These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation

First post First post First post
Author
Ikaika Wahine Khashour
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#401 - 2014-11-25 18:30:10 UTC
Capri Sun KraftFoods wrote:
As someone who actually ISBox's bombers I'm a little upset.

The problem isn't ISBoxer. The problem is that bombs as they currently stand are completely broken Sure isboxer exacerbates the problem significantly, but you can still get 30 dudes into a fleet easily and go kill anything with 4 waves that isn't a T3 or a faction battleship. I'd be happy to see my bomber accounts become useless and de-sub them if it meant I didn't have to worry about getting hell bombed every other fleet.


With IsBoxer there is pretty much Zero chance to screw up as long as you are good. with 30 dudes there are chances to accidental De-cloaks and bad bomb runs.. plus in all due honesty.. Isboxer gave WAY to much power to 1 person. I knew someone in my old Corp who use to 5 box tengues and Ospreys. Honestly 1 person able to command 5 ships without having to worry about human error imput. Sorry, Isboxer has been a thorn in Eve's side for a long time. I use a Preview program that allows me to run my 3 accounts fairly well.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#402 - 2014-11-25 18:30:28 UTC
Querns wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Big +1 on the decision, but I'm worried it doesn't go far enough. People will just purchase more screens, and manually control multiple accounts. It'll be harder, surely, but it's still viable to manually control a 10 ship tornado gank fleet or procurer mining fleet. The only sure way to get rid of multiboxing, and entitle everyone equally to the actions of one character at a time, is to get rid of multiboxing entirely.

This will probably never happen. This game is pretty much impossible to play on any meaningful level without multiboxing.


Nonsense....I've always played single account at a time and done fine. Either do solo stuff or get friends. 10 man nado fleets controlled by a single player are ridiculous, whether using ISBoxer or not.
Danalee
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#403 - 2014-11-25 18:31:17 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
An eerily clear description of certain rules


Wow... Good to see you aren't thinking about your customers searching for the grey areas and/or testing the limits of these clear boundaries.

Can you now do the same for the big grey area that is hurting feelings, asking people to sing songs, stupids being stupid on teamspeak et all (a.k.a.: Bonus room shenanigans) please?

D.

Bear

Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority

Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment

KeeperRus
Syndicate Enterprise
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#404 - 2014-11-25 18:32:23 UTC
Dustpuppy wrote:
KeeperRus wrote:
I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly.


Easy.

Multiple accounts, multtiple clients, all logged in from the same machine / IP address, all payed with plex, using the same fitting, following the same commands without delays, sitting in the same system and in a lot of cases running more than 2-3 clients at the same time.

It's like spotting a fish swarm within an area where only individual/single fish float around.




I guess, but that's not proof of anything.
stalkker matty
R.E.V.O.L.T
#405 - 2014-11-25 18:32:25 UTC
YES YES YES best thing to happen ever good riddance to isboxer scum well done CCP.
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
#406 - 2014-11-25 18:32:40 UTC
Will be a hard transition for some but make no mistake this will benefit the vast majority of players and keep our game in a healthier place.

I give CCP major props for this much needed rules update. Cheers mates!

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#407 - 2014-11-25 18:32:55 UTC
Astroyka wrote:
I think this is great news for EvE as a whole. I really don't think the unsubs will hit CCP that hard since most of the multiboxers were probably "paying" for their accounts with PLEX anyway.

Stop being dumb. It irritates me the amount of people here who still seem to have no clue what PLEX does or how it works.
Stird Aideron
Interstellar Teacups
#408 - 2014-11-25 18:33:03 UTC
Baibai eve was fun as long it lasted Big smile
Shirolayyn
Nemesis Logistics
Goonswarm Federation
#409 - 2014-11-25 18:33:04 UTC
Ok, so using ISBoxer to manipulate multiple accounts (e.g. mining ships) is now illegal.

Result:
- all tasks that can be performed simultaneously in parallel with multiple accounts (e.g. mining) must now be performed fully manually (which will not happen). Most "industrial scale" mining has been performed this way.
- result: mineral prices will explode
- result: general prices will explode
- people doing "industrial scale" tasks using multiboxing will not continue their accounts subscriptions, resulting in a loss of plex throughput, resulting in long term financial loss for CCP. Note that the typical multiboxer supported 10-70 accounts (I myself had 12 accounts running, now reduced to 4).

I am very curious on which impact this change ("clarification") in policy will have on the game. And how CCP will cope with the very real life loss in player subscriptions. I still remember the times when regularly 50k players were online in Eve. Now we are at 30k players. Where will be, when this policy is enforced and players act accordingly on it?

My guess is: Voting with the wallet has been successful in the past. It will be successful in future as well.
Corey Lean
No Vacancies
Wardec Mechanics
#410 - 2014-11-25 18:33:07 UTC
Dustpuppy wrote:
KeeperRus wrote:
I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly.


Easy.

Multiple accounts, multtiple clients, all logged in from the same machine / IP address, all payed with plex, using the same fitting, following the same commands without delays, sitting in the same system and in a lot of cases running more than 2-3 clients at the same time.

It's like spotting a fish swarm within an area where only individual/single fish float around.


People can easily spot these guys with the naked eye, its probably even easier to detect server side.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#411 - 2014-11-25 18:33:16 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Querns wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Big +1 on the decision, but I'm worried it doesn't go far enough. People will just purchase more screens, and manually control multiple accounts. It'll be harder, surely, but it's still viable to manually control a 10 ship tornado gank fleet or procurer mining fleet. The only sure way to get rid of multiboxing, and entitle everyone equally to the actions of one character at a time, is to get rid of multiboxing entirely.

This will probably never happen. This game is pretty much impossible to play on any meaningful level without multiboxing.


Nonsense....I've always played single account at a time and done fine. Either do solo stuff or get friends. 10 man nado fleets controlled by a single player are ridiculous, whether using ISBoxer or not.

You can multibox in this game without operating a 10 man fleet. Adding as little as one account to your repertoire radically transforms your game experience. I highly recommend it.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Adrie Atticus
Circle Mercs
#412 - 2014-11-25 18:33:24 UTC
I love it how half of the people in this thread think that PLEXes take away from CCP's bottom line.

You should go biomass (in game).
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#413 - 2014-11-25 18:33:42 UTC
Wow, ballsy move, I knew I loved you guys for some reason Blink
Utari Onzo
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#414 - 2014-11-25 18:33:43 UTC
Lets get some realness of this whole CCP losing money here.

I can't speak for loss of subs as I don't have the figures for those, but I feel I casn comment on those ISBoxers that pay with plex. Looking at the market data for plex, anyone can see that supply of plexes has been steady for some considerable time. People who purchase plex to sell generally sell an amount of plex to reach a given isk 'goal'. Demand for plex, however, has skyrocketed of late, allowing these regular plex resellers to sell less, offset my speculative plex resellers cashing in on the increased plex isk cost. This does not majorly affect CCP's wallet, as plex resellers continue to provide a steady amount of supply, therefore putting in general the same amount of cash in their pocket as if those accounts were subbed (likely with some give or take)

What a major loss of plexed ISBoxed alts, if they are mass unsubed, will cause is a reduction in the ISK value of plex (reduced demand). If anything, it will cause those who buy plex for isk to have to buy more to reach their isk goal, potentially increasing revenue for CCP. This is, of course pure speculation and only looks at one aspect of the PLEX market, but the fact is the market data is pretty consistent. Plex cash sales going by the amount of plex on the market has been pretty stable for year, plex ISK price is what has been fluctuating widly (recent big increases)

TL;DR I don't think a mass unsub of plexed accounts will hurt CCP's wallet too much.

"Face the enemy as a solid wall For faith is your armor And through it, the enemy will find no breach Wrap your arms around the enemy For faith is your fire And with it, burn away his evil"

Xenuria
#415 - 2014-11-25 18:33:48 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Fonac wrote:
So is-boxer is banned?

edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it.



isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned.


I see no problem with this. It should be allowed but it shouldn't be a cake walk like it is before this policy.
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#416 - 2014-11-25 18:33:56 UTC
Danalee wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
An eerily clear description of certain rules


Wow... Good to see you aren't thinking about your customers searching for the grey areas and/or testing the limits of these clear boundaries.

Can you now do the same for the big grey area that is hurting feelings, asking people to sing songs, stupids being stupid on teamspeak et all (a.k.a.: Bonus room shenanigans) please?

D.

Bear

What happens on TS3 is none of CCP's concern or responsibility. That much should be obvious.

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.

Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#417 - 2014-11-25 18:34:28 UTC
Makhpella wrote:
Hi CPP if I warp squad do I get banned?


Stop being deliberately obtuse.

Tool. Roll

Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!

This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury

It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.

Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#418 - 2014-11-25 18:34:56 UTC
Zechariah Jericho wrote:
Guys the toxic is getting high
Was in the middle of showing a friend this game, got to general discussion "what's that?" >>> 6 minutes later he decides he doesn't want to play because of our community and how badly we're reacting to the news that people cannot play the way they want to.

last words of the discussion were (and I quote) "Some sandbox, lets just go play LoL"

Your friend doesn't have thick enough skin for this game. Nobody's shedding any tears for him.
Neurotox
I'm Sorry Shoot What?
Triumvirate.
#419 - 2014-11-25 18:35:12 UTC


Haha that's the saddest thing I seen all day.

Thank you for the laughs.
Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#420 - 2014-11-25 18:35:49 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:

• EVE Online client settings
• Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating system’s desktop environment)
• The login process [/i]


Emphasis added.

I'm confused by why this would be something you would ever have to expressly say you're not trying to control, unless you're simultaneously of the opinion that you could.

Is CCP actually claiming they have the right to police where I put my client window on my desktop?


No dumbass, they're making it expressly clear that they aren't banning any one product or service (i.e. ISBoxer, which allows for client window position control), but rather a particular set of functionality.

I swear the amount of sideways, bent ass thinking going on in this thread is astounding.

Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!

This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury

It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.