Gah...option 4 had copy-pasta dupes on the second lines. :/
Printable View
Gah...option 4 had copy-pasta dupes on the second lines. :/
OH MY GOD HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS THMETHOEHTIJOTEHJTEIGUOD HDJTIHQuote:
Originally Posted by LordsServant
Seriously, it is no longer about one input one action anymore
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.
However for your crusade against MiRai...who as far as i'm aware does not even play eve (??) yes you are correct as far as i can tell from this shmear of an argument
@Shadow, yes, if you're too good you may eventually get banned
I don't know about commands per second though, perhaps it has something to do with how many commands you give out across however many clients and having it scale as such
But commands per second seems too trivial
Let's reign in the speculation and semantics. These arguments aren't productive and I'm about to call it a dead horse if there isn't some verifiable information presented. No one here has anything to do with EvE's policies - if you want to campaign that, you should take it to an official EvE forum.
Well yes, yes it is. This is me pointing out that that's what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by thedevilyouknow
I don't think Mirai plays eve anymore, but he used to, if my memory is correct (everyone but me having different usernames than their eve names is hella confusing).Quote:
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.
However for your crusade against MiRai...who as far as i'm aware does not even play eve (??) yes you are correct as far as i can tell from this shmear of an argument
@Shadow, yes, if you're too good you may eventually get banned
I don't know about commands per second though, perhaps it has something to do with how many commands you give out across however many clients and having it scale as such
But commands per second seems too trivial
I don't mind if he has differing opinions, but when he wants to have a friendly discussion about it, then shittalks, posts comics, and repeatedly says the equivalent of "nuh uh I saw you're wrong so you're wrong," while spouting off about my lack of "evidence" (nevermind me posting whole walls of logic and links when asked nicely) when he hasn't bothered to give me any evidence for his case whatsoever, there isn't much left to discuss.
I highly doubt it's a case of "too good" - it's just people breaking the rules and expecting something otherwise. Avoid trying to toe the line, or "well technically it's legal...."
Unless it's super easy to see that it's legal and you can't think of it being not legal through very clear logic, don't bother trying it. If you do - guaranteed - CCP will interpret it the other, less lenient way and call it like they see it; illegal and ban.
Did you see my quote earlier?Quote:
Originally Posted by LordsServant
Lords, the only "claim" I've made is that you have no proof of what you're saying about how CCP supposedly interprets the swapping of game window focus as an in-game action -- This has been the main topic of discussion between us for over a day. Your "walls of logic links" were not only masked as bit.ly links since you knew no one was going to click on a LMGTFY link, but they weren't useful by any means in backing up this one single claim of yours. So, I'll ask again...Quote:
Originally Posted by LordsServant
Please provide proof of your claim, other than your own belief, that CCP is interpreting what you consider to be a window focus action as a second action being sent to the game client, and then actioning players based upon that.
I'm looking for a single, and official, quote from CCP on this claim of yours since this information would be helpful to all EVE multiboxers. If you had provided it in your "walls of logic links" then it went overlooked since I wasn't about to sift through Google search results, and all I'm asking for is a direct link to an official CCP statement on this claim -- This is a very simple request.
Got response from ticket about isboxer in general
It may as well be banned
The input duplication rule was a farce, no matter how you do it, if you have an advantage expect the banhammer
link for proof or something other then ISBOXER is banhammered.
I hope you do realize that linking the proof I have is illegal
Also I did not say it was banhammered, I said it may as well be
The part after that you can find proof on page 7, since I got the same copy paste response so as far as im concerned its legal for me to recognise it as a legit response
Man now I so want to be a GM just to fuck with people and create controversies.