These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Petition - Full ban of multi boxing programs which duplicate clicks.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#61 - 2013-02-13 04:05:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Joran Dravius
Kal Mindar wrote:
With the recent news of the Eve-uni multi box botting scandal, I think it is time to ban multi box programs.
Any program that allows 1 player to operate 30 characters, even just for movement, should not be allowed. Why are they allowed to hit 1 button and insta warp 30 characters to safety instead of dealing with the consequences of not being able to manually move them all in time to prevent a gank. A click is a click and any program that duplicates one is not following the spirit of action vs. consequence that this amazing game is based upon.


I, Kal Mindar, deem that multi boxing programs are a EULA breaking form of automation that undermines the integrity of this game.

I agree. I have no problem with people having as many accounts as they can actually control themselves, but the moment you start needing special software to duplicate your mouse and keyboard inputs it becomes cheating.

Jason Xado wrote:
Multiboxing is valid gameplay. Some like to play Eve as an MMO-RPG. Should you only get to control one villager in Age of Empires?

Age of Empires is a strategy game. Your argument is invalid.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2013-02-13 04:11:57 UTC
Don't see much a problem with multiboxing..

Do see an issue with the form of it that replicates your actions though as that's essentially a form of macroing. If one person can control a large number of EVE clients at the same time, I say go for it... they're crazy, but they're making all the effort needed to run it.

Replication and all technicality? You're only really controlling one of the clients while the others are set up to copy it through automation. I'd shed no tears if they made this against the rules, but technically, their rules, as long as they enforce them fairly.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#63 - 2013-02-13 04:12:18 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
If CCP objects to the use of a macro to automate a certain number of commands on a single client, then they should also object to the use of a program that duplicates a single command to the same number of clients.

So if it's okay to duplicate a command across 30 clients, then I should be able to use a macro to automate 30 commands for one.

I could probably script an ice miner to run most of a day on 30 clicks. (edit: lol@the idea of me mining ice)

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Cyprus Black
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#64 - 2013-02-13 04:35:05 UTC
Actually, a CCP employee already stated that it was botting, not multiboxing.

Botting is already a bannable offense, ergo this thread is redundant and has no content.

Requesting a moderator lock this thread.

Summary of EvEs last four expansions: http://imgur.com/ZL5SM33
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#65 - 2013-02-13 05:01:22 UTC
BadAssMcKill wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
Nexus store needs to start selling popcorn. 5500 Aurum for my Avatar to hold a box of popcorn that's visible in our forum portraits would be so worth it.





You'd run out of popcorn so fast though



That's why it should be sold on the market by NPCs. It'd take care of any extra isk in no time at all. Perfect isk sink

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Keno Skir
#66 - 2013-02-13 05:10:00 UTC
I think multiboxing is pants too.

That said it's damn near impossible to prevent, get used to it son.

Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-

250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#67 - 2013-02-13 05:23:55 UTC
+1.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Ohishi
Apocalypse Reign
#68 - 2013-02-13 05:49:13 UTC
Think of how fast the plex market would crash when all of the multiboxers are gone and then all of those people that only play one account are pissed because they can't just sell a plex for ISK to buy ships to do stuff in game with. Then also think about how many logistic chains will crumple because mostly it's just a bunch of boxers building and supplying the markets. So you have boxers gone. Hardly anyone besides traders and a few people here and there buying plex. The markets are now failing because the people that bought the plex to run their manufacturing chain are now gone from the game.... Mineral prices are at an all time high, ship manufacturing is at an all time low, markets out side of Jita are now completely barren and the player base shrinks back down to 2006 levels until the game eventually just fizzles out.

But look at the brightside. Supers and force projection are no longer a problem.

Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought.

Kanexus
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2013-02-13 06:21:26 UTC
why should ccp care...they making money through plex or sub paying...as you can see they wont respond to a thread like this. every mmorpg has a problem with botting...they know who the botters are and if they dont they are really dumb. all t hey gotta do is go to the ice zones and watch patterns. imagine if u owned a game and wanting to make money but someone was multiboxing 20 accounts at once....u ban him u lose all that money...and imagined if like 100 people did that...thats alot of money to lose.now if they were botting and selling the isk for real cash im sure they would squash it.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#70 - 2013-02-13 06:22:53 UTC
Chandaris wrote:
/signed

Remove standings and insurance.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#71 - 2013-02-13 06:56:23 UTC
Kanexus wrote:
why should ccp care...they making money through plex or sub paying...as you can see they wont respond to a thread like this. every mmorpg has a problem with botting...they know who the botters are and if they dont they are really dumb. all t hey gotta do is go to the ice zones and watch patterns. imagine if u owned a game and wanting to make money but someone was multiboxing 20 accounts at once....u ban him u lose all that money...and imagined if like 100 people did that...thats alot of money to lose.now if they were botting and selling the isk for real cash im sure they would squash it.


The opnly reason why it's accepted is because of $$$.

How do you call automated the act having you one character do the same thing over and over again but not the act of having an act repeated by a software an unlimited amount of time with a single interaction?

It's still some ******* code doing the job for you either way unless you want to pretend you can alt+tab 100 different client within a second.

Funny stuff: by default, alt+tab bring you back to the previous window instead of getting you to the next one wich totally increasing the amount of needed keypress to control more than just a few accoutn by a crazy ammount.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#72 - 2013-02-13 06:56:57 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
If CCP objects to the use of a macro to automate a certain number of commands on a single client, then they should also object to the use of a program that duplicates a single command to the same number of clients.

So if it's okay to duplicate a command across 30 clients, then I should be able to use a macro to automate 30 commands for one.


There is a huge difference between the two though. One of them is botting, the other is not.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#73 - 2013-02-13 06:59:41 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
If CCP objects to the use of a macro to automate a certain number of commands on a single client, then they should also object to the use of a program that duplicates a single command to the same number of clients.

So if it's okay to duplicate a command across 30 clients, then I should be able to use a macro to automate 30 commands for one.


There is a huge difference between the two though. One of them is botting, the other is not.


Thats splitting hairs. We have some code repeating an action over and over again vs. some code reapeating the same action multiple time.

There is indeed a difference between the 2 but the basic is still the same, the job of a player is done by some god damn code.

Posting after drinking is bad...
Dusty Meg
Echelon Research
Goonswarm Federation
#74 - 2013-02-13 07:34:22 UTC
ISboxer and these programs have been fully allowed by the Gm team already, so this thread is useless.


GM Lelouch wrote:
Hello there,

To make a long story short, automation of gameplay is not permitted; players must be manually issuing the commands to control their character(s) at all times.

Our stance on programs such as Synergy and hardware/software combination such as the G15 keyboard is that they can be legitimately used as long as gameplay isn't automated. Synergy allows you to move your mouse cursor to multiple different monitors which are hooked up to different computers and we do not have any qualms with players using the program for this purpose. If Synergy was used in some way to control your accounts for you without a need for you to be at your keyboard, then that would not be allowed, but I am not aware of such a functionality with this program. If Synergy is used in conjunction with some other program to automate gameplay, it would not be permitted. G15 "macros" which allow you to group different commands into one keypress are allowed. For example, setting your G1 key to press F1, F2, F3 and so on for you with one key press is allowed (although this specific command is not as useful as it was before now that we have weapon grouping).

An exceedingly complex G15 macro which would effectively automate gameplay, such as mining, without a need for the player to be present at his keyboard would be against the EULA, regardless of whether the player utilizing said macro is sitting at his keyboard at the time!

Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA.

I hope this clears up this matter.

Best regards,
Senior GM Lelouch
EVE Online Customer Support


Source http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1291641&page=10#274


And for the record, Yes I use Isboxer, there are more features and uses for that program for this game then just the key broadcasting. The video FX ability on the program so that you can show only what is needed on each account is incredibly usefull such as my old set up http://oi47.tinypic.com/wgqpnn.jpg . That changed but I havnt got any fresh screenshots.

So your wanting to ban multi-boxeing will drive alot of people out of this game and destroy the market, most of the minerals that come into this game is through multiboxers and most of the plexs that come out of this game is from multiboxers, so whatever noise you make (which wont be loud enough) is dufunct as the GM team has already rulled that these programs are completly fine.

Creater of the EVE animated influence map http://www.youtube.com/user/DustMityEVE
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#75 - 2013-02-13 07:47:50 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
If CCP objects to the use of a macro to automate a certain number of commands on a single client, then they should also object to the use of a program that duplicates a single command to the same number of clients.

So if it's okay to duplicate a command across 30 clients, then I should be able to use a macro to automate 30 commands for one.


There is a huge difference between the two though. One of them is botting, the other is not.


Thats splitting hairs. We have some code repeating an action over and over again vs. some code reapeating the same action multiple time.

There is indeed a difference between the 2 but the basic is still the same, the job of a player is done by some god damn code.

Posting after drinking is bad...

of course there's a difference, and the difference is that instead automating code, you're sending input to several clients at once.

an input that it's not automated, thus not botting.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
Cloora
APEX Unlimited
APEX Conglomerate
#76 - 2013-02-13 08:22:38 UTC
I use Synergy because I only use 5-7 accounts at once and they are all different ships. Also because I'm cheap and Synergy is free. I have no problem with these 100 character fleets using one person on ISBoxxer and neither does the GMs at CCP. Good for them.

All you people asking for this to be stopped are derping.

http://www.altaholics.blogspot.com
Kogh Ayon
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2013-02-13 08:33:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Kogh Ayon
I have no interest in whether it is botting.

We should care about the reason to make a new law, rather than look at an existing law that made for a reason to make a new law. Especially in this case many people looking at the word and definition about botting, why should we care about what the dictionary says? The law comes from the power of authority and the benefit for authority(sorry ccp but it's the truth) and does not come from the dictionaries.

The reason that CCP bans botting is that it hurts the game very much and causes serious imbalance between players with no fair reason, and make people not happy then eventually make the game less interesting and less profitable.

Will the command spam tools cause this effect at a similar level? Personally I don't like multibox-tools but I have to admit it is not something will run 12 hours a day and really requires people to log on with human appearance, so it should hurt the game much less than macro scripts.

Of course you can argue with the point above but please spend less time on the argument about the definition of "botting", CCP is a company not the stupid local court.
TheSkeptic
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2013-02-13 08:52:34 UTC
Beckie DeLey wrote:
EVE needs a hard cap on only one instance of the exe running at the same time to seriously crack down on this. There's way too much automation going on. Yeah, this is going to hurt a few guys with their scout/cyno alts, but then again they can just find a corp to fly with if that bothers them.

but sure, outlawing ISBOxer etc is a fine first step towards actual people playing the actual game with actual other people..


lol, this would only hurt poor people who can't afford several computers

...

Sir Munphf
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#79 - 2013-02-13 09:16:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Sir Munphf
No, there is really no reason to ban multiboxing software. Why?

Tell me the diference of "multiboxing" 3rd party tool for 4 accounts versus 4 computers commanded by ONE set of wifi keyboard/mouse in same frequency?

Really no difference, if you dont count a bit bigger bill for electricity....


Edit: also, try to compare for example 4 "real! PCs and 4 virtual PCs - Big smile -
Ohanka
#80 - 2013-02-13 09:17:49 UTC

I support this product and/or service.

North Korea is Best Korea