These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mag's
Azn Empire
#81 - 2013-02-13 09:26:58 UTC
So far not seeing any reason to ban multiboxing, or the progs used.

Seeing lots of misunderstanding and silly suggestions. Like thinking the progs make it the same as botting. No it does not.
Oh and the great idea to ban keyboards with lots of keys. That was a special one. Lol

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Quit Whining
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#82 - 2013-02-13 09:31:14 UTC
This thread is over already, as it's been clearly pointed out, the GMs have already ruled that it's fine.

The whining needs to end, those players that are able to field multiple gaming rigs and manage 30 accounts are clearly superior humans to the whining masses.

HTFU and deal with it.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#83 - 2013-02-13 09:39:20 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Multiboxing isn't botting, and neither are programs that duplicate commands across multiple clients.

It becomes botting when a single command, to EVE or otherwise, sends more commands to an EVE client than it was designed to allow.

So if I have multiple clients open and I click on a gate in one and press "warp to" and have a program that duplicates this command across all clients, that's not botting.
If I have one or more clients open and I set a destination and a program automatically has my ship warp to zero and jump at every gate along the way, that's botting.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
#84 - 2013-02-13 09:50:07 UTC
Dante Uisen wrote:
Kal Mindar wrote:
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.


Yes, fleet warp should be a banable offense.


son of a ***** beat me to it :-P
GreenWithEnvy
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#85 - 2013-02-13 17:31:58 UTC
NO
Denarus Arran
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#86 - 2013-02-13 17:38:28 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.


It's not your job to determine what breaks the EULA, it's CCP's. Also, does anyone want to write a poem for me? I like Haikus.

PEWPEWPEW
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#87 - 2013-02-13 17:38:33 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
I'm on the fence somewhat, i've never used anything like that but have considered trying it after seeing the isboxer Drake vid on youtube.

At the same time, I can see the argument that it's bad for the game. I know a dude who Isboxer'd 4 Ravens in null sec Forsaken Hubs and made obscene isk, and have heard the stories of the "100 man solo mining fleet" lol.

The counter-counter argument is that these tycoons would unsub their 100 ship mining fleets if they couldn't use them...

Hell, as it is I guess it's ok since the player is at the keyboard, but i don't really like it.




Then you have those scrubs telling everyone "if you can't make 100M isk farming lvl4's you're dumb" and "high sec is far too profitable".

Well if those guys play it with one character, maybe 2 and without isboxer, they would probably change their minds about how profitable some areas in the game are and how bad some changes can be for a regular "normal" player.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#88 - 2013-02-13 17:41:01 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.


While I know a lot of miners use multi-boxing (Orca + Hulk fleets), I still have to agree with this. Because all sentiments aside, considering that other thread on how CCP security wiped out several billion ISK from EvE Uni accounts because they supected someone of macro use (market profiteering)... it looks to me like a double-standard is happening here.

Either CCP needs to just give up & allow multi-boxing & the macros that make it possible, or enforce their rules on them all equally.

I know that, as a miner, this may be betraying my own "side" but I feel that integrity must rate higher. That some people would get banned and others overlooked when both are essentially doing the exact same thing - this is patently unfair.

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#89 - 2013-02-13 17:41:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ris Dnalor
Tippia wrote:
Kal Mindar wrote:
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.
Simple: because nothing is being automated — it's all direct player input.


replication, in this instance, is a form of automation.

Now, I'm not saying it should or should not be banned, just that it is automation, and a clear advantage over someone that doesn't use that technology.

That being said, who cares if someone wants to multibox? What's the side effect? 1 person playing 30 accounts is not likely to win a pvp engagement against 30 individuals. 1 person mining with 30 accounts increases supply and make ships cheaper for me. I suppose if you were a miner, it creates a situation where you get paid less for your product, but that's about it.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#90 - 2013-02-13 17:42:58 UTC
Someone with alot of money can afford to buy a set of high end gaming rigs and control them all at once with the proper hardware or software.

All because he has alot of money.

In a way, its Pay to Win.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2013-02-13 17:49:09 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




/signed

Yeah, this kinda makes the case for me. The rules are quite clear, and leave no room for interpretation in this case. Considering some of the questionable bans taken against players for doing far less that I have seen, I think it's time CCP start abiding by and enforcing their own rules. so... supported.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
GreenWithEnvy
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#92 - 2013-02-13 17:54:20 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
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




/signed

Yeah, this kinda makes the case for me. The rules are quite clear, and leave no room for interpretation in this case. Considering some of the questionable bans taken against players for doing far less that I have seen, I think it's time CCP start abiding by and enforcing their own rules. so... supported.


Does this mean that we have to go back to taped-together mice and keyboard with dowels over them? Because that convinced CCP pretty well last time to allow multiboxing SOFTWARE, because if they don't allow SOFTWARE people will just use HARDWARE.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#93 - 2013-02-13 17:59:58 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




Thing is CCP seems to have said that use of Isboxer constitutes "Ordinary Game Play". As its their game they do get to define the term "Ordinary Game Play", and at present their definition allows click duplication.

But should it? Thats the real question: The definition of the term "ordinary game play". Recently CCP decided deploying drones in a fixed site and going AFK was not ordinary game play, so the definition does change. Its OK for the definition to change, after all the players change, technology changes, rules need to keep up.

So should click duplication be part of "Ordinary Game Play"? I beginning to think not.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2013-02-13 18:07:17 UTC
GreenWithEnvy wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
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




/signed

Yeah, this kinda makes the case for me. The rules are quite clear, and leave no room for interpretation in this case. Considering some of the questionable bans taken against players for doing far less that I have seen, I think it's time CCP start abiding by and enforcing their own rules. so... supported.


Does this mean that we have to go back to taped-together mice and keyboard with dowels over them? Because that convinced CCP pretty well last time to allow multiboxing SOFTWARE, because if they don't allow SOFTWARE people will just use HARDWARE.


Making it less convenient to break the rules? Sounds good to me.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#95 - 2013-02-13 18:07:46 UTC
GreenWithEnvy wrote:


Does this mean that we have to go back to taped-together mice and keyboard with dowels over them? Because that convinced CCP pretty well last time to allow multiboxing SOFTWARE, because if they don't allow SOFTWARE people will just use HARDWARE.

No, hardawre methods would also be out. Just like botting. You could bot by having a second computer with a web cam looking at the screen of the first computer, use solenoids to click the keys and a pen plotter to move the mouse. It would still be botting.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Mag's
Azn Empire
#96 - 2013-02-13 18:13:59 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:


Making it less convenient to break the rules? Sounds good to me.
What rules are being broken?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2013-02-13 18:16:22 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
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




/signed

Yeah, this kinda makes the case for me. The rules are quite clear, and leave no room for interpretation in this case. Considering some of the questionable bans taken against players for doing far less that I have seen, I think it's time CCP start abiding by and enforcing their own rules. so... supported.

ok, ban also players from using the extra features from the Sidewinder X4, Sidewinder X6, and the Logitech G19, G13, and many other gaming keyboards too.

[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
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#98 - 2013-02-13 18:17:00 UTC
I do have to find amusement in all the people arguing semantics and morals in this thread.

Here's the long and short of it:

Money.

CCP exists to turn a profit; not to cater to you, or to entertain you, or to give you something to do in order to waste time. This may indeed be the method they use to part you from your money, but the money is the reason they exist. They are a business. Their EULA exists solely to maximize their income through protection of intellectual property, and customer retention.

Imagine for a moment that some of you got your way, and CCP disallowed any form of multi-client gameplay, and then suffered a subsequent loss of revenue due to multiboxers allowing their alt accounts to expire.

Can you honestly believe that CCP would suck it up and 'stay the course' based on some sort of principle? You truly expect that they would lose income, month after month, because the multiboxers took their money elsewhere, either directly or by no longer fueling the PLEX market? Or do you think they would roll back the decision, perhaps even reinforcing the legality of multiboxing software?

You might not like multiboxers, but I bet that CCP's bottom line does. Ten, or 20, or 100 accounts owned by the same person still have to be paid for somehow, and however that is, CCP turns profit, and we reap the benefits of an active Dev team. How many of you would have to quit the game entirely before you equal the subscription cost of even one of these hardcore multiboxers?
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2013-02-13 18:18:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Grimpak wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
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




/signed

Yeah, this kinda makes the case for me. The rules are quite clear, and leave no room for interpretation in this case. Considering some of the questionable bans taken against players for doing far less that I have seen, I think it's time CCP start abiding by and enforcing their own rules. so... supported.

ok, ban also players from using the extra features from the Sidewinder X4, Sidewinder X6, and the Logitech G19, G13, and many other gaming keyboards too.


You make a point. I'll immediately, and voluntarily, cease using the macros on my G110. Anyone else care to step up and start playing by the rules? I see a lot of excuses, but not a lot of 'taking responsibility'.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2013-02-13 18:21:00 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
I do have to find amusement in all the people arguing semantics and morals in this thread.

Here's the long and short of it:

Money.

CCP exists to turn a profit; not to cater to you, or to entertain you, or to give you something to do in order to waste time. This may indeed be the method they use to part you from your money, but the money is the reason they exist. They are a business. Their EULA exists solely to maximize their income through protection of intellectual property, and customer retention.

Imagine for a moment that some of you got your way, and CCP disallowed any form of multi-client gameplay, and then suffered a subsequent loss of revenue due to multiboxers allowing their alt accounts to expire.

Can you honestly believe that CCP would suck it up and 'stay the course' based on some sort of principle? You truly expect that they would lose income, month after month, because the multiboxers took their money elsewhere, either directly or by no longer fueling the PLEX market? Or do you think they would roll back the decision, perhaps even reinforcing the legality of multiboxing software?

You might not like multiboxers, but I bet that CCP's bottom line does. Ten, or 20, or 100 accounts owned by the same person still have to be paid for somehow, and however that is, CCP turns profit, and we reap the benefits of an active Dev team. How many of you would have to quit the game entirely before you equal the subscription cost of even one of these hardcore multiboxers?
it's not just that, it's just that people are making an issue from a non-issue because MULTIBOXING STILL HAS DIRECT PLAYER INPUT and thus, not botting. everything else is semantics.

[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