These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lashenadeeka
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#201 - 2013-02-17 18:01:27 UTC
Kate stark wrote:
Lashenadeeka wrote:
Until PLEX hits a billion or so this is NOT A BLOODY ISSUE. Multiboxing will be out of control when the wonderful metric we have that is called PLEX SAYS it out of control, not when you morons watch The WIs's "Ice Miners Undocking" video and become jealous.


last i checked there was an interesting thread in MD about plex being linked to mineral prices.

so if every one's multiboxing miners, mineral prices go down due to increased supply and if mineral prices are linked to plex prices surely that means plex will drop and every one gets cheap plex.

so when plex hits a billion, that'll be because nobody is multiboxing miners, and we should encourage multiboxing more?


Paying for 30 accounts at $15 a month. Reaction of most people: "Wait, that's $450 a month! That's almost $6000 a year, **** that!"

Paying for 30 accounts at a PLEX a month. Reaction of most people: "Well, I'm making isk 30 times as fast so it's the same as paying for 1 account really"

Multiboxers tend towards PLEX for obvious reasons. If multiboxing becomes epidemic, the massive demand will cause an extreme rise in PLEX prices.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#202 - 2013-02-17 18:03:04 UTC
Lashenadeeka wrote:
Multiboxers tend towards PLEX for obvious reasons. If multiboxing becomes epidemic, the massive demand will cause an extreme rise in PLEX prices.


Would that be a good thing for gankers and Jita spammers?
Kate stark
#203 - 2013-02-17 18:04:14 UTC
Lashenadeeka wrote:
Kate stark wrote:
Lashenadeeka wrote:
Until PLEX hits a billion or so this is NOT A BLOODY ISSUE. Multiboxing will be out of control when the wonderful metric we have that is called PLEX SAYS it out of control, not when you morons watch The WIs's "Ice Miners Undocking" video and become jealous.


last i checked there was an interesting thread in MD about plex being linked to mineral prices.

so if every one's multiboxing miners, mineral prices go down due to increased supply and if mineral prices are linked to plex prices surely that means plex will drop and every one gets cheap plex.

so when plex hits a billion, that'll be because nobody is multiboxing miners, and we should encourage multiboxing more?


Paying for 30 accounts at $15 a month. Reaction of most people: "Wait, that's $450 a month! That's almost $6000 a year, **** that!"

Paying for 30 accounts at a PLEX a month. Reaction of most people: "Well, I'm making isk 30 times as fast so it's the same as paying for 1 account really"

Multiboxers tend towards PLEX for obvious reasons. If multiboxing becomes epidemic, the massive demand will cause an extreme rise in PLEX prices.


yet still, there's a link between mineral prices and plex.

not to mention if every one is mining mineral prices go down, so you'll have less isk to pay for plex. people are more likely to drop an account than pay cash if they're making less isk than they need for plex.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.

Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#204 - 2013-02-17 20:06:37 UTC
Kate stark wrote:
no, you explained how the profit is not different.
whether one person owns all 20 accounts, or 20 people own the 20 accounts is irrelevant.

profit per account is the only thing that does mean anything. the reason people detest botting is it's because isk while you are physically not playing the game. that's not even remotely similar to multiboxing.

that is completely wrong. a miner mining with 20 accounts is earning profits at EXACTLY the same rate as 20 miners handling 20 accounts. because multiboxing does NOT make your cycles shorter or your yield higher. why do people think otherwise? honestly, please explain it to me. i don't understand why people think this.

do you even know what multiboxing is? the more i read of your post the less i think you do understand what it is...


Does botting make cycles shorter? Does botting make your yield higher? No it doesn't.

What botting does is vastly reduce the amount of effort a player is required to input. (almost zero effort once the bots are in place)

This is the same thing - to a smaller degree.

No scripts, but one person moving a mouse on dozens of clients/computers simultaneously.
Instead of one person getting 20 rewards for zero work with a bot,
one person is getting 20 rewards for performing the work of 'one' person.

People arguing in favor of this kind of automation keep arguing, "Oh, Oh, he's still putting in one unit of work, though, so its OK." I say this is bullshit.

Using software to multiply your efforts 20 times, in my view, isn't much different than running a script to automate 20 commands, with regards to the 'work in, reward out' equation.

Its nice that you keep pretending that I don't understand what 'multiboxing' is. I've been pretty clear.
I'm not against somebody running multiple machines, or multiple clients on one machine. I do it my self.
I just think those accounts should be controlled manually without 3rd party tools to replicate mouse movements or clicks 20-30 or 100 times.

Do you understand my position now? Or are you going to continue to mischaracterize it?
Kate stark
#205 - 2013-02-17 20:18:35 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Kate stark wrote:
no, you explained how the profit is not different.
whether one person owns all 20 accounts, or 20 people own the 20 accounts is irrelevant.

profit per account is the only thing that does mean anything. the reason people detest botting is it's because isk while you are physically not playing the game. that's not even remotely similar to multiboxing.

that is completely wrong. a miner mining with 20 accounts is earning profits at EXACTLY the same rate as 20 miners handling 20 accounts. because multiboxing does NOT make your cycles shorter or your yield higher. why do people think otherwise? honestly, please explain it to me. i don't understand why people think this.

do you even know what multiboxing is? the more i read of your post the less i think you do understand what it is...


Does botting make cycles shorter? Does botting make your yield higher? No it doesn't.

What botting does is vastly reduce the amount of effort a player is required to input. (almost zero effort once the bots are in place)

This is the same thing - to a smaller degree.

No scripts, but one person moving a mouse on dozens of clients/computers simultaneously.
Instead of one person getting 20 rewards for zero work with a bot,
one person is getting 20 rewards for performing the work of 'one' person.

People arguing in favor of this kind of automation keep arguing, "Oh, Oh, he's still putting in one unit of work, though, so its OK." I say this is bullshit.

Using software to multiply your efforts 20 times, in my view, isn't much different than running a script to automate 20 commands, with regards to the 'work in, reward out' equation.

Its nice that you keep pretending that I don't understand what 'multiboxing' is. I've been pretty clear.
I'm not against somebody running multiple machines, or multiple clients on one machine. I do it my self.
I just think those accounts should be controlled manually without 3rd party tools to replicate mouse movements or clicks 20-30 or 100 times.

Do you understand my position now? Or are you going to continue to mischaracterize it?


it's not the same thing at all.
let's assume it is, i'll humour you.

how is 1 person moving 20 mouse pointers different to 20 people moving 20 mouse pointers? tip: it isn't.

the accounts are being controlled manually. all a multiboxer does is reduce the need to be a many armed freak.
i understand you seem very upset that some one with 20 accounts is getting 20 accounts worth of income for what seems to be no reason what so ever.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.

BEPOHNKA
Ner Vod Fleet Systems
#206 - 2013-02-17 20:39:30 UTC  |  Edited by: BEPOHNKA
I got to say they have a point, they do pay for extra accounts and they are at the computer moving the mouse with effect....

Are you mad because you cant do the same thing?
Klymer
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#207 - 2013-02-17 20:42:34 UTC
BEPOHNKA wrote:
I got to say they have a point, they do pay for extra accounts and they are the computer moving the mouse with effect....

Are you mad because you cant do the same thing?



Yes, they are mad.
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
Ghost Legion.
#208 - 2013-02-17 20:58:17 UTC
BEPOHNKA wrote:
Edited by: GM Lelouch on 23/04/2010 15:52:45
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



Good luck with your thread....

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



And thread!

GF poor people.

Don't ask about Italics, just tilt your head.

Dusty Meg
Echelon Research
Goonswarm Federation
#209 - 2013-02-17 21:24:59 UTC
sYnc Vir wrote:
BEPOHNKA wrote:
Edited by: GM Lelouch on 23/04/2010 15:52:45
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



Good luck with your thread....

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



And thread!

GF poor people.


If only that had worked 15 pages back when that quote was first posted

Creater of the EVE animated influence map http://www.youtube.com/user/DustMityEVE

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#210 - 2013-02-17 21:40:03 UTC
Lashenadeeka wrote:
Dante Uisen wrote:

With isboxer each account is making isk a normal speed, which is the only thing that matters. The EULA binds to each individual account, and not the total number of accounts you own.


THIS! Pretty much closes the issue.


With Miner Bot 2000* each account will still be making ISK at normal speed. So by your argument, Miner Bot 2000 is perfectly legitimate. I would say the issue is far from being an open and shut case.

*Miner Bot 2000 is a fictional name representing a class of software that will run your mining fleet for you while you're at work, asleep or playing other games.
BEPOHNKA
Ner Vod Fleet Systems
#211 - 2013-02-17 21:46:16 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Lashenadeeka wrote:
Dante Uisen wrote:

With isboxer each account is making isk a normal speed, which is the only thing that matters. The EULA binds to each individual account, and not the total number of accounts you own.


THIS! Pretty much closes the issue.


With Miner Bot 2000* each account will still be making ISK at normal speed. So by your argument, Miner Bot 2000 is perfectly legitimate. I would say the issue is far from being an open and shut case.

*Miner Bot 2000 is a fictional name representing a class of software that will run your mining fleet for you while you're at work, asleep or playing other games.



read the above. you must be at the computer give commands with your fingers.... the computer can't run without your fingers... if they do then it's auto program which runs with out you their......
BEPOHNKA
Ner Vod Fleet Systems
#212 - 2013-02-17 21:47:01 UTC  |  Edited by: BEPOHNKA
i'm taking this off track this thread is about changing what should not be allowed but is currently allowed and explained why...
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#213 - 2013-02-17 21:50:06 UTC
BEPOHNKA wrote:
read the above. you must be at the computer give commands with your fingers.... the computer can't run without your fingers... if they do then it's auto program which runs with out you their......


I don't know any human who can press keys on 40 different keyboard within a split second.

The thread was about getting people to realise the power advantage that multiboxing software provides. Just because CCP currently allows multiboxing doesn't mean the situation can't change.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#214 - 2013-02-17 21:55:18 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
BEPOHNKA wrote:
read the above. you must be at the computer give commands with your fingers.... the computer can't run without your fingers... if they do then it's auto program which runs with out you their......


I don't know any human who can press keys on 40 different keyboard within a split second.

The thread was about getting people to realise the power advantage that multiboxing software provides. Just because CCP currently allows multiboxing doesn't mean the situation can't change.


I'd say it's about even. 1 person running 20 accounts won't be nearly as effective as 20 people running 1 account each.

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.

Kate stark
#215 - 2013-02-17 22:15:30 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
BEPOHNKA wrote:
read the above. you must be at the computer give commands with your fingers.... the computer can't run without your fingers... if they do then it's auto program which runs with out you their......


I don't know any human who can press keys on 40 different keyboard within a split second.

The thread was about getting people to realise the power advantage that multiboxing software provides. Just because CCP currently allows multiboxing doesn't mean the situation can't change.


i do.

i know lots of people with the same keyboard as me

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.

Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#216 - 2013-02-17 22:47:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Grimpak
Mara Rinn wrote:
BEPOHNKA wrote:
read the above. you must be at the computer give commands with your fingers.... the computer can't run without your fingers... if they do then it's auto program which runs with out you their......


I don't know any human who can press keys on 40 different keyboard within a split second.

The thread was about getting people to realise the power advantage that multiboxing software provides. Just because CCP currently allows multiboxing doesn't mean the situation can't change.

let's put this in a way where semantics can't get in the way:

botting is automation
multiboxing is duplication

CCP doesn't allow automation because there isn't nobody at the keyboard, but duplication is fine because you still need to be at the keyboard to issue all the commands, unlike automation where you press a single key and you have ships undocking, warping to belt, locking a rock, mining it, fill the cargo, go back to station, drop cargo, repeat. in duplication you still issue all these commands manually, while in automation, a single key was pressed to do all these commands in an automated order, without the assistance of a person.


the end.

[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

Klymer
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#217 - 2013-02-17 22:55:46 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:


I don't know any human who can press keys on 40 different keyboard within a split second.




This guy is well on his way

WHere there's a will, there a way Lol






Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#218 - 2013-02-17 23:29:41 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
BEPOHNKA wrote:
read the above. you must be at the computer give commands with your fingers.... the computer can't run without your fingers... if they do then it's auto program which runs with out you their......


I don't know any human who can press keys on 40 different keyboard within a split second.

The thread was about getting people to realise the power advantage that multiboxing software provides. Just because CCP currently allows multiboxing doesn't mean the situation can't change.


I have not tried with 40 keyboards but with 1 I can play 6 EvE clients plus 2 Istaria (another MMO) clients plus one GW2 client.

If I only focused on something like ice mining I am totally sure I could easily play 20 clients. I am no Korean RTS pro, so I find it possible someone could manually play 30 clients.

What are you going to tell them?
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#219 - 2013-02-18 01:00:36 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
let's put this in a way where semantics can't get in the way:

botting is automation
multiboxing is duplication


Let's put this in a way where the semantics can't get in the way:

botting is power amplification by allowing acquisition of in-game resources beyond the potential of a human player.

duplication is power amplification by allowing in-game performance beyond the potential of a human player. Duplication can be achieved by software or hardware, as ZK has shown.

1 player controlling 20 ships is capable of more decisive combat outcomes than 20 players controlling 1 ship each: it's hard to rep through alpha strike, as opposed to 20 shots arriving over a 3 second period, allowing the logistics pilots to keep the target alive through each salvo.

When ice harvesting, it is quite possible to run a fleet of 40 ships without any form of power amplification. The upper limit for a single human is probably 150 ships, allowing 2 seconds for handling each ship's ice harvester cycle. Of course you could simply run each ship until the hold is full, so you only have to act when the ship needs to warp to station, warp to belt, target ice and start harvester: this lifts the maximum number of ships that a single human can handle to whatever the sol node can handle.

One established limit for Starcraft is about 300 actions per minute: 5 actions per second. Translating to an ice harvesting operation, you'd be hard pressed to make those 5 actions count for anything: there are limits to how quickly the game responds to instructions, and there are limits to how quickly the application can become responsive once you Alt+Tab to the game. But assuming there are no limits, the actions required for running a large fleet are simply Alt+Tab, click+drag. That's 150 mining ships handled per minute, with a cycle time of 3 minutes, giving a hypothetical maximum fleet size of about 450 ships that a human could conceivably control without any form of power amplification beyond a computer capable of running that many clients, or enough computers running that many clients, with keyboard sharing software such as Synergy (without keystroke broadcasting complied in) or Teleport. But I doubt even the keenest Starcraft player would manage to spend three hours harvesting ice at that rate without burning out, getting bored or simply suffering joint strain.

Arguing that action broadcasting doesn't amplify the power of a single player is nonsensical: if ISBoxer didn't make it easier to run 7 clients at once, why would you pay for it? What does this tell you about power amplification? It tells you that the level of power amplification afforded by ISBoxer is worth $50/yr (approximately 4 months worth of subscription). If it wasn't providing an advantage, people wouldn't be paying for it.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#220 - 2013-02-18 01:11:50 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
I don't know any human who can press keys on 40 different keyboard within a split second.


I am no Korean RTS pro, so I find it possible someone could manually play 30 clients.

What are you going to tell them?


There is a huge difference between commanding 30 clients very quickly in succession with 60 actions (Alt+Tab, press F1) versus commanding 30 clients simultaneously with 1 action (press F1, action is broadcasted by multiboxing software). A stereotypical Korean StarCraft player at 300 actions per minute will take about 5 seconds to complete the set of actions, the person using multiboxing software has completed those actions with 1 keypress (for sake of argument using the Korean 300 APM example, 1/5 of a second).

I am in awe of the players capable of such frenetic activity.

But no matter how fast you are in terms of Actions Per Minute, you still can't press the same key in 30 clients instantaneously without some form of power amplification (i.e.: keystroke broadcasting).