Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 04:38:13 -
[61] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:I'm trying that's why I'm not using any of the fancy stuff in windows and I'm only running eve clients. Outside of that video is a screen to my right that has a nestor and is part of the primary system. To the left is a secondary system that uses a second keyboard and mouse along with a dedicated monitor. That system runs my booster. ore dropper and second nestor. Seen here http://i.imgur.com/7spamN0.jpg I hate to say this, but I do so with 100% honesty. If your "too fast" compared to a baseline that we dont know of, you will probably get banned assuming we are to believe the half or so dozen people who reported the same. CCP has no method to tell the difference if your using a macro (unless its painfully obvious) or you are just good at multiboxing and alt-tabbing... Shadow - We don't know that they have a speed baseline. Could make sense, in the absence of some other method, but we don't honestly know what tool(s) they are using or what the chance is for a false positive. Maybe one day CCP_EdwardSnowden will shoot some docs to EVEWikiLeaks and out the fact that they are looking into your machine. But until then, its all just speculation because they won't give it away so that some crafty soul out there can find a way of masking the signature I would settle for a "yeah that's cool" response to the videos of my setup. Answering some of my questions would be huge too. Instead of the "read the eula and go to the update thread" responses. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
833
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 04:54:02 -
[62] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Anything can be argued to violate the EULA. The argument may not be right, but anything can be argued. Actually, they have a third choice: ban whatever they want and don't ban everything else that may or may not be similar or exactly the same. They can absolutely choose to say one thing in the EULA and do another with regard to enforcing it. Which is exactly what they did related to ISBoxer and Boxer-like functionality for years. But let's not for one minute think that if they do this then they must do that. There is no fundamental right to equal protection under the EULA, even if the argument had merit.
See, that's kinda why CCP created an EULA, and it's definitely why they created the Internal Affairs division.. It's kinda the same concept for the US Constitution, or the 10 Commandments. It's not "Thou shalt not kill, unless you really, really want to, or you sign on the dotted line." It's also why the justifications for felony murder are few and far between. EULAs and laws are not a dinner menu. You don't get to pick and choose which parts you want to enforce today if you're going to specifically target something. It's not some BINGO card where you can go home after you get five in a row. Even members of the United States government have to abide by the Constitution, including the President himself (except on very rare occasions that have strict requirements). If you're telling me, that a game company that's a good 1/10th the size of the government (at least in the White House), and has not even a hundredth of a percentile of the regulations, laws, rules, and red tape that ensnares the USG on a daily basis, cannot follow or enforce their own rules across the board and not just when it's convenient, then I really don't know what to say. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
137
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 05:06:59 -
[63] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote: I would settle for a "yeah that's cool" response to the videos of my setup. Answering some of my questions would be huge too. Instead of the "read the eula and go to the update thread" responses.
I can only suggest you send your specific inquiry to CCP via petition, as they have requested individuals do. They won't answer generalizations in public areas. You may get a crappy EULA copy/paste, but a petition is the best chance for you to get an answer specific to you. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
833
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 05:11:44 -
[64] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:I can only suggest you send your specific inquiry to CCP via petition, as they have requested individuals do. They won't answer generalizations in public areas. You may get a crappy EULA copy/paste, but a petition is the best chance for you to get an answer specific to you. Any tickets sent in that even brush near multiboxing are responded with "Go look at the thread". CCP says "send a ticket", GMs say "look at the thread". |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
137
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 05:26:55 -
[65] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:I can only suggest you send your specific inquiry to CCP via petition, as they have requested individuals do. They won't answer generalizations in public areas. You may get a crappy EULA copy/paste, but a petition is the best chance for you to get an answer specific to you. Any tickets sent in that even brush near multiboxing are responded with "Go look at the thread". CCP says "send a ticket", GMs say "look at the thread".
I cannot vouch for the outcome, just the CCP prescribed method. So other than that, what's his option? It ain't posting youtube vids in the forums. They won't answer that. So since the CCP method doesn't work for you, then what should he do? Stomp his feet? Talk about Windows and Evemon? Debate whether there is an expectation of equal protection under a EULA enforceable in an Icelandic court of law? |
Safdrof Uta
Mustang Down Task Force Viper
27
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 05:31:14 -
[66] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:I can only suggest you send your specific inquiry to CCP via petition, as they have requested individuals do. They won't answer generalizations in public areas. You may get a crappy EULA copy/paste, but a petition is the best chance for you to get an answer specific to you. Any tickets sent in that even brush near multiboxing are responded with "Go look at the thread". CCP says "send a ticket", GMs say "look at the thread".
Would you shut up already Nolak.
Multiboxing is bad, stop crying, every one is sick and tired of you complaining. |
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 05:57:01 -
[67] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:I can only suggest you send your specific inquiry to CCP via petition, as they have requested individuals do. They won't answer generalizations in public areas. You may get a crappy EULA copy/paste, but a petition is the best chance for you to get an answer specific to you. Any tickets sent in that even brush near multiboxing are responded with "Go look at the thread". CCP says "send a ticket", GMs say "look at the thread". I cannot vouch for the outcome, just the CCP prescribed method. So other than that, what's his option? It ain't posting youtube vids in the forums. They won't answer that. So since the CCP method doesn't work for you, then what should he do? Stomp his feet? Talk about Windows and Evemon? Debate whether there is an expectation of equal protection under a EULA enforceable in an Icelandic court of law? Well I figured maybe I'd get some attention here and get a better response in private communication.
It's a long shot I know but at this point I'm trying everything. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5328
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 07:26:41 -
[68] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:CCP Peligro wrote:Dear ShadowandLight, I understand your frustration. I've seen your posts on pretty much every discussion forum on the internet talking about this exact topic. The EULA is designed to cover as many "situations" or scenarios as possible, but it cannot realistically expect to cover everything in great detail. We believe the current interpretation of the relevant EULA clauses to be in the best interest of the game and our players. As for your key remaps, you can use the in-game remaps and key bindings at your leisure. The moment you start using third-party tools to remap keys or "change the way the game is played" in any way, you are in murky territory, because of 6.A.2: "You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played." What is your and CCP's definition of "how the game is played"? You didn't expect people to live in wormholes, yet they did. You didn't expect people to min/max their PVP, but they did. Are they in violation of the EULA? "play" means how you interact with the client. Not how you play using the tools provided by the client. OK, so voice command tools are banned then, since they change how you interact with the client? What about speciality tools used by people with disabilities?
At the end of the day it's pointless to say "how you interact with the client" as we know full well that CCP cannot tell how the client is interacting as they have zero client side detection. Effectively the rule is "don't be too efficient at multiboxing or you get banned".
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5328
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 07:28:25 -
[69] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:Trakow wrote:I fully expect CCP to continue ignoring the childish posts of "but why didn't HE get in trouble?" or "why is THIS allowed?" and screen resolutions or graphics card drivers getting bans and such... My hats off to you for having a high tolerance! Keep up the good work CCP! I have actual concerns here and I was hoping for some answers. I run in windowed mode and all those questions are relevant to how I play. Nah, you're just trolling. Badly. Or trying to one up Shadow in the "I have more question now than before" category. I have fingers, but that guy doesn't. Aren't fingers an advantage? Is CCP gonna ban fingers now? Can I use all 10 of my fingers or just 7 before I get caught. The EULA is unclear about physical advantage in a world of special needs. Would CCP actually try and take away my fingers? That isn't legal in most parts of America or Western Europe. What if I was at FanFest? Is finger taking legal in Iceland? Funny you should say that. Apparently pressing F1-F8 on a macro is not allowed. With no client side detection pressing F1 to F8 with 8 fingers is indistinguishable from a bound key, so yes, using your fingers is against the EULA.
Dirk MacGirk wrote:No, they don't mean EVEmon or EFT or Pyfa or Dotlan or any of those things that may use data from the game but don't interact with it on the input side. Why don't they mean those though. If the problem is that people are gaining an unfair advantage, there are a number of tools which give me as a trader FAR more advantage than any multibox tool has ever given a multiboxer. Seems like selective enforcement to me.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5328
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 07:34:22 -
[70] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:OK, so from what I see you are playing in windowed mode using multiple instances. EVE provides for windowed mode out of the box. I don't see anything you are doing there as being even close to a violation. Multiple windows, have to activate the current windown, no VFx dashboard, single click = single action, no macros or round robins or rollovers. What's your question? You're playing EVE using the tools the developer gave you. Or so it seems from the video at a glance. Are you doing something other than playing EVE in windowed mode? Arranging full EVE windows isn't a violation.
I apologize for saying you were trolling, but are you really unclear that windowed mode isn't totally legal? It is on EVE's Display & Graphic tab. Except that layout is efficient enough that it is likely to land a ban a few months down the line. Pretend you can;'t see the video for what the player is actually interacting with and look at the results. Looks like isboxer, no? That's what CCP are banning on, what the server sees, not what the client is doing.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5328
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 07:43:05 -
[71] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Shadow - We don't know that they have a speed baseline. Could make sense, in the absence of some other method, but we don't honestly know what tool(s) they are using or what the chance is for a false positive. I know that they do, since I was at fanfest and asked them. They have no client side detection and they work out everything using data analysis over a long time period. They specifically spoke about people being x% over the average for efficiency being a trigger point. Worse still they spoke about tracking people for months before banning them meaning that people might be playing perfectly fine and as far as they know within the rules for months, then suddenly get a ban and lost months work of assets and isk. The thing is, multiplexing is easy enough, when multiple accounts are firing off commands at exactly the same time, it shows up. But beyond that, there's no way of seeing the difference between round robin and someone with their windows tiled across 3 massive monitors or rapidly switching windows like Kinete is doing.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
483
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 11:26:30 -
[72] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:Every single program running on your computer other then those installed by CCP are considered third party. Even your operating system and drivers are third party.
Oh wow now I even more so think we need a clarifying statement on this. If that is true you can't even play the game without violating the EULA.
I was one of the more vocal people about CCP doing something about bots. I am very glad to see that they have been. Unfortunately it has not affected the price of ore as much as I'd hoped nor predicted but I can't be 100% correct on everything. Anyway I'm getting off topic, I want to congratulate the guys on team security for getting rid of as many bots and RMTers as they have.
However when you start making blanket dragnet comments like CCP has and begin to consider standard gameplay as botting now you invalidate everything that you've done. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5330
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 12:09:25 -
[73] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:I was one of the more vocal people about CCP doing something about bots. I am very glad to see that they have been. ISBoxers are not bots.
ergherhdfgh wrote:Unfortunately it has not affected the price of ore as much as I'd hoped nor predicted It wouldn't do, since the price of ore has very little to do with ISBoxer users. Most multiboxers you see are manually controlled and are unaffected by this change. The only price heavily affected was PLEX and even that was mainly due to speculation.
As usual, when people complained about this, they had very little idea of what was actually the problem. The problem for you is that mining mechanics are so simple that running multiple characters nearly AFK is feasible and profitable. If you want ore prices to increase you need to push for more active and challenging mining mechanics which would make multibox mining more difficult and encourage it's use as an active income source rather than a passive one.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Memphis Baas
297
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 13:31:35 -
[74] - Quote
Good developers code effective methods for catching macro botters.
Great developers code (mining) gameplay that isn't so mind-numbingly repetitive and boring that it drives people to macro. |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1535
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 13:49:27 -
[75] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:As usual, when people complained about this, they had very little idea of what was actually the problem. The problem for you is that mining mechanics are so simple that running multiple characters nearly AFK is feasible and profitable. If you want ore prices to increase you need to push for more active and challenging mining mechanics which would make multibox mining more difficult and encourage it's use as an active income source rather than a passive one.
The counterargument is that mining pays poorly, but because it's still an ATK, in-space activity, aggressive multiboxing is the only way to scale it up. It's much easier to scale research, manufacturing and moon harvesting.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
834
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 13:53:59 -
[76] - Quote
Memphis Baas wrote:Good developers code effective methods for catching macro botters. Great developers code (mining) gameplay that isn't so mind-numbingly repetitive and boring that it drives people to macro. Fantastic developers talk to the community before enacting such a problematic change, especially since they have no real detection method other than witnesses with obvious conflicts of interests that would raise red flags for anyone who would read the reports. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1044
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 14:24:35 -
[77] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: It wasn't explained period.The change led to bans.
please see my earlier comment about not whining that no reason was given when reasons were given and your actual whine is you don't like the reasons |
Dirk Morbho
Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn
47
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 14:58:54 -
[78] - Quote
Hey Peligro,
Can we get a song at next years fanfest presentation?
15 Bulbous Moroses 11 Spinning Chimeras 6 Golden Aeons
TWO VERTICAL DREADS
3 Wvyerns [something something-ing] 2 Revelations Sieging
and A Shiney Erebus Doomsdaying
(Or something like that)
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
301
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 15:16:25 -
[79] - Quote
Please continue the "input broadcasting" or "multiplexing" or "I can't read and I'd like to troll Peligro" discussions in this existing thread:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=387571&find=unread
I've deleted some off-topic discussions and rabble-rousing.
CCP Peligro - Team Security
|
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1542
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 16:03:00 -
[80] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:Every single program running on your computer other then those installed by CCP are considered third party. Even your operating system and drivers are third party.
Oh wow now I even more so think we need a clarifying statement on this. If that is true you can't even play the game without violating the EULA.
That's because there has to be some human-level discretion involved, because of the sheer number of variables in play.
So, for example, a deaf or blind person using the accessibility functions of his operating system to play the game is not in violation, while a powergamer exploiting the same accessibility functions to reach otherwise impossible levels of speed or efficiency is in violation.
If CCP were to allow anything that shipped with an operating system then I could write bots with any of the half-dozen or so scripting languages that ship with my operating system, in the editors that ship with the operating system, using the system-wide hooks into events and windows that ship with the operating system, and thumb my nose at CCP, right? Wrong. That's obviously not going to happen. So CCP have to be able to rule out the use of system tools and features if they enable impossible levels of speed or efficiency.
Because that really is the goal.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
486
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 16:23:39 -
[81] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:[quote=ergherhdfgh]
As usual, when people complained about this, they had very little idea of what was actually the problem. The problem for you is that mining mechanics are so simple that running multiple characters nearly AFK is feasible and profitable. If you want ore prices to increase you need to push for more active and challenging mining mechanics which would make multibox mining more difficult and encourage it's use as an active income source rather than a passive one. I had pushed for those changes as well. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
834
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 17:44:16 -
[82] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:So CCP have to be able to rule out the use of system tools and features if they enable impossible levels of speed or efficiency. Because that really is the goal. You're talking about actual bots, not ISBoxer. ISBoxer is no faster than an identical fleet with identical pilots, fits, implants, SP, an experience. ISBoxers are still subject to human error; bots are not. |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers Soviet-Union
367
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 17:46:04 -
[83] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Dersen Lowery wrote:So CCP have to be able to rule out the use of system tools and features if they enable impossible levels of speed or efficiency. Because that really is the goal. You're talking about actual bots, not ISBoxer. ISBoxer is no faster than an identical fleet with identical pilots, fits, implants, SP, an experience. ISBoxers are still subject to human error; bots are not.
and in almost all cases slower then a fleet of people instead of alts
Legacy - An EVE Online Blog
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
144
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 17:59:23 -
[84] - Quote
They (yeah, them, those guys) don't give a shite about other things Team Security does. They accept RMT is bannable in all its many variations, so its not a topic worthy of discussion for them. They accept that botting is bannable, thus they don't care to discuss it either. They laugh along with us at those who have been banned for RMT and botting because those are "bad people doing bad things". And they applaud your efforts at fighting attacks on the server or player accounts. They just don't accept that something they do might (now) be an offense that could put them in the same camp as those "bad people", and thus the focus is and always will be on Hyperboxing when it comes to Team Security's efforts. You cannot escape it. We cannot escape it. Like the blob and Jita local, it is just something we will learn to live with. Let freedom speak in all the places. Thus we can mock them in all the places. |
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 19:17:41 -
[85] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:Every single program running on your computer other then those installed by CCP are considered third party. Even your operating system and drivers are third party.
Oh wow now I even more so think we need a clarifying statement on this. If that is true you can't even play the game without violating the EULA. That's because there has to be some human-level discretion involved, because of the sheer number of variables in play. So, for example, a deaf or blind person using the accessibility functions of his operating system to play the game is not in violation, while a powergamer exploiting the same accessibility functions to reach otherwise impossible levels of speed or efficiency is in violation. If CCP were to allow anything that shipped with an operating system then I could write bots with any of the half-dozen or so scripting languages that ship with my operating system, in the editors that ship with the operating system, using the system-wide hooks into events and windows that ship with the operating system, and thumb my nose at CCP, right? Wrong. That's obviously not going to happen. So CCP have to be able to rule out the use of system tools and features if they enable impossible levels of speed or efficiency. Because that really is the goal. What you've typed is madness absolute madness.
First off you're declaring it fine to ban people for being "too good" at the game. That's just insanity as one of if not the primary point of playing a game is to get good at it. Who decides what is impossible? The whole reason I started running incursions in windowed mode is because several fellows in the update thread said it would be impossible to do. I even ran pulsemares to show how I could make a conventional fleet still work albeit at a slower then preban speed. If I were to run the pulsemares today I'd probably be banned because I've figured out enough stuff that I could run sites a good minute or more quicker then I did in the video. Regardless your standard of "impossible speeds" is so vague to be useless at best at worst it means CCP's most dedicated fans would be getting banned. Mouse over focus isn't a speed increase for me it's just the removal of some clicks which both my mouse and my fingers would enjoy. It's crazy you want to ban that.
How do you think bots work? They utilize one of a couple standard languages that come with the OS and they utilize some of the functions. Here's the thing though. The bot itself doesn't come with windows as part of it's feature set. You're the one producing the bot. At this point when you're comparing a bot to ease of access tweaks that are naturally part of windows you're comparing a bolt to a car.
I just want to know that I'm not going to get banned for running in windowed mode and I can't even get that out of CCP.
|
geton gettinon
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 20:10:31 -
[86] - Quote
You mean that thread where a dev hasn't responded for 5 months and 150 pages of discussion? |
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers Soviet-Union
367
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 20:23:03 -
[87] - Quote
geton gettinon wrote:You mean that thread where a dev hasn't responded for 5 months and 150 pages of discussion?
when they do respond its "read the EULA"
or "you might be operating in a gray area, so please send us a petition"
which when you send in a petition
they respond with "read the EULA"
I swear to god they are printing out these posts, sticking them on the wall at CCP and laughing at how stupid they must think we are
Legacy - An EVE Online Blog
Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast
EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
|
Hicksimus
Xion Limited Resonance.
584
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 21:39:12 -
[88] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote: when they do respond its "read the EULA"
While I do understand that they do that a lot and that I cannot discuss their responses to my petitions lets just say that a friend of a friend of mine has opened ~10 petitions over 5 years and the only time he was satisfied was on an EULA clarification....so maybe it's who you get ahold of and how they're feeling.
Recruitment Officer: What type of a pilot are you?
Me: I've been described as a Ray Charles with Parkinsons and a drinking problem.
|
FunGu Arsten
Fungu .Inc
66
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 21:49:57 -
[89] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:
I just want to know that I'm not going to get banned for running in windowed mode and I can't even get that out of CCP.
Thats too much to ask my friend... I love this game, I dont mind having CCP make thousands of dollars through my accounts.. but why risk getting banned from a game i've loved playing for nearly 10years because CCP doesn't want to answer some questions.
1 - I dont use isboxer 2 - Will I get banned for beeing to good at alt-tabbing and using the ingame keybinding? 3 - ??? 4 - No profit - must go back to reading the EULA and forum again
Added: *and so we keep having unsubbed accounts until a clear answer is given, perfect CCP market strategie* |
Tara'Quoya Rax
Atlantis Asteria
6
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 22:18:53 -
[90] - Quote
So we can't even bind simple shortcuts like Alt+C (Inventory), Alt+R (Market), Alt+B (Browser), ... to Logitech G-keys anymore for easier access? Where is the comfort line drawn?
On a side note, being a software dev myself, when writing software we always have to take into account accessibility. I understand that macro's in general can often provide players with an unfair advantage towards others in some form or shape, and can even lead to the collapse of a game altogether when abused in large scale. But in all fairness, for a number of players who suffer from physical disabilities, using macro's may be the difference between a playable and an unplayable EVE experience. I expect this player population to be very very small, but they might be out there still. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |