These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

In client Multiboxing idea
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#1 - 2014-10-23 21:10:59 UTC
Since so many players have more than one account (ok... I have more than one at least), what if CCP expanded the client to allow multiple accounts to be logged in through one client and allow a master - slave arrangement to control the various accounts.

This would be useful for those of us who like flying our own fleets for combat or mining without having to alt-tab to another client or have a machine whose graphics are sub par for running multiple clients at once. It would also prevent third parties who charge for multi-boxing software from making money on EVE. It might also encourage more account activation as players who have not previously used multiple accounts at once explore new avenues of multi-boxing goodness

Just a thought.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#2 - 2014-10-23 21:16:19 UTC
An interesting idea to counter those screaming about "ISbotter" and similar. I almost like it except that it:


  1. Introduces more complexity into the client itself
  2. Cannot scale as easily as dedicated software to run such things well
  3. would be a ***** to implement cross-platform in a reliable and equitable way.
  4. removes several non-reimbursable losses due to ISboxer itself messing up
  5. Puts the onus on CCP to make content scale well for boxers, rather than on boxers to make the existing content work for them.
  6. Is just a bit too far into making eve a puppet mastering game.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#3 - 2014-10-23 21:31:08 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
An interesting idea to counter those screaming about "ISbotter" and similar. I almost like it except that it:


  1. Introduces more complexity into the client itself
  2. Cannot scale as easily as dedicated software to run such things well
  3. would be a ***** to implement cross-platform in a reliable and equitable way.
  4. removes several non-reimbursable losses due to ISboxer itself messing up
  5. Puts the onus on CCP to make content scale well for boxers, rather than on boxers to make the existing content work for them.
  6. Is just a bit too far into making eve a puppet mastering game.


Come now, we all want to be puppet masters. Twisted

I suppose it depends on how it gets implemented. Perhaps CCP could subcontract the work out to a group such as ISBoxer. But it would be an interesting thing to see happen. I just tend to distrust anything that asks me for my password that is not the client itself.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Evora Pirkibo
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2014-10-23 21:35:03 UTC
-1 You want the thin client, which is a development tool allowing slave clients for alpha testing purposes.

The existence of third party software is a poor justification for incorporation. Otherwise where is our in game version of EVEMON, EFT, ect...

IMO: Multiboxing without software assistance balances itself. The added power and convenience of additional cooperative accounts balanced by the added need of control over those clients, the increased risk of error, and hardware demand on the host computer. 3rd party software for use in control of client input is definitively against the eula.

Citation: Eve online EULA \ CONDUCT \ A. Specifically Restricted Conduct \ 3.

On a long enough timeline, the life expectancy of everyone drops to zero.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#5 - 2014-10-23 21:42:13 UTC
Evora Pirkibo wrote:
-1 You want the thin client, which is a development tool allowing slave clients for alpha testing purposes.

The existence of third party software is a poor justification for incorporation. Otherwise where is our in game version of EVEMON, EFT, ect...

IMO: Multiboxing without software assistance balances itself. The added power and convenience of additional cooperative accounts balanced by the added need of control over those clients, the increased risk of error, and hardware demand on the host computer. 3rd party software for use in control of client input is definitively against the eula.

Citation: Eve online EULA \ CONDUCT \ A. Specifically Restricted Conduct \ 3.


But doing it as hardware is possible and not against EULA. Go figure. So go build a rack to fit f1 on multiple keyboards at once when the right button on the control rig is pushed and voila.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#6 - 2014-10-23 21:44:48 UTC
Petrified wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
An interesting idea to counter those screaming about "ISbotter" and similar. I almost like it except that it:


  1. Introduces more complexity into the client itself
  2. Cannot scale as easily as dedicated software to run such things well
  3. would be a ***** to implement cross-platform in a reliable and equitable way.
  4. removes several non-reimbursable losses due to ISboxer itself messing up
  5. Puts the onus on CCP to make content scale well for boxers, rather than on boxers to make the existing content work for them.
  6. Is just a bit too far into making eve a puppet mastering game.


Come now, we all want to be puppet masters. Twisted

I suppose it depends on how it gets implemented. Perhaps CCP could subcontract the work out to a group such as ISBoxer. But it would be an interesting thing to see happen. I just tend to distrust anything that asks me for my password that is not the client itself.


I want to be a puppet master, but I do a good enough job by becoming respected in a PvE community and then yelling at people to "follow the [Expunged] tags, you [censored] [redacted]s".

I also distrust subcontracting work on the client itself to companies other than CCP, as this seems like it is inviting another t20 scandal.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#7 - 2014-10-23 21:52:06 UTC
Evora Pirkibo wrote:
-1 You want the thin client, which is a development tool allowing slave clients for alpha testing purposes.

The existence of third party software is a poor justification for incorporation. Otherwise where is our in game version of EVEMON, EFT, ect...

IMO: Multiboxing without software assistance balances itself. The added power and convenience of additional cooperative accounts balanced by the added need of control over those clients, the increased risk of error, and hardware demand on the host computer. 3rd party software for use in control of client input is definitively against the eula.

Citation: Eve online EULA \ CONDUCT \ A. Specifically Restricted Conduct \ 3.


No need to reference third party programs to justify this. The use of multiple characters at once by a player is sufficient reason alone to ask: would it be worth CCP's time and effort to incorporate this as a function into the game client.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#8 - 2014-10-23 21:55:44 UTC
Petrified wrote:
Evora Pirkibo wrote:
-1 You want the thin client, which is a development tool allowing slave clients for alpha testing purposes.

The existence of third party software is a poor justification for incorporation. Otherwise where is our in game version of EVEMON, EFT, ect...

IMO: Multiboxing without software assistance balances itself. The added power and convenience of additional cooperative accounts balanced by the added need of control over those clients, the increased risk of error, and hardware demand on the host computer. 3rd party software for use in control of client input is definitively against the eula.

Citation: Eve online EULA \ CONDUCT \ A. Specifically Restricted Conduct \ 3.


No need to reference third party programs to justify this. The use of multiple characters at once by a player is sufficient reason alone to ask: would it be worth CCP's time and effort to incorporate this as a function into the game client.


And without the example of ISboxer, the answer on those merits alone, is a resounding no.

With the example of ISboxer, it is a resounding no, with the caveat that either ISboxer needs to be examined and either classed as an exploit, given full official sanction or have the situations and functions there of very carefully picked over and a clear policy of which functions are exploits and which are allowed made.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#9 - 2014-10-23 22:04:35 UTC
James Baboli wrote:


With the example of ISboxer, it is a resounding no, with the caveat that either ISboxer needs to be examined and either classed as an exploit, given full official sanction or have the situations and functions there of very carefully picked over and a clear policy of which functions are exploits and which are allowed made.

Well, there is a question to be asked, is there not?

Either way, I suppose the only people who could ever answer, in a realistic and non-speculative manner, the question on in client multi-boxing would be CCP itself.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#10 - 2014-10-23 22:08:30 UTC  |  Edited by: James Baboli
Petrified wrote:
James Baboli wrote:


With the example of ISboxer, it is a resounding no, with the caveat that either ISboxer needs to be examined and either classed as an exploit, given full official sanction or have the situations and functions there of very carefully picked over and a clear policy of which functions are exploits and which are allowed made.

Well, there is a question to be asked, is there not?

Either way, I suppose the only people who could ever answer, in a realistic and non-speculative manner, the question on in client multi-boxing would be CCP itself.


Or anyone familiar with how python based programs and IS boxer handle threading. As it is, each client instance will continue to run as a single thread, which is why you see such small performance hits when running multiple eve clients on a modern computer with a reasonable system to do thread management (inherent in most BIOS systems, and almost every modern OS) until you exceed your computers number of threads, at which point you have a sharp cliff in performance followed by a relatively shallow plateau until you hit that threshold again, etc.
By wrapping it all in one client instance, it forces either a full rewrite of the clientside code, or all of the instances you are trying to run in one client into a single thread.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#11 - 2014-10-23 22:13:20 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Petrified wrote:
James Baboli wrote:


With the example of ISboxer, it is a resounding no, with the caveat that either ISboxer needs to be examined and either classed as an exploit, given full official sanction or have the situations and functions there of very carefully picked over and a clear policy of which functions are exploits and which are allowed made.

Well, there is a question to be asked, is there not?

Either way, I suppose the only people who could ever answer, in a realistic and non-speculative manner, the question on in client multi-boxing would be CCP itself.


Or anyone familiar with how python based programs and IS boxer handle threading. As it is, each client instance will continue to run as a single thread, which is why you see such small performance hits when running multiple eve clients on a modern computer with a reasonable system to do thread management (inherent in most BIOS systems, and almost every modern OS) until you exceed your computers number of threads, at which point you have a sharp cliff in performance followed by a relatively shallow plateau until you hit that threshold again, etc.
By wrapping it all in one client instance, it forces either a full rewrite of the clientside code, or all of the instances you are trying to run in one client into a single thread.


There are good reasons to ask questions. To get answers like this, thank you. Smile

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#12 - 2014-10-23 22:20:36 UTC
No problem. I'm fairly familiar with ISboxer, as I have both friends and opponents using it on a daily basis in my preferred place to have fun in eve, Incursions. Now if CCP were to set up the clients to have grouped clients in a second, optional supervisory client put out by CCP, with only the functions that CCP is fairly sure aren't too bad, I would be the first to say ban everyone who doesn't make the switch over to manual boxing, mechanical boxing, hardware boxing or the official software boxing at high speed.

BTW, for those unfamiliar with my jargon:

Manual boxing is just alt-tabbing and/or multiple screens.
Mechanical boxing is using a physical device to press buttons on multiple keyboards connected to multiple clients
hardware boxing is using a broadcasting KVM collector to broadcast commands to multiple clients using an electrical broadcast to multiple computers, similar to the above but with the hookup and specialized gear being electronic.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Lugh Crow-Slave
#13 - 2014-10-23 23:25:33 UTC
James Baboli wrote:



  1. Is just a bit too far into making eve a puppet mastering game.



that's all eve is, you sir must be a puppet if you don't see thisPirate

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#14 - 2014-10-23 23:27:08 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
James Baboli wrote:



  1. Is just a bit too far into making eve a puppet mastering game.



that's all eve is, you sir must be a puppet if you don't see thisPirate


F'nord comrade. I just wish the puppets not to revolt, ja?

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Tedd Haggard
Banana Co.
#15 - 2014-10-24 01:02:55 UTC
I dualbox myself (manual on 2 screens) and recently I had a look at ISBoxer as I'd never heard of it before until it came up in these forums. IMO it's an exploit and has no positive value. The very fact that it enables multiple accounts to do exactly the same thing at the same time gives the person an unfair advantage.

As for controlling multiple accounts - I'd support this if when you log in all 3 of your characters are logged in and you can click a button/shortcut to switch between them.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#16 - 2014-10-24 01:08:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
The only time I've really thought it would be handy is when I've got 1 or more accounts watching a gate or wormhole and end up missing who jumped due to trying to get to the right client in time.

A rescalable, fully interactive window of another client on the same PC, inside my main client, without using 3rd party software would be useful.

Personally while I've got quite a few characters/accounts I don't tend to have them all doing the same thing so don't really need any kind of slaving/broadcasting.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#17 - 2014-10-24 01:09:18 UTC
Petrified wrote:
t or have a machine whose graphics are sub par for running multiple clients at once.


Some of us use ISboxer largely because of this reason. With isboxer, particularly with a large number of clients, it can be a huge hassle to keep all the windows in all the clients in the same position, even if you clone your client/overview settings once a week, so I don't even bother using the functionality to clone clicks between the clients. What Isboxer does so incredibly well that I am willing to pay for, however, is the window management. With Isboxer, you can have many different eve screens up on your one (or more) screens, where only the main one will display at full FPS, whereas all the sub-screens will render at your choice of speed, in my case, I set them to about 10 fps. This means that while I can watch all 11 clients at once, it isn't nearly as taxing as it would be, without window management software.