You know what a server has? An API. An API already configured to track specific characters ala EvEmon, etc. You know what’s client side? Textures. You know what open source does? Gives you all those textures + and a way to see the points where the server calls to the engine. Open source and packet sniffers = fun, fun, fun. Who needs scan probes when you glow bright green on the map. When y’all are wondering why some cheater can suddenly fly right into your mission within 2 seconds of entering the system without having to scan for you, y’all remember Fenris did it to you.
The problem with saying this kind of stuff to someone who knows what they’re talking about is that they can easily tell that you’re cosplaying. It’s not even GOOD cosplay.
Textures! rofl
Even if there were anything interesting you could do with textures in this context (there isn’t), those are individual game assets, not an inherent part of the engine, and are already entirely accessible without the engine being open sourced.
All the server calls are server side code.
So no, it doesn’t.
Knowing the exact process for how something is done is not required to know it can be done. But it’s all good. If I’m wrong, everything continues to go on as usual. If I’m right, I get to roast marshmallows on the fires Fenris is going to be rushing everywhere to put out. Either way, I’m perfectly content.
It’s not so much that you don’t “know the exact process” as it is that you obviously don’t even know the basics.
e.g.
Open source and packet sniffers = fun, fun, fun.
You’re obviously trying to make it sound as if you’ve significant experience in getting up to technical mischief. Tell us about a time you’ve used a protocol analyzer against open source software to have “fun, fun, fun” because I’m betting it’s something you haven’t done even once in your whole life.
1 Like
And yet, I never once said it’s something I do. So no, I’m not trying to “make it sound like I’ve got significant experience in getting up to technical mischief”.
So now that we’ve hopefully got your panties untwisted because you think you’ve been somehow slighted because some non-code monkey may notice things, life will carry on and we’ll see what happens in the next few months.
I don’t have to be a banking systems engineer to see the crap hackers pull to take money.
I don’t have to be an RMT’er to see all the various ways people get away with RMT.
I don’t have to be a game developer to see the rampant hacks and exploits in games that DON’T just hand their code out, yet somehow am supposed to expect there’ll be less in games where the devs DO hand their code out? Sure thing, jelybean.
Someone who is more of a thinker might find it curious that a 20+ year old game with a not-known-for-being-particularly-sound codebase has never really suffered from any amount of cheat development in all that time. Where are the speedhacks? Where’s the ESP?
Eve really only sees macro/botting/automation type things and, once in a blue moon, the occasional duping bug. You seem to understand that cheat dev is not reliant on open source anywhere else while simultaneously believing it’s going to open the floodgates for Eve?
1 Like
Let me also have at it:
- Quantum computing will break the whole EVE encryption…fun, fun, fun…Open-Source!
- AI exploits will steal all your spaceships!
- The right API call shall make your opponents just explode without ever touching them just anywhere in the known universe!!!
- If you have installed Wireshark you see and know everything!
- If you don’t tinfoil your PC, cosmic rays shall flip bits in your precious DDR5 RAM and make your missions and encounters lag out
Don’t you dare to challenge anything of these facts!
I know what i am talking about, i have been to the Youtube University afterall…
1 Like
So, question back to the original poster, is 2.5k accounts banned a month a lack of enforcement to you?
1 Like
Name and shame time. That’s enforcement. Look, who are we kidding here? Null-sec is printing ISK, they’re playing for free and on top of all that - most of the bans originate from the major alliances.
3 Likes
An opinion based on assumptions instead of experience with open-source software projects like Linux, Open Office, and so many other valuable open-source software projects.
Hello @The_Dexter
Your warning is very important and aligns with everything I have been recommending to CCP Games for years:
You should join the debate by calling on FENRIS CREATION today to put an end to the current mismanagement.
If the people at FENRIS CREATION want to keep EVE Online running with PLEX, injectors, and multiboxing because they believe it serves their short-term interests, that is their choice—a choice based solely on the beliefs of completely ignorant shareholders.
However, the people at FENRIS CREATION can no longer ignore the fact that a very large—if not overwhelming—majority of players (including a massive number of dormant accounts) can no longer tolerate the way they are systematically undermining their MMORPG; their inaction regarding multiboxing is part of this. At the rate things are going, the people at FENRIS CREATION will find themselves all alone, with the hundreds of thousands of dormant player accounts on their servers serving as the only glaring proof of their folly. I should point out—in case anyone hasn’t noticed—that CCP Games prohibited account deletion for two decades, and only recently have deletions been permitted based strictly on the European GDPR (as Iceland inevitably prepares for EU integration)—a fact that FENRIS CREATION can no longer ignore today. See the Icelandic referendum coming up in late August 2026.
Put another way, FENRIS CREATION is facing a wall it clumsily erected itself by opting for an absurd “pay-to-win” strategy back in 2008—a move that gradually decimated its long-standing player base (of which I am still a part, though I sometimes wonder how) and, by extension, ruined the game itself, the quality of which is a far cry from what it used to be.
The failure to grasp that a “pay-to-win” model is never the answer serves as glaring proof—in the case of EVE Online—that the original CCP Games (now defunct in spirit) long ago lost the creative soul it possessed in 1997, succumbing instead to the brand of capitalism that has defined the video game publishing industry over the last two decades. After all, one might have expected the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis to trigger radical shifts among investors, the video game sector included! It is now up to FENRIS CREATION to completely overturn the status quo—to listen and understand all of this—if they truly wish to move past the current toxic phase and return to the original mindset that fueled EVE Online’s glory days between 2003 and 2007. Back then, veteran players paid only for their subscriptions, happily remaining loyal to the franchise year after year just to be part of the greatest space adventure ever created. But that was, alas, long before CCP Games’ betrayal with the introduction of PLEX in 2008—when the fight against RMT (Real Money Trading) was merely a pretext to justify a decision driven solely by financial gain. Failing to grasp this in 2026 will definitively seal the franchise’s failure within a year or two at most, given the competition—which is already showing far more insight than FENRIS CREATION. A prime example today is Klang Games; their MMORPG, launched on July 1, 2026, is not only promising but is built on a very smart strategy. Klang Games—formerly Icelandic, now German—counts among its founders none other than former EVE Online developers! Go figure!
Not to mention the well-deserved rise of Robert Space Industries with Squadron 42 and Star Citizen, the latter of which is closer than ever to its 1.0 release.
So, there you have it! Personally, I am well aware that my analysis of the situation is the only one worth listening to.
Perhaps every member of FENRIS CREATION should take a mandatory break, lock themselves away in a conclave for at least a month—keeping the upcoming Icelandic referendum in mind—and get back to playing the EVE Conquests board game. Everyone, without exception—from the CCP Research team and the EVE Frontier team to the shareholders, including Hilmar—needs to discover for themselves what truly makes the game fun to play and replay endlessly, all while listening to the EVE Online soundtrack on loop.
Only then might such a conclave finally spark the turnaround from the publisher that players—especially the long-time veterans—so desperately need.
Best regards,
Ully Loom
1 Like
Clearly the poster hasn’t heard of Fleet Warp, hotkeys, and dexterity. That’s why this thread has gone from input broadcasting (bad) to Multiple Accounts.
Been multiboxing since I realise my player cannot do everything and living in NZ is a shite time zone.
3 Likes
I think we are looking at both EVE’s history and its current problems rather differently.
First, as a long-time Star Citizen backer and Concierge member, I am not sure I would hold Star Citizen up as an example of a competitor that has demonstrated superior insight or execution.
I still want both Star Citizen and Squadron 42 to succeed, but Star Citizen remains in alpha, with 4.8.x currently live and 4.9 being tested. CIG has laid out a roadmap toward 1.0, but there is still a considerable difference between having a 1.0 plan and delivering a stable, feature-complete commercial release. My own experience with 4.8 was extremely poor, and I personally feel that several recent design decisions have moved the game away from parts of the vision I originally backed.
So while Star Citizen may indeed be closer to 1.0 than it was ten years ago, I think citing it as evidence of how a long-running online game should be managed is premature. I would be concerned if CIG simply applied a 1.0 label before the underlying game and its core systems were genuinely ready.
On EVE, however, I think an important distinction is being lost between multiboxing and automation.
I beta-tested EVE and have been around since the beginning, admittedly on and off over the years. I was already multiboxing in 2006. Multiboxing is not some recent corruption of EVE’s original design; it has been part of the game for a very long time.
Current EVE rules allow a player to operate multiple Omega accounts simultaneously. What should absolutely be enforced—and enforced aggressively—is the prohibition against botting, automation, input broadcasting and input multiplexing.
Those are not the same thing as manually controlling multiple clients.
Do I personally want to operate 30 accounts? Absolutely not. I saw someone streaming with roughly that many clients recently, and it looked more like air-traffic control than recreation to me. But provided one person is genuinely controlling those accounts manually and complying with the rules, I do not see the number of accounts alone as something that should be prohibited.
There is also an economic reality here. Omega accounts support the game either directly through subscriptions or indirectly through PLEX that somebody, somewhere, originally purchased with real money. Alpha players do not necessarily contribute direct subscription revenue, but active Alpha players can still contribute population, market activity, content, recruitment and potential future subscribers. For a 23-year-old single-shard MMORPG, active players and funded accounts are not trivial things.
As for PLEX, I agree that it is a double-edged sword—but I actually think its underlying concept was one of CCP’s more intelligent ideas.
PLEX allows one player with more disposable income than free time to exchange a paid product for ISK, while allowing another player with more in-game wealth than disposable income to fund game time. Importantly, selling PLEX does not simply create ISK from nothing; the ISK comes from another player.
More importantly, the demand for real-money-to-ISK transactions did not begin with PLEX and would not disappear if PLEX were removed.
Before and outside sanctioned systems, players buy currency, characters and assets through grey and black markets. Those markets create incentives for botting, account theft, fraud and industrial-scale farming. EVE itself had a serious illicit RMT problem before PLEX, which was one of the reasons CCP explicitly gave for creating a sanctioned alternative.
So I see PLEX less as the invention of RMT and more as a form of harm reduction: take demand that already exists, bring part of it into a controlled system, let legitimate players participate in the exchange, fund the game with it, and continue prosecuting the illicit market.
That does not mean the system is beyond criticism.
PLEX unquestionably allows a player to purchase an economic advantage, and Skill Injectors allow players to accelerate character progression. I therefore understand why some people describe these systems as “pay for advantage.”
But I think “pay to win” is a much more complicated concept in a game like EVE.
You can buy ISK. You can buy skill injectors. You can buy an extremely expensive ship. What you cannot buy is twenty years of game knowledge, good judgment, tactical awareness, trustworthy allies, competent fleet leadership or immunity from being blown up by someone flying something considerably cheaper.
EVE is probably one of the funniest possible games in which to attempt to purchase victory, because the game will quite happily allow an inexperienced player to spend a fortune and then lose it spectacularly.
I also think it is important not to combine PLEX and Skill Injectors into a single supposed decision made in 2008. PLEX was introduced in 2008. Skill trading arrived years later, in 2016. Multiboxing predates both. These are separate issues and should be debated separately.
The claim that the introduction of PLEX in 2008 gradually destroyed EVE’s player base is also difficult to establish as a simple historical fact. EVE’s all-time concurrent-player record was reached in 2013, almost five years after PLEX was introduced. That does not prove PLEX caused EVE’s growth, of course, but it does demonstrate that the history is considerably more complicated than “PLEX arrived and the player base collapsed.”
I also do not think dormant accounts can reasonably be presented as evidence that an “overwhelming majority” of players agree with any particular position. An inactive account tells us that an account is inactive. It does not tell us why the player left, what they think about multiboxing or PLEX, or even how many individual people those dormant accounts represent.
There are a couple of other factual issues here as well.
Klang Games’ SEED did not launch on July 1. It is currently scheduled to enter Early Access on July 21, 2026. I am genuinely interested in SEED, and the former EVE developer connection is real, but an MMO that has not yet entered Early Access is not yet evidence of a superior long-term business model.
Likewise, the Icelandic referendum and GDPR are being connected in a way that does not make sense. GDPR has applied in Iceland through the EEA framework since 2018. The August 29, 2026 referendum concerns whether Iceland should resume negotiations toward EU membership. It is not the reason GDPR suddenly applies to Fenris Creations or EVE Online.
For the record, I absolutely believe Fenris Creations should be criticized when criticism is warranted. I have played EVE for more than two decades precisely because I care about the game, and I certainly do not believe every decision CCP—or now Fenris—has made has been a good one.
We should debate monetization. We should debate Skill Injectors. We should debate whether large-scale multiboxing has undesirable effects on particular areas of the economy or gameplay. We should absolutely demand better enforcement against botting, automation and input broadcasting.
But those are much more useful discussions when we distinguish multiboxing from botting, PLEX from Skill Injectors, correlation from causation, and personal preference from factual history.
I loved early EVE too. I was there.
But I do not think the solution to the problems of a 23-year-old MMORPG is necessarily to attempt to freeze it permanently in the business model and design assumptions of 2003–2007. Nor do I think EVE’s survival for more than two decades can honestly be reduced to a story in which everything after 2008 was simply a mistake.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.