These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lascivit Mercator
#181 - 2013-02-15 15:53:11 UTC
/signed

no reason it should be allowed

I like to multiply with sheep
Quit Whining
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#182 - 2013-02-15 15:57:16 UTC
Lascivit Mercator wrote:
/signed

no reason it should be allowed


No reason it shouldn't.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#183 - 2013-02-15 16:35:43 UTC
Lascivit Mercator wrote:
/signed

no reason it should be allowed


CCP's financial analysts disagree with you.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#184 - 2013-02-15 17:35:04 UTC
/signed

No problems with Multiboxing (or multi-clienting). I do it myself with two clients on screen simultaneous in window mode.

But each of those clients should be manually controlled.

If some schmo wants to line up 20 accounts for ice mining, I'm fine with that.
If he wants to undock each one, fleet them up and fleet warp them simultaneously - fine!

But he should be manually targeting, firing lasers, unloading cargo on each client manually.
Using software to duplicate a command across 20 clients is bullshizz.

Not 'botting' per se - but still bullshizz.

Though -simply doing something about the ice-mining mechanics in general (IE, one click an hour for cake) would help tremendously. Anything that would force more clicks per hour, preferably where different clients would require slightly different inputs. Popping ice-roids would be a start.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#185 - 2013-02-16 12:33:45 UTC
Quit Whining wrote:
Lascivit Mercator wrote:
/signed

no reason it should be allowed


No reason it shouldn't.



RMT is a good one

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Anthar Thebess
#186 - 2013-02-16 12:33:46 UTC
Supporting - no multiboxing.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#187 - 2013-02-16 18:51:50 UTC
this is part of the reason why EVE pvp is considered to be such a joke. Basically a pay to win game where actual player skill has been far removed from the formula.
AFK Hauler
State War Academy
#188 - 2013-02-16 19:17:25 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





I am against the 3rd party software too, but your interpretation of the EULA is lacking. There is noting that allows any of the isboxer characters to obtain anything faster then if the button had been pressed directly. There is no code or script being employed that breaks the game mechanic. You press one button and get 30+ reactions of the same proportion as to 30+ independent inputs. Therefore, by accepting 30+ EULA agreements, each of the 30+ pilots need to abide by the scripting/hacking/macro/rapid keystroke limits independently. They are independently held to ordinary game play mechanics.

Just because you do not like it does not make it wrong. Just be smarter then the boxer and get a group of friends to express your opinion in the game... the right way.
Gavin Nordoff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#189 - 2013-02-16 19:23:50 UTC
Supported.
Sabotaged
Veritas Vincit
#190 - 2013-02-17 11:28:13 UTC
I use Isboxer so I can have 4 accounts displayed on a single screen without overlay. Usually 2 clients mining w/ 2 clients missioning. There has been no solution otherwise that I can find to rearrange the client windows into non standard sizes.

http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1291641&page=10#274

Quote:
programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed.
Some of you are equating automation with replication. They are different, see dictionary for the english language.

Isboxer doesn't violate the EULA and it doesn't facilite the ability of a single person to use an army to facilitate the acquisition of items at an accelerated rate. Can't believe someone actually claimed that.

Multiboxing is not equivalent to botting so don't associate that either.

There's a lot of unsubstantiated rumors and ridiculousness claims in this thread.

It's simply designed to allow you to control multiple characters without issueing the same command over and over again. This is not the same as automation. duh.

Quote:
allowed to hit 1 button and insta warp 30 characters to safety instead of dealing with the consequences
Because it becomes unmanageable. What your saying is there should be a cap limit on how many subscriptions you can have. Seriously? Is this the reason your posting a petition? You couldn't gank em? What happened to you personally to make you want to remove multiboxing?

If you haven't realized, there is such a thing as fleet warp that will allow you 'to hit 1 button and warp 30 characters' without multiboxing. Your whole argument just Epic Fail.

Quote:
This thread is about a program doing the work that a person should have to do in order to keep the playing field even.
Your petition contradicts this statement. Epic Fail. Your saying that 1 person should handle 10 times more work by themselves because he was unfortunate enough not to clone himself. Are you crazy?

If I have 2 accounts I should be able to play like 2 individuals equally, but your saying that shouldn't be allowed. The only reason you give is if you have 1 person multiboxing 30 accounts, should do the same command over 30 times and have incredibly slow response time versus 30 actual people being instawarping, simply so you can gank the multiboxer easier. Or are you saying 30 man solo mining fleets should be banned? The result is the same. I'm sure there are easier gank targets that are not multiboxing. Explain to me how this is even. Try.

Quote:
Eve-uni multi box botting scandal
Can you please tell me where I can get more information about this "Eve-uni multi box botting scandal" I can't seem to find it?

Multiboxing is generally allowed by MMORPG End User License Agreements, because the characters are still subject to all the normal rules of the game world and are controlled by the player directly. Why should EVE be the exception?

To date, Age of Conan, Aion, Anarchy Online, City of Heroes, City of Villains, Dungeons and Dragons Online, EVE Online, Guild Wars 2, Lord of the Rings Online, EverQuest, EverQuest II, Lineage, Lineage II, Ultima Online, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, Warhammer Online and World of Warcraft all allow multiboxing.

The truth is, I bet those that support this petition are haters. They don't like our nullsec solo raven fleets or 100 man solo mining fleets. Jealous. I move to lock the thread due to the obvious absurdness of it.
Daisai
Daisai Investments.
#191 - 2013-02-17 13:48:35 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.


Edit:
This is pretty sad. I have never seen such a lack of reading comprehension in my life. I started this thread to petition against ONE thing only and that was Duplication of clicks via a 3rd party program.
From there, you guys have talked about fleet warp being duplication? Really? An in game feature is 3rd party software?
Ban multi boxing? Are you kidding? No one said anything about one person being able to control multiple accounts.
OP is just mad/poor/idiot/etc..... I use 4 accounts to play this game, I multi box, I have plenty of $ thank you for isboxer or more accounts.

Give your collective heads a shake. This thread is about a program doing the work that a person should have to do in order to keep the playing field even. Eve central fine. Spreadsheets fine. Pyfa fine. None of these perform in game clicks for players. You have to understand clicks are what sets the tempo for how long it takes to do things. Automate any part of it and it undermines the level playing field that must be there. Anyway, some really great posts for both sides of the discussion. Just too bad so many people seem to have missed some simple points to keep this thread on topic. Hopefully CCP got some good player input and can use it to continue making this game freaking amazing.

I love you all.

Fly safe o7.

Kal



If you deem it eula breaking, can you show me which part of the eula you base your conclusion on?
Klymer
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#192 - 2013-02-17 14:11:09 UTC
The botters don't need to use software like ISBoxer because the bot software is smart enough to run the accounts 23/7 with no interaction from a real person.
BEPOHNKA
Ner Vod Fleet Systems
Goonswarm Federation
#193 - 2013-02-17 15:54:51 UTC  |  Edited by: BEPOHNKA
Edited by: GM Lelouch on 23/04/2010 15:52:45
Hello there,

To make a long story short, automation of gameplay is not permitted; players must be manually issuing the commands to control their character(s) at all times.

Our stance on programs such as Synergy and hardware/software combination such as the G15 keyboard is that they can be legitimately used as long as gameplay isn't automated. Synergy allows you to move your mouse cursor to multiple different monitors which are hooked up to different computers and we do not have any qualms with players using the program for this purpose. If Synergy was used in some way to control your accounts for you without a need for you to be at your keyboard, then that would not be allowed, but I am not aware of such a functionality with this program. If Synergy is used in conjunction with some other program to automate gameplay, it would not be permitted. G15 "macros" which allow you to group different commands into one keypress are allowed. For example, setting your G1 key to press F1, F2, F3 and so on for you with one key press is allowed (although this specific command is not as useful as it was before now that we have weapon grouping).

An exceedingly complex G15 macro which would effectively automate gameplay, such as mining, without a need for the player to be present at his keyboard would be against the EULA, regardless of whether the player utilizing said macro is sitting at his keyboard at the time!

Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA.

I hope this clears up this matter.

Best regards,
Senior GM Lelouch
EVE Online Customer Support



Good luck with your thread....

http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1291641&page=10#274
Xado Employee 03746-C1
Perkone
Caldari State
#194 - 2013-02-17 16:21:49 UTC
/signed

Those evil multiboxers work us alts to the bone. Mine mine mine, that's all they want us to do. They barely pay us and expect us to constantly be at their beck and call. Then the main character gets all the credit and glory. It's just not fair.

I support this petition!
Jason Xado
Doomheim
#195 - 2013-02-17 16:23:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Jason Xado
Xado Employee 03746-C1 wrote:
/signed

Those evil multiboxers work us alts to the bone. Mine mine mine, that's all they want us to do. They barely pay us and expect us to constantly be at their beck and call. Then the main character gets all the credit and glory. It's just not fair.

I support this petition!


Get back to work or you're fired!

Just to be clear. Xado Industries pays a very competative wage to it's employees and has an extremely enjoyable working environment. This particular employee was just unhappy because she lost last weeks employee sack race.

Xado Industries does not support this petition. We feel it goes against the MMO-RTS nature of EvE-Online.
Xado Employee 03746-C1
Perkone
Caldari State
#196 - 2013-02-17 16:26:13 UTC
Jason Xado wrote:


Get back to work or you're fired!

Just to be clear. Xado Industries does not support his petition. We feel it goes against the MMO-RTS nature of EvE-Online.


Yes sir. Sorry sir. I didn't mean it.

Please remove my name from this petition. Thank you.
Kate stark
#197 - 2013-02-17 17:43:27 UTC
no, you explained how the profit is not different.
whether one person owns all 20 accounts, or 20 people own the 20 accounts is irrelevant.

profit per account is the only thing that does mean anything. the reason people detest botting is it's because isk while you are physically not playing the game. that's not even remotely similar to multiboxing.

that is completely wrong. a miner mining with 20 accounts is earning profits at EXACTLY the same rate as 20 miners handling 20 accounts. because multiboxing does NOT make your cycles shorter or your yield higher. why do people think otherwise? honestly, please explain it to me. i don't understand why people think this.

do you even know what multiboxing is? the more i read of your post the less i think you do understand what it is...

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.
Lashenadeeka
Qinglong Fleet
Jade Kirin Alliance
#198 - 2013-02-17 17:51:27 UTC
Until PLEX hits a billion or so this is NOT A BLOODY ISSUE. Multiboxing will be out of control when the wonderful metric we have that is called PLEX SAYS it out of control, not when you morons watch The WIs's "Ice Miners Undocking" video and become jealous.
Kate stark
#199 - 2013-02-17 17:54:23 UTC
Lashenadeeka wrote:
Until PLEX hits a billion or so this is NOT A BLOODY ISSUE. Multiboxing will be out of control when the wonderful metric we have that is called PLEX SAYS it out of control, not when you morons watch The WIs's "Ice Miners Undocking" video and become jealous.


last i checked there was an interesting thread in MD about plex being linked to mineral prices.

so if every one's multiboxing miners, mineral prices go down due to increased supply and if mineral prices are linked to plex prices surely that means plex will drop and every one gets cheap plex.

so when plex hits a billion, that'll be because nobody is multiboxing miners, and we should encourage multiboxing more?

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.
Lashenadeeka
Qinglong Fleet
Jade Kirin Alliance
#200 - 2013-02-17 17:57:57 UTC
Dante Uisen wrote:

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.


THIS! Pretty much closes the issue.