These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dante Uisen
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#21 - 2013-02-12 21:15:36 UTC
Google Voices wrote:
"3.You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play."

Isboxer clearly breaks the EULA by facilitating the ability of a single person to use an army to facilitate the acquisition of items at an accelerated rate. You could not run 20 clients yourself at anywhere near the efficiency that Isboxer allows.

I guess the rules only apply when CCP says they apply. Lol


Everyone with multiple accounts can make more isk then someone with only one account, and no that's not breaking the EULA.

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.
Beckie DeLey
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-02-12 21:17:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Beckie DeLey
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..

My siren's name is Brick and she is the prettiest.
iskflakes
#23 - 2013-02-12 21:18:45 UTC
This "petition" is so stupid

Multiboxing is a legitimate form of gameplay. It's a human making all the movements, so nothing wrong with that. CCP needs the income from the people who run 10-30 accounts too.

-
Zelda Wei
New Horizon Trade Exchange
#24 - 2013-02-12 21:20:54 UTC
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:
http://technabob.com/blog/2010/04/11/eve-multi-boxing-rig/

Copy and paste the link. With large sums of money or spare equipment, you don't need a program to multi-box. Would you ban the above also simply because you can't do it?


God you are gullible.

An obvious and crude attempt by some botter to escape a ban.
Lady Ayeipsia
BlueWaffe
#25 - 2013-02-12 21:21:34 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..


Um... So only those with multiple computers can multi-box? Roll
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#26 - 2013-02-12 21:22:56 UTC
Google Voices wrote:
"3.You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play."

Isboxer clearly breaks the EULA by facilitating the ability of a single person to use an army to facilitate the acquisition of items at an accelerated rate. You could not run 20 clients yourself at anywhere near the efficiency that Isboxer allows.



I guess the rules only apply when CCP says they apply. Lol



Amazingly, the people that make the rules are entitled to make judgement calls when something falls into a grey area.

Funny how that works.

Isboxer has been borderline for a long time, this is nothing new, but CCP are WELL within their rights to decide that since there is a person behind the keyboard inputting all the commands... and that the individual accounts are not earning money any faster than they normally would (still a person clicking the mouse for each action)... it does not fall under the guideline above.

If they choose to change their mind, that would be fine too. It's their rules after all.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Cyerus
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2013-02-12 21:24:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyerus
So, what exactly is the problem with people using multiboxing software?

A person is sitting behind a computer playing EVE on one client.
A person is sitting behind a computer playing EVE on one client, with his actions being copied over to other clients he owns.

I don't see the difference, as it's still a person doing those actions.
Hammer Borne
Doomheim
#28 - 2013-02-12 21:25:27 UTC
There is some serious misconceptions about multi-boxing in this thread. Rather disgusting, actually.

It is one thing to simply run multiple clients on the same (or many) computers and interact with each one.

It is entirely a different matter to use software that accepts a single click of "F1" on one keyboard and forks it to all the clients.

The second example is a clearly defined abuse of the EULA.
Maya Regyri
The Interstellar House of Gruel
#29 - 2013-02-12 21:25:47 UTC
Kal Mindar wrote:
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:
http://technabob.com/blog/2010/04/11/eve-multi-boxing-rig/

Copy and paste the link. With large sums of money or spare equipment, you don't need a program to multi-box. Would you ban the above also simply because you can't do it?



Umm. No. My problem is with a program that takes 1 click and duplicates it 30 times. Again, why should they be allowed to warp all 30 hulks let's say, back to a pos with 1 click. How does this reinforce the main theme of action vs. consequence that this game is underpinned by?


let me put it this way. in simple terms, as if you were a five year old.

game designer says "we should not allow people to broadcast hardware inputs to multiple instances of our program", game dev supervisor, writes a memo, and sends it to legal dept. legal dept sends a memo back that reads "you cant ban broadcasting of hardware events, since they are being broadcasted by the OS even if only one instance of the client is open. and even when the memory region where our software runs is legally ours while its assigned (at least in US soil), the interactions between the OS, Hardware and our software is outside of our control. the only way to police the source of the hardware events will require an update not only on the OS EULA, but also an update on over 30 years of PC I/O standards.

there's a much easier way around all this, and it a simple change on our EULA, that would limit our users to running only one instance of the program."

game dev says, "ok, lets do that. from now on only one instance is allowed, anyone found running 2 clients will be banned or warned." on the same day it is announced almost every single EVE player comes into the forums and rage of epic proportions ensues.

the war is over, you lost.

not even companies like blizzard that have won court cases allowing them to take legal ownership of the memory address where WoW is ran cant do anything about broadcasting, because even when they have ownership over that memory block the interactions between their software and the rest of the OS and hardware is way out of their ... jurisdiction? Pirate

now, the EULA on a game can prevent automation, that's true and you wont find anyone that disagrees with the necessity of those limitations and the negative effect automation can have on the game. but to prevent automation there's no need to police over hardware events, all you need to do is monitor the actions received by the server and identify behavior patters that serve to tell a machine apart from a human.

the problem you have is that you are thinking Broadcasting=Automation, and that is false. any attempts to prove it otherwise is fools errand, go try to argue that 1+1 is 3. you'll have better luck...
Nemesis Factor
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#30 - 2013-02-12 21:35:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Nemesis Factor
People are correct when they say ISboxer or other similar software isn't necessary for multiboxing. Obviously there are no solutions for people using fifteen mice glued together....

Or CCP could just monitor for two or more clients in the same system that give the same commands at the same time more than 100 times in a row and issue warning and then bans. No collateral damage to honest players. And yes, it IS my opinion that players who multi-box in this manner (one input - multiple outputs) are dishonest. I don't know why, but I'm rather disgusted by people who put so much effort (elusively out of game) toward sating their greed. If you want 100 ships worth of income you need to control them individually.

Edit: Or run a corp and have salaried pilots.

Edit2: Maybe I have somewhat unbalanced morals, but I would also be okay with someone using a sweatshop to earn isk, as long as the workers were playing fair.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2013-02-12 21:37:48 UTC
Nemesis Factor wrote:
People are correct when they say ISboxer or other similar software isn't necessary for multiboxing. Obviously there are no solutions for people using fifteen mice glued together....

Or CCP could just monitor for two or more clients in the same system that give the same commands at the same time more than 100 times in a row and issue warning and then bans. No collateral damage to honest players. And yes, it IS my opinion that players who multi-box in this manner (one input - multiple outputs) are dishonest. I don't know why, but I'm rather disgusted by people who put so much effort (elusively out of game) toward sating their greed. If you want 100 ships worth of income you need to control them individually.

ok let's put it this way: how are those 100 ships automated if there's still a user at the commands? granted he's like split over 100 ships, but he's there, unlike 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
Markku Laaksonen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#32 - 2013-02-12 21:44:55 UTC
Kal Mindar wrote:
I, Kal Mindar, deem that multi boxing programs are a EULA breaking form of automation that undermines the integrity of this game.


Good thing you don't matter.

Anyway, this is a non issue. AS CCP Sreegs illustrated, the EULA is a very clear easy to read document and says in no uncertain terms that multiboxing is most definitely and without a doubt probably not allowed. Although on the other hand, maybe it it is allowed. However, assuming it's a Tuesday, as in today, the interpretation is up the GM who receives the petition, and they are instructed that maybe they should probably rule one way or another on it. Which is to say that multiboxing is most assuredly and positively, without hesitancy, allowed. Unless of course the GMs ruling doesn't count, which happens both often and infrequently. Therefore, issues of the EULA and multiboxing are quite clear for all to see. Maybe.

But probably not.

DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/

EVE Buddy Invite - https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=047203f1-4124-42a1-b36f-39ca8ae5d6e2&action=buddy
GreenSeed
#33 - 2013-02-12 21:45:33 UTC
OP wants to ban multiboxing on a game that right now is running an ad offering alt accounts at half the price.

OP you are as hopeless as a newb that comes to the forum asking for PVP to be consensual. this is not the game for you... go back to wow.

oh wait... forgot wow invented multiboxing.
Nemesis Factor
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#34 - 2013-02-12 21:45:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Nemesis Factor
Grimpak wrote:
Nemesis Factor wrote:
People are correct when they say ISboxer or other similar software isn't necessary for multiboxing. Obviously there are no solutions for people using fifteen mice glued together....

Or CCP could just monitor for two or more clients in the same system that give the same commands at the same time more than 100 times in a row and issue warning and then bans. No collateral damage to honest players. And yes, it IS my opinion that players who multi-box in this manner (one input - multiple outputs) are dishonest. I don't know why, but I'm rather disgusted by people who put so much effort (elusively out of game) toward sating their greed. If you want 100 ships worth of income you need to control them individually.

ok let's put it this way: how are those 100 ships automated if there's still a user at the commands? granted he's like split over 100 ships, but he's there, unlike botting.


Not suggesting it is automated. I don't feel botting or automation is the only criteria for banning someone. No one should be confusing this for botting or other unattended playing. This is a proposal for a completely new set of standards by which to get rid of 'those people.'

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


Good thing you don't matter.

Anyway, this is a non issue. AS CCP Sreegs illustrated, the EULA is a very clear easy to read document and says in no uncertain terms that multiboxing is most definitely and without a doubt probably not allowed. Although on the other hand, maybe it it is allowed. However, assuming it's a Tuesday, as in today, the interpretation is up the GM who receives the petition, and they are instructed that maybe they should probably rule one way or another on it. Which is to say that multiboxing is most assuredly and positively, without hesitancy, allowed. Unless of course the GMs ruling doesn't count, which happens both often and infrequently. Therefore, issues of the EULA and multiboxing are quite clear for all to see. Maybe.

But probably not.


I like your interpretation of it. Right now CCP doesn't have much of an opinion on it, but hopefully we can change their minds.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2013-02-12 21:50:59 UTC
Nemesis Factor wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
Nemesis Factor wrote:
People are correct when they say ISboxer or other similar software isn't necessary for multiboxing. Obviously there are no solutions for people using fifteen mice glued together....

Or CCP could just monitor for two or more clients in the same system that give the same commands at the same time more than 100 times in a row and issue warning and then bans. No collateral damage to honest players. And yes, it IS my opinion that players who multi-box in this manner (one input - multiple outputs) are dishonest. I don't know why, but I'm rather disgusted by people who put so much effort (elusively out of game) toward sating their greed. If you want 100 ships worth of income you need to control them individually.

ok let's put it this way: how are those 100 ships automated if there's still a user at the commands? granted he's like split over 100 ships, but he's there, unlike botting.


Not suggesting it is automated. I don't feel botting or automation is the only criteria for banning someone. No one should be confusing this for botting or other unattended playing. This is a proposal for a completely new set of standards by which to get rid of 'those people.'

but that's the thing: it's not automated nor there is client modification. banning people over multiboxing like that is equal to banning people over using the G keys on a logitech G15 keyboard to play EVE.

[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
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#36 - 2013-02-12 21:51:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
I am of two minds about this. Firstly it is obscene... I don't understand why anyone multi-boxes in this fashion anyway, it seems completely pointless.

Second, I don't see that it is of any harm. A 30 man mining fleet that is all being multiboxed may look like it's earning shed loads of ISK... but it isn't. That poor idiot is only getting the same amount per account as he would be if he were only running one account. He has to pay for all those accounts after all, and running 30 miners isn't going to get you the money for 30 plexes per month.

I could easily have overlooked something here. There is probably some obscure way of multiboxing to make obscene ISK, but I can't see it. If someone running 6 multiboxed accounts is running level fours and earning 50m per tick then he's only really getting 8m per account, which is alright... bout standard really. And he/she is paying CCP for all those accounts... So...More fool him really.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#37 - 2013-02-12 22:06:44 UTC
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.


He wasn't multiboxing at all, he was flat out botting.

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.
Ace Realist
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2013-02-12 22:14:32 UTC
/Signed
Kal Mindar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#39 - 2013-02-12 22:31:31 UTC
May of you are having a hard time comprehending what this petition is about. It is about 1 click doing the job of 30. Yes i know a person is present and at the controls, but this is a form of automation. This petition is to show that there is a large number of people who believe that this level of automation detracts from the main theme of the game. Risk vs reward and action vs consequence.

One click should never move multiple characters unless CCP has specifically designed that into the game. Ie. Fleet warp.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#40 - 2013-02-12 22:37:18 UTC
Kal Mindar wrote:
One click should never move multiple characters unless CCP has specifically designed that into the game. Ie. Fleet warp.
Why not?

What impact does it have on risk vs. reward and action vs. consequence (apart from making the risks that much higher since a multiboxed fleet is that much easier to kill)?