These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#121 - 2014-01-01 13:04:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Without user input, those other clients would do nothing. Thus, no automation.

so you say if user doesnt click those clients, they dont do things by themselves? Agree.


Tippia wrote:
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.

oh cool we're on API level, then go ahead and show me the proper api for input replication in MSDN:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/library/fe1cf721%28v=vs.90%29.aspx


Tippia wrote:
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.

so does isboxed client, not requiring any input by user.


Tippia wrote:
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.


you dont change meaning of something by renaming it, you might say input duplication is not automation, under same logic I would tell you input generation is not automation, legit approach? Things doing something on their own with no user directly controlling them are automated by any mean.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#122 - 2014-01-01 13:04:10 UTC
Necromendes wrote:
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?
Because botting isn't allowed.

Quote:
Any business cannot only think about short term sales (Plex) where they ignore the long term problem of bot/Isoboxer.
They're not ignoring bots, what makes you think they are?
And what is the problem with isoboxer?

Quote:
does CCP wants to continue spoiling their GM players and their friends?
How are they spoiling them now?

Quote:
Or they want to look into the world issue that is generally affecting other players who plays according to EULA?
What issues are those that they're not looking into right now?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#123 - 2014-01-01 13:06:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Robert Caldera wrote:
so does isboxed client, not requiring any input by user.
It does if you want any output on the other end. After all, it's just replication, not automation.

Quote:
you might say input duplication is not automation, under same logic I would tell you input generation is not automation, legit approach?
No, because duplication requires there to be input to begin with or there won't be any output, whereas generation means output is created without input.

So no, you may not say that under the same logic.

Quote:
oh cool we're on API level, then go ahead and show me the proper api for input replication in MSDN:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/System.Windows.Input(v=vs.110).aspx
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#124 - 2014-01-01 13:17:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
It does if you want any output on the other end. After all, it's just replication, not automation.

it does not. It is receiving input from isbox not from player.


Tippia wrote:
No, because duplication requires there to be input to begin with or there won't be any output, whereas generation means output is created without input.

output of isboxed client is created with no user interaction too. Whats the difference? Dont tell me replication is not automation, you will have hard time finding a proof for your claims. stop saying that.


Tippia wrote:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/System.Windows.Input(v=vs.110).aspx


soo, you linked me what exactly? Some .NET system class for input. I can do things with it yeah, right, but show me exact method which I would need to use for easy input distribution for multiple windows. Otherwise you are a fool backing up claims by general pointing at computer's direction.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#125 - 2014-01-01 13:18:05 UTC
modern day witch-hunts, you gotta love them

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#126 - 2014-01-01 13:18:29 UTC
Necromendes wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Necromendes wrote:
If the 50 bot mining didn't purchase the plex, it will still be divided to 50 other players who usually unable to purchase the plex due to insane bot activities. Someone else will still purchase the Plex rather than concentrated to a single player.
…except that the demand would be much lower so there would be less reason to do so and/or the stockpiles would just pointlessly build up.

Either way, these are still payed-for accounts you're talking about, and you're still asking them to reduce the number of such accounts. No matter how you cut it, that means less income for CCP.



CCP will have to choose to act accordingly to their EULA or forget EULA ever exist. You can't allow parts of EULA to be breach while acting faithfully on other parts of the EULA. CCP must made their stand clear on the topic of external program.


CCP already took a stance on isboxer, its allowed as its not automated it still requires a player to be at the keyboard, all it does is allow 1 person to control multiple accounts with ease, you need to know the difference between "bots" and people using isboxer, bots are automated and are not allowed, isboxer is manual and is allowed :)
Dave Stark
#127 - 2014-01-01 13:22:01 UTC
just going to save you all another 15 pages of pure stupidity.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=204696

all the **** arguments were presented, and proved **** here.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#128 - 2014-01-01 13:26:11 UTC
Oh boy, this (dumb) argument again.

Let's go down the slippery slope a little further with the "external program" logic....

When you click your mouse, your mouse driver is an external program that passes your input along to the operating system.

Your operating system is a collection of external programs that take that input and pass it along to the Eve client.

Should we ban those too? Or do you just dislike *some* external programs because you don't use them and they violate your self-centered sense of fair-play?

Get over it, you're wrong.

/me goes looking for Cannibal Kane's killboard to watch the progress...

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#129 - 2014-01-01 13:29:25 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
it does not. It is receiving input from isbox not from player.
…and without player input, there will be no output on the other end. After all, it's just replication, not automation.


Tippia wrote:
output of isboxed client is created with no user interaction too.
No. Unless you count “no output” as output.
Again, it's simple:

Replication: input → output; no input → no output.
Automation: input (is irrelevant) → output, with no regard for input

Quote:
soo, you linked me what exactly? Some .NET system class for input. I can do things with it yeah, right, but show me exact method which I would need to use for easy input distribution for multiple windows.
I linked you the classes and methods needed to create a replication loop. Which one to use will depend on which input you want to replicate. It's still very simple: enumerate hWnds; capture input (method varied depending on source); replicate input messages across enumerated hWnds.

Note the absence of any automation steps to create that input out of thin air (since we're only replicating, not automating).
illirdor
Upper Class Goat
#130 - 2014-01-01 13:32:48 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:

Things doing something on their own with no user directly controlling them are automated by any mean.


Your some special kind of stupid. isBoxer dont work without input.. anybody knows that (well except you maybe and mister necrowhatshisname).

Soooo this is my sig.... 
celebro
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP
Goonswarm Federation
#131 - 2014-01-01 13:37:54 UTC
You can't constantly mix everything and justified it all becos they Plex.

One player plexes his/her account, same as 1 player plexes 50 accounts there is no distinction.

If it is the case, then why not Eve be only play by bots then?

No botting is involved. Botting is automation, that means in simple terms e.g press f1 every 5 minutes for 10 times, if cargo is full drop cargo on Orca, this not what isBoxer does.

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?.

That certainly a plex issue that is not simple to resolve other than removing plex, isboxer is a even harder to police than real botting. Removing Plex only makes RMT worse. There is no easy solution to this. No other players are not made unnecessary, you can just ignore them or do the same, but only a few amount of players do this.


]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.

I fail to see how it drives players away. Games are for enjoyment not bean counting, i am sure players with 50 account must really enjoy themselves, because is not really as easy to do as u might think.

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?

Isboxer is not against EULA, and please state your source on GM player and friends doing this?
Rosira
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#132 - 2014-01-01 13:39:27 UTC
Same Whine, different game. Seems they are the same in any game that has the option to multibox
Dave Stark
#133 - 2014-01-01 13:39:35 UTC
you forgot to comment on the upcoming sci-fi based sandbox mmo elder scrolls online!
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#134 - 2014-01-01 13:41:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentamon
Maybe you all should send the tears to Microsoft and petition them to remove Aero and ALT-TAB.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Dave Stark
#135 - 2014-01-01 13:43:51 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Maybe you all should send the tears to Microsoft and petition them to move Aero and ALT-TAB.

look you. leave my alt tab the hell alone.
i don't take kindly to those kinds of threats.
Bel Tika
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#136 - 2014-01-01 13:49:18 UTC
Look harder and dont concern yourself with what others are doing, reminds me the so called problem of research/manufacturing slots in hi sec, there crap tons there ppl just arent willing to move to them
celebro
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP
Goonswarm Federation
#137 - 2014-01-01 13:50:00 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Maybe you all should send the tears to Microsoft and petition them to remove Aero and ALT-TAB.



Confirming ALT-TAB is breaking EVE.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#138 - 2014-01-01 13:57:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Tippia wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
it does not. It is receiving input from isbox not from player.
…and without player input, there will be no output on the other end. After all, it's just replication, not automation.


so what? since its replication these clients dont do anything without user input to main client. Doesnt make it less automation as soon as user does some input to main client, all other are automated replicating his moves. Its like having 20 bots running behind you and doing same things you do.

Does user control them all specifically? No.
Are they performing actions? Yes

Clear case of automation. Automation doesnt mean something has to happen it only means something happens on its own. isboxed clients are doing things with no direct user control, they are controlled by a bot which intercepts user input and sends it to these clients by 3rd party software, which in turn is prohibited by EULA!
You know, there is a NOP assembler code which does absolutely nothing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOP)?
You can build a touring machine which is doing nothing, is it then less a machine??


Tippia wrote:
No. Unless you count “no output” as output.

sitting there cloaked waiting for a bomb run is nothing?
What is output? Client is active and online its enough output by itself, maybe posing a threat just by being in local with gazillion of clients logged in, dont you think so?


Tippia wrote:

Again, it's simple:

Replication: input → output; no input → no output.
Automation: input (is irrelevant) → output, with no regard for input

wrong. Automation has nothing to do with lack of output at any time, interesting point is when output is generated and in which manner.


see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation:
Automation or automatic control, is the use of various control systems for operating equipment such as machinery, processes in factories, boilers and heat treating ovens, switching in telephone networks, steering and stabilization of ships, aircraft and other applications with minimal or reduced human intervention.

you control x clients with reduced human interaction, its what isboxer does, reducing the workload for human in order to control 50 clients at same time. Simple.

Tippia wrote:
I linked you the classes and methods needed to create a replication loop. Which one to use will depend on which input you want to replicate. It's still very simple: enumerate hWnds; capture input (method varied depending on source); replicate input messages across enumerated hWnds.

you claimed there is input replication API. There is none, you have to implement it by yourself using these .NET packages.
With same effect you could have referred to C++ as programming language allowing you to do things. There is no Windows API for explicit input broadcast, unless you're able to link me a specific method for this clearly specified purpose.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#139 - 2014-01-01 14:01:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Tippia wrote:

Note the absence of any automation steps to create that input out of thin air (since we're only replicating, not automating).

automation has nothing to do with generation. A machine which is waiting for your input, with the sole purpose to broadcast it to another x clients is not less of a machine just because it doesnt generate anything by itself.

Rosira wrote:
Same Whine, different game. Seems they are the same in any game that has the option to multibox

another one.
its not about multiboxing, I multibox by myself a lot.
its about automated multiboxing.
Necromendes
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#140 - 2014-01-01 14:03:28 UTC
celebro wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
Maybe you all should send the tears to Microsoft and petition them to remove Aero and ALT-TAB.



Confirming ALT-TAB is breaking EVE.



You can play Eve under window mode which is very convenient.