These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 to Ban Isobox/Vec, bots and other similar program

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave stark
#101 - 2014-01-01 12:41:59 UTC
Necromendes wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
what is automation? Performing some action without any user interaction, right?
isboxer is producing input for 1 single client, all others receive input
…from that user interaction, which means it's not automated. Without the user interaction, nothing would ever happen on any of the machines. Duplication of user input inherently means it doesn't automate any user input because if it did, there would be no need for the duplication.

Thus: not even remotely automated, nor botting in any sense of the word.


The cheater just need to purchase 1 bot program like Vec to control the main while all other under Isoboxer follows the actions of the main bot program. Before Isoboxer, if they need bot they would hv to purhcase multiple bots program, with Isoboxer, they only need 1.


so you're admitting isboxer isn't the issue, nor is multiboxing.

we all know botting is bad, that's why ccp bans botters.
Necromendes
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#102 - 2014-01-01 12:42:46 UTC
RAIN Arthie wrote:
Your implying that CCP practices ethical and moral business practice. I do agree with you, however they allow players to violate RL laws and do not care (plex for good where people were getting war deced until they payed a plex to help that country). Then again it is hard to scan down botters and fix it. I'm sure they are already working on things. Problem is people will find another way, they always do.



I do agree that people always find a way. However, it is CCP's problem that comes with the business. Why should we the consumer figure it out for CCP? Maybe they should engage professionals to "fix' the problem. CCP should not burden their consumer for their fault.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#103 - 2014-01-01 12:42:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Necromendes wrote:
The cheater just need to purchase 1 bot
I'm going to stop you there (again). You're still confusing botting with multiboxing. They're two very different things.

Which one is it you're actually complaining about?

Quote:
…program like Vec to control the main while all other under Isoboxer follows the actions of the main bot program. Before Isoboxer, if they need bot they would hv to purhcase multiple bots program, with Isoboxer, they only need 1.

…and that doesn't change a thing about isoboxer. It's the botting that isn't allowed, not the multiboxing. This is why you need to be a bit more specific in your complaint because all you've done so far is rail against isoboxer, which has nothing to do with the breach of EULA that is botting.

Botting is not allowed, which is why CCP bans botters.
Multiboxing is allowed, which is why CCP doesn't ban multiboxers.

Your entire problem is that you keep confusing the two and then go on to ask the nonsensical question of why doing something legal isn't judged the same as doing something completely unrelated that is illegal.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#104 - 2014-01-01 12:43:11 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
what is automation? Performing some action without any user interaction, right?
isboxer is producing input for 1 single client, all others receive input
…from that user interaction

nope. Not from user but from isbox which is intercepting said user input and replicating it to x other clients.


Tippia wrote:

, which means it's not automated.

which clearly means automation of background clients user doesnt even see, how can he do any input to x windows programs at same time? Did you ever try to simultaneously write 2 letters in 2 different instances of MS Word? Just one can have focus, so it doesnt work without any supporting tools (which are prohibited by eve eula).


Tippia wrote:

Without the user interaction, nothing would ever happen on any of the machines.

so a ratting bot is ok too? Since it wouldnt ever do anything at all unless a user does something and starts it up. Right?


Tippia wrote:
Duplication of user input inherently means it doesn't automate any user input because if it did, there would be no need for the duplication.

Thus: not even remotely automated, nor botting in any sense of the word.

so basically you're saying those x clients in background doing things by themselves are not automated?
Athena Maldoran
Doomheim
#105 - 2014-01-01 12:44:16 UTC
Nothiing more annoying than Spambots and isobox users.
RAIN Arthie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2014-01-01 12:47:25 UTC
I completely agree with you. The real terror is if someone created a market bot. (If there isn't one already) They do need to fix these things. Not sure what their stance is on it really. CCP is not a very transparent business. So many conspiracy theory's.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#107 - 2014-01-01 12:49:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Robert Caldera wrote:
nope.
Yup. Without user input, those other clients would do nothing. Thus, no automation.

Tippia wrote:
which clearly means automation of background clients user doesnt even see
So if the user did nothing, would those background clients keep doing things on their own or not? Because if answer is “not”, there is no automation. (Hint: “not” is the correct answer).

Quote:
how can he do any input to x windows programs at same time? Did you ever try to simultaneously write 2 letters in 2 different instances of MS Word? Just one can have focus, so it doesnt work without any supporting tools (which are prohibited by eve eula).
Simple: by using key duplication — something that's built into the windows IO APIs and which is not prohibited by the EULA since it doesn't automate anything but only duplicates user input.

Quote:
so a ratting bot is ok too?
Too? Bots are never ok. What made you think that they were? Ratting bots (or indeed any bots), by very definition, do not require user input. They would be horribly poor bots if they did since it would defeat the entire purpose of having a bot to begin with.

Quote:
so basically you're saying those x clients in background doing things by themselves are not automated?
I'm saying that those clients in the background aren't doing anything by themselves if all you're doing is using input duplication. After all, it's only… you know… input duplication — input without which nothing happens.
Dave stark
#108 - 2014-01-01 12:49:34 UTC
RAIN Arthie wrote:
I completely agree with you. The real terror is if someone created a market bot. (If there isn't one already) They do need to fix these things. Not sure what their stance is on it really. CCP is not a very transparent business. So many conspiracy theory's.


if you read the dev blogs you'd know exactly what their stance on it is, really.
RAIN Arthie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#109 - 2014-01-01 12:50:27 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
RAIN Arthie wrote:
I completely agree with you. The real terror is if someone created a market bot. (If there isn't one already) They do need to fix these things. Not sure what their stance is on it really. CCP is not a very transparent business. So many conspiracy theory's.


if you read the dev blogs you'd know exactly what their stance on it is, really.



Talk is cheap my freind.
Dave stark
#110 - 2014-01-01 12:51:41 UTC
RAIN Arthie wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
RAIN Arthie wrote:
I completely agree with you. The real terror is if someone created a market bot. (If there isn't one already) They do need to fix these things. Not sure what their stance is on it really. CCP is not a very transparent business. So many conspiracy theory's.


if you read the dev blogs you'd know exactly what their stance on it is, really.



Talk is cheap my freind.


"i'm going to ignore that fact because it conflicts with my sense of reality"
ok.
RAIN Arthie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2014-01-01 12:52:04 UTC
Got a solution. Mining carrier. Nice and shiney bling.
celebro
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP
Goonswarm Federation
#112 - 2014-01-01 12:52:56 UTC
This thread is going round in circles.

If 50 players mining ice= x amount of ice/hour

If 50 accounts mining ice (with 1 player)= x

So what's the problem exactly, x is the same in both scenarios assuming same fittings/skills. In both counts the same amount of subscriptions has been payed, and most importantly they both need to be at the keyboard at least when the ice pops or the cargo is full.


The number of players controlling any number of accounts is irrelevant simply because each account has to be assumed to be a human player, that's the way CCP rolls.
Athena Maldoran
Doomheim
#113 - 2014-01-01 12:54:22 UTC
Why do we want isobox and the like in the game anyway?
Athena Maldoran
Doomheim
#114 - 2014-01-01 12:55:10 UTC
i mean if you use it, your just showing that you lack imagination and skill to perform like the rest of us.
RAIN Arthie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#115 - 2014-01-01 12:57:05 UTC
We need an ore carrier and an ice carrier. NOM NOM NOM- on an epic scale.
Dave stark
#116 - 2014-01-01 12:57:30 UTC
Athena Maldoran wrote:
i mean if you use it, your just showing that you lack imagination and skill to perform like the rest of us.


tell me, how do i mine as much in my retriever as 30 retrievers?

that's not a lack of imagination, that's just the fact that x =/= 30x
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#117 - 2014-01-01 12:58:23 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
tell me, how do i mine as much in my retriever as 30 retrievers?

that's not a lack of imagination, that's just the fact that x =/= 30x
By not mining at all, duh! Blink
x=0.
Dave stark
#118 - 2014-01-01 12:59:26 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
tell me, how do i mine as much in my retriever as 30 retrievers?

that's not a lack of imagination, that's just the fact that x =/= 30x
By not mining at all, duh! Blink
x=0.


but he's still mining 30y of ice where y > x :(
Necromendes
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#119 - 2014-01-01 13:00:24 UTC
celebro wrote:
This thread is going round in circles.

If 50 players mining ice= x amount of ice/hour

If 50 accounts mining ice (with 1 player)= x

So what's the problem exactly, x is the same in both scenarios assuming same fittings/skills. In both counts the same amount of subscriptions has been payed, and most importantly they both need to be at the keyboard at least when the ice pops or the cargo is full.


The number of players controlling any number of accounts is irrelevant simply because each account has to be assumed to be a human player, that's the way CCP rolls.



You can't constantly mix everything and justified it all becos they Plex. If it is the case, then why not Eve be only play by bots then? There is infact making all other players unneccessary. They can bot/multibox mine (or how ever they want to term it different when it is still a 3rd party program affecting game play) and sell to each other, why is there any need for new or normal players then?. Any business cannot only think about short term sales (Plex) where they ignore the long term problem of bot/Isoboxer. This in fact drive away players. Elder Scroll coming up in March, does CCP wants to continue spoiling their GM players and their friends? Or they want to look into the world issue that is generally affecting other players who plays according to EULA?
Dave stark
#120 - 2014-01-01 13:02:19 UTC
Necromendes wrote:
it is still a 3rd party program affecting game play

but it isn't, we've pointed this out several times now.