Close
Page 11 of 22 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 21 ... LastLast
Showing results 101 to 110 of 214
  1. #101

    Default

    @thedevilyouknow
    The problem with a positive response to VFX is that it still doesn't solve the 'efficiency wall' as you put it. If you're too efficient, you'll get the ban.

    I'll probably go back to WoW. Playing on a super-unbalanced server (Kil'jaeden-Horde) means that there are fights everywhere.
    "Tact is for those that lack the wit for sarcasm."
    _________________________________________

  2. #102

    Default

    Some of the fun with multiboxing fleets was that you could develop ways to become as efficient as possible without having to worry about 3rd parties and focus on your own clients.
    Yes that's the problem, if the stance from the start had been "no input dupe, no RR, no rollovers" but vid fx are okay so all you crazy efficient multiboxers have at it, we'd all be mostly fine, some might want to argue but those are clear, concise terms that we do not have to worry about false bans or bans due to petitions

    Id love to multibox wow someday but paywall

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mosg2 View Post
    @thedevilyouknow
    The problem with a positive response to VFX is that it still doesn't solve the 'efficiency wall' as you put it. If you're too efficient, you'll get the ban.

    I'll probably go back to WoW. Playing on a super-unbalanced server (Kil'jaeden-Horde) means that there are fights everywhere.
    Wow has been changed so that it doesn't matter what server you're on when it comes to world pvp. Blizzard in an attempt to balance numbers combines city and overworld maps across servers so there's more of a balance of horde vs alliance.

    I can't wait till my windowed mode is too fast and I get banned...



    Am I the only one that finds it completely hypocritical of CCP to now be worrying about one very very narrow "unfair advantage" while advocating others and even advertising on the fact that eve isn't fair?
    Last edited by Tool of Society : 02-28-2015 at 05:28 PM

  4. #104

    Default

    I'd like to be the first to congratulate EVE Protection Agency corporation for their boxed bomber squad that killed Corebloodbrother, and that bombed a rupture fleet. I apologize for the bad BR, as I don't know which minor alliance is on which side.
    Wanna earn your customer's respect? Go to bat for them. Defend them and what they do. Don't roll over on command, and don't punish them for being human beings. And no, this ain't aimed at CCP.

    Keep pretending you care about EVE ISBoxers and not just their money, Lax.

    Come hang out with us in the channel "Isboxers Lounge" and discuss fittings, doctrines, or just shoot the breeze. Unlike the forums, we won't ban you for what you say. IGN: "AayJay Crendraven" and "Nolak Ataru".

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bugme143 View Post
    I'd like to be the first to congratulate EVE Protection Agency corporation for their boxed bomber squad that killed Corebloodbrother, and that bombed a rupture fleet. I apologize for the bad BR, as I don't know which minor alliance is on which side.
    you have no proof that this was a multiboxed bomber fleet, nor are you or anyone else able to qualify what they did, or did not do, as an unfair advantage!

    get this slander off these forums!

    (who was the FC, i want to send him a thank you)

  6. #106

    Default

    Going to specifically point out this segment from the post Mosg put up

    ]The multiplex/input-broadcasting change was made in order to eliminate certain patterns of play that gave those involved unfair advantages over other players. If using any other set up results in same or similar unfair advantages then those patterns of play are clearly not safe to employ and players risk getting banned for it. The end result is an unfair advantage over other users playing the game with the EVE Online client as it is shipped and action will be taken in such cases.

    Read it carefully
    Last edited by Khatovar : 03-03-2015 at 02:06 PM

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thedevilyouknow View Post
    Going to specifically point out this segment from the post Mosg put up

    The multiplex/input-broadcasting change was made in order to eliminate certain patterns of play that gave those involved unfair advantages over other players. If using any other set up results in same or similar unfair advantages then those patterns of play are clearly not safe to employ and players risk getting banned for it. The end result is an unfair advantage over other users playing the game with the EVE Online client as it is shipped and action will be taken in such cases.

    Read it carefully
    Right. So STRICTLY interpret these rules as they are.

    Are you doing anything that another player in the game couldn't do? Don't do it.

    With my setup - I use videofx simply to move around the actual ingame assets. Any player in the game can move their mouse and click a button - just like I do. Any player in the game can go click their broadcast window - just like I do.

    Any player in the game CANNOT scroll their mouse wheel and fire off 20 rattlesnake's worth of missiles.

    I'd say avoid any and ALL shenanigans. If it can't be done by someone in the normal game don't do it.
    Last edited by Khatovar : 03-03-2015 at 02:06 PM

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LordsServant View Post
    Any player in the game CANNOT scroll their mouse wheel and fire off 20 rattlesnake's worth of missiles.
    In my point of view, everything Mosg2 showed in his video was okay - except that. So, am I correct assuming that using videoFX for snipping the EVE windows in parts like he did would be okay, since it's only "window management" and the same could be done by alt-tabbing or similar? How do you think about it?

  9. #109

    Default

    And not every player can use EVEMon, or PYFA, or EFT, or use Fuzzworks to it's full extent, or use whatever that new market thing that shadow mentioned, or..... do I need to go on? If CCP wants to ban one thing that has ZERO PROOF THAT IT CREATES AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE and has serious weaknesses to EWAR, then they need to ban anything that looks like it can create an unfair advantage. Anyone can bind "Scroll Wheel Down" as F1, and indeed many FPS players bind SWD for M1 for pistols or semi-autos.
    We have been shown no evidence that ISBoxer creates an advantage, and indeed there's quite a bit of evidence about it's weakness. We have seen, in response to our statements and evidence and request to be left alone: ad hominem attacks, strawman fallacies, True Scotsman fallacies, outright insults, verbal abuse, Kafkatraps, and a general lack of knowledge of the program and of the EULA.
    Wanna earn your customer's respect? Go to bat for them. Defend them and what they do. Don't roll over on command, and don't punish them for being human beings. And no, this ain't aimed at CCP.

    Keep pretending you care about EVE ISBoxers and not just their money, Lax.

    Come hang out with us in the channel "Isboxers Lounge" and discuss fittings, doctrines, or just shoot the breeze. Unlike the forums, we won't ban you for what you say. IGN: "AayJay Crendraven" and "Nolak Ataru".

  10. #110

    Default

    Surely, sitting on a gate with a 10-man remote sebo fleet is a hugely unfair advantage over little ole me just tootling through lowsec?

    Where do I submit my 'refund' request when I'm ganked that way?

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •