These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Iminent Penance
Your Mom's Boyfriends
#401 - 2013-03-02 05:52:54 UTC
So If I use my laptop and desktop at the same time with two keyboards side by side... and be creative, I should be banned because someone doesnt want to do that?

Can we also ban everyone who doesnt play the way I want them to playstyle-wise as well?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#402 - 2013-03-02 08:56:05 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
The issue here is not "is multicasting automation". Even if we all agreed it was not, CCP could still ban it.

The issue is, going forward from now should it continue to be allowed, or banned?

Of course we should continue to allow it. I don't personally do it but I don't see why people have a problem with it, and I think this entire discussion is pointless.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Iminent Penance
Your Mom's Boyfriends
#403 - 2013-03-02 10:16:32 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
The issue here is not "is multicasting automation". Even if we all agreed it was not, CCP could still ban it.

The issue is, going forward from now should it continue to be allowed, or banned?

Of course we should continue to allow it. I don't personally do it but I don't see why people have a problem with it, and I think this entire discussion is pointless.


Anything that others do that you don't want to do should be BANNED because it isnt fair.

Duh
Dave Stark
#404 - 2013-03-02 11:11:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Astri Lastri wrote:
Automation is not when your action is cause of allowed game action, even if you sent that action to multiple clients.

When you use meta actions (which gives you advantage) you break EULA. Meta action is when your action cause queue of allowed game actions occur. No matter if you use single or multiple clients. THIS IS AUTOMATION.


except to send something to multiple clients you've sent something, and provided an input, so it isn't automation....



For that account you are controlling yes.

Not the other 19 in your 20man army.

Those clicks were automated by a script to duplicate the original input.

The best reference was the "pedaling while on 2 bicycles" analogy. You can own 2 bikes, noone is disputing that fact. You can either alternate riding them down the street, or you can ride 1 to your destination and walk/travel to the other bike then ride it down to your destination.

I'm sure you could technically fashion a broomhandle across the handle bars to hardware comply multiple actions...

But ultimately, you cannot ride 2 bikes at once. Not without assistance of some kind.

The EULA, should govern that assistance, not monitor it.


bikes have nothing to do with this.

at the end of the day, multiboxing doesn't even come remotely close to breaching the eula [or, at least the section people seem fond of quoting]. if people would actually read.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#405 - 2013-03-02 11:41:01 UTC
Boobiq wrote:
Multiplication is automation if you have no understanding of programming then dont post.

You first.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#406 - 2013-03-02 14:37:53 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
The issue here is not "is multicasting automation". Even if we all agreed it was not, CCP could still ban it.

The issue is, going forward from now should it continue to be allowed, or banned?



I still think the title of the thread disagrees.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#407 - 2013-03-02 14:49:20 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Astri Lastri wrote:
Automation is not when your action is cause of allowed game action, even if you sent that action to multiple clients.

When you use meta actions (which gives you advantage) you break EULA. Meta action is when your action cause queue of allowed game actions occur. No matter if you use single or multiple clients. THIS IS AUTOMATION.


except to send something to multiple clients you've sent something, and provided an input, so it isn't automation....



For that account you are controlling yes.

Not the other 19 in your 20man army.

Those clicks were automated by a script to duplicate the original input.

The best reference was the "pedaling while on 2 bicycles" analogy. You can own 2 bikes, noone is disputing that fact. You can either alternate riding them down the street, or you can ride 1 to your destination and walk/travel to the other bike then ride it down to your destination.

I'm sure you could technically fashion a broomhandle across the handle bars to hardware comply multiple actions...

But ultimately, you cannot ride 2 bikes at once. Not without assistance of some kind.

The EULA, should govern that assistance, not monitor it.


bikes have nothing to do with this.

at the end of the day, multiboxing doesn't even come remotely close to breaching the eula [or, at least the section people seem fond of quoting]. if people would actually read.



We are talking about using a program to simulate the actions you told 1 computer to do. Since the eula does state that it is forbidden to use any sort of 3rd party program to perform any action to give a player an upper hand... we are playing in the gray area of laziness versus programming compared to actually doing the work yourself.

We can revisit the argument about bots and comparing the 2 based on what they do and accomplish, but like you said- at the end of the day CCP has ruled otherwise. But that's why this thread is a PETITION and why it doesn't make sense to ignore that little tidbit.

Because at the end of the day, multiboxing is not doing the work equally across accounts, it's using a program to do it for you. Hence this whole discussion.

So while bikes may not have anything to do with it.... multiboxing programs do, and the analogy still fits. It's about the inherent laziness to acquire goods at the expense of effort and NOT being at the keyboard for each account, since you are using a program to do the work for you.

Again, the gray area between multiboxing and botting.

But yea, false pretenses of "oh look we hit 500k subs!" because of multiple accounts doesn't really give a sense of more people, only more accounts.

While it isn't illegal by definition, it is still regarded as false pretenses and therefore distasteful to those that care.

For those that don't care... don't contribute. Simple.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#408 - 2013-03-02 15:14:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
I agree.


Software that allows you to connect multiple clients to a single keystroke shouldn't be allowed.

If CCP is going to allow stuff like that, then they should build it into EVE.

This includes complex macros from mice and keyboards.
I could have swore that it was posible for developers to block LUA commands given from things like G15's or something? I know I've played other online games and the game would get all wonky whenever I used a macro key.


However, it would be foolish to do this now. I'm pretty sure that after 10 years of allowing people to multibox in a game that actually promotes the purchase of more accounts for alts, the amount of revenue they would lose if they enforced a rule like this could quite possible end them.

Does anyone think that only a really small portion of the playerbase uses this kind of stuff?
After many, many years of watching people in mining belts I feel confident saying that software that allows you to connect multiple clients is used on a rather regular basis.


They should make it a native ability of the client.
Dave Stark
#409 - 2013-03-02 16:55:22 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
We are talking about using a program to simulate the actions you told 1 computer to do.


so, nothing to do with bikes.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#410 - 2013-03-02 17:48:19 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
We are talking about using a program to simulate the actions you told 1 computer to do.


so, nothing to do with bikes.



Stay on topic please forum warrior.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#411 - 2013-03-02 17:55:02 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
I agree.


Software that allows you to connect multiple clients to a single keystroke shouldn't be allowed.

If CCP is going to allow stuff like that, then they should build it into EVE.

This includes complex macros from mice and keyboards.
I could have swore that it was posible for developers to block LUA commands given from things like G15's or something? I know I've played other online games and the game would get all wonky whenever I used a macro key.


However, it would be foolish to do this now. I'm pretty sure that after 10 years of allowing people to multibox in a game that actually promotes the purchase of more accounts for alts, the amount of revenue they would lose if they enforced a rule like this could quite possible end them.

Does anyone think that only a really small portion of the playerbase uses this kind of stuff?
After many, many years of watching people in mining belts I feel confident saying that software that allows you to connect multiple clients is used on a rather regular basis.


They should make it a native ability of the client.

EVE Online: Massively Multiboxer Online Highsecurity Game

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Dave Stark
#412 - 2013-03-02 17:57:10 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
We are talking about using a program to simulate the actions you told 1 computer to do.


so, nothing to do with bikes.



Stay on topic please forum warrior.


i wasn't the one talking about bikes.

actually, the last time i stayed on topic it was deleted for being off topic, which was actually funny as ****.
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#413 - 2013-03-02 20:41:14 UTC
Kal Mindar wrote:


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.



If the shoes fits...
Tarn Kugisa
Kugisa Dynamics
#414 - 2013-03-02 20:58:32 UTC
implying that this affects your life in any way

Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to troll everyone you meet - KuroVolt
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#415 - 2013-03-02 21:20:49 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
We are talking about using a program to simulate the actions you told 1 computer to do.


so, nothing to do with bikes.



Stay on topic please forum warrior.


i wasn't the one talking about bikes.

actually, the last time i stayed on topic it was deleted for being off topic, which was actually funny as ****.



So your reading comprehension is "selective". Got it.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Dave Stark
#416 - 2013-03-02 21:22:13 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
We are talking about using a program to simulate the actions you told 1 computer to do.


so, nothing to do with bikes.



Stay on topic please forum warrior.


i wasn't the one talking about bikes.

actually, the last time i stayed on topic it was deleted for being off topic, which was actually funny as ****.



So your reading comprehension is "selective". Got it.


no, i just tend to stop reading when people start going off topic, because it never gets back to the topic.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#417 - 2013-03-02 21:40:41 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
no, i just tend to stop reading when people start going off topic, because it never gets back to the topic.



So by telling me that I was the one going off topic when I wasn't the one to originally bring up the analogy that you focused on, but only agreed with it... is you staying on topic and NOT being selective?

Tell me more.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Dave Stark
#418 - 2013-03-02 21:53:17 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
no, i just tend to stop reading when people start going off topic, because it never gets back to the topic.



So by telling me that I was the one going off topic when I wasn't the one to originally bring up the analogy that you focused on, but only agreed with it... is you staying on topic and NOT being selective?

Tell me more.


what's to tell? 30 plus pages and people still can't read the eula.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#419 - 2013-03-02 21:58:38 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
no, i just tend to stop reading when people start going off topic, because it never gets back to the topic.



So by telling me that I was the one going off topic when I wasn't the one to originally bring up the analogy that you focused on, but only agreed with it... is you staying on topic and NOT being selective?

Tell me more.


what's to tell? 30 plus pages and people still can't read the eula.



And yet you evade still. Very well, I accept your surrender. And to answer your question, the EULA is fairly simple to read, just unfortunately the GMs made a ruling against it.

It happens all the time. Hence, 30 pages.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Dave Stark
#420 - 2013-03-02 22:00:30 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
no, i just tend to stop reading when people start going off topic, because it never gets back to the topic.



So by telling me that I was the one going off topic when I wasn't the one to originally bring up the analogy that you focused on, but only agreed with it... is you staying on topic and NOT being selective?

Tell me more.


what's to tell? 30 plus pages and people still can't read the eula.



And yet you evade still. Very well, I accept your surrender. And to answer your question, the EULA is fairly simple to read, just unfortunately the GMs made a ruling against it.

It happens all the time. Hence, 30 pages.


sorry evade what?