User avatar

Posts: 47

Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:31 am

Post Thu Dec 18, 2014 12:14 pm

Re: Important update to EVE Online rules coming January 2015

MiRai wrote:
bugme143 wrote:
Jeran wrote:Otherwise good ideas combined with personal attacks, no wonder your ideas aren't getting much attention or traction! I bet that would be quite frustrating.

You come into our forums, forums that host people who fly 5, 10, 20, even 40 accounts, and you attempt to tell us that these are good changes, while not providing any proof or evidence, and you expect us to not think you're trollbait and react accordingly? :lol:
Also, read some of the anti-ISBoxer posts on the GD thread. You know, the ones that say "everyone who does something different than I do is cheating" and "I didn't read the OP, all ISBoxer is banned". Read some of the insane arguments they make that, with zero effort required, can be used to justify banning massive station trading, indy, and 3rd party programs like EVEMon and EFT. Please forgive me if I'm sick and tired of defending what I do from someone who should by all rights know better.

If you're going to continue to call people names and accuse them of trolling you'll find that others are going to take you less seriously around here since this place isn't entirely open to the public and requires that the person posting have, at least, an active trial (for multiboxing software, nonetheless) to post here. Just because someone supports multiboxing and multiboxes themselves, doesn't mean that they have to automatically agree with other multiboxers on any topic, and it certainly doesn't mean that they have to support those who multibox an unrealistic amount of accounts at one time just because they can.

You can say, "Define what an unrealistic amount of accounts is," but I think that will be defined come January 1st, 2015.


I have no problems with other people if they post something other than "hurrdurr it's good, you guys are idiots". If he wants to make a decent argument that isn't based on weasel words or feeligs, I'll happily give him time and space to write out his thoughts. However, since he chose to post a one-line trollbait that looks like it was ripped straight off the thread from GD by someone who doesn't understand why we take offense to the ban, I'll treat it as trollbait.
I'm an EVE bro with extended knowledge of incursions. Feel free to contact me here.
<<

lax

User avatar

Site Admin

Posts: 7140

Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:32 pm

Post Thu Dec 18, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Important update to EVE Online rules coming January 2015

bugme143 wrote:I have no problems with other people if they post something other than "hurrdurr it's good, you guys are idiots". If he wants to make a decent argument that isn't based on weasel words or feeligs, I'll happily give him time and space to write out his thoughts. However, since he chose to post a one-line trollbait that looks like it was ripped straight off the thread from GD by someone who doesn't understand why we take offense to the ban, I'll treat it as trollbait.

Yes well this is not the official EVE forums this is the ISBoxer forum, and you don't need to treat anything here as bait. This is also not your space to give anyone, stop treating it like it is.

We want to hear from everyone, not have everyone's voices drowned out and discouraged by bugme143. Attacking each other is not helpful and does not advance the discussion.

Thank you for participating in the discussion, please let others share their opinions as well.
PreviousNext

Return to EVE Online

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest