These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaaeliaa
Tyrannos Sunset
#121 - 2014-11-25 16:56:54 UTC
Radkiel wrote:
Gina Taroen wrote:
lol wonder how many people will quit because of this :D


I just unsubbed all of my accounts, I'll play until the 1st then find another game.Cry

I fail to see how multiboxing affects anyone around me.


Bye-bye, botter! You won't be missed. Big smile

"Do not lift the veil. Do not show the door. Do not split the dream."
Romana Erebus
Syndicate Enterprise
Sigma Grindset
#122 - 2014-11-25 16:57:49 UTC
It took this long to sort that isboxer was a EULA breach.....Roll

GOODBYE 25 TORNADOS
GOODBYE 25 NYXES

Heres a song for this blessed event...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NelVX9y0es

Loving Eve again.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#123 - 2014-11-25 16:57:50 UTC
CCP finally read their EULA I guess. Twisted

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Tiberius Zol
Moira.
#124 - 2014-11-25 16:58:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberius Zol
What a wonderfull pre christmas gift.

Thank you Sir o7


Ps: all you guys, unsubbing your isboxer accounts: just send me a nice little contract with your stuff. i will use it wise. :)

Mr. Tibbers on twitter: @Mr_Tibbers

Mr. Tibbers Blog: www.eve-versum.de
Artemis Dalvik
Arxersize Industries
#125 - 2014-11-25 16:58:43 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:
So, does this mean no more Mac support?


wtf does this have to do with mac support?
CameronCZ
Tyde8
#126 - 2014-11-25 16:59:07 UTC
Wow, totally agree, nice work!

Im only wondering about this:
Quote:
Just to be clear, are we still allowed to bind all our hardeners to the same key?


Like in example, press Key1 to activate all Hardeners on only one account.
Prohibited or ok?
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#127 - 2014-11-25 16:59:13 UTC
Thank you CCP! This was long overdue.
Thalen Draganos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#128 - 2014-11-25 16:59:33 UTC
Romana Erebus wrote:
It took this long to sort that isboxer was a EULA breach.....Roll

GOODBYE 25 TORNADOS
GOODBYE 25 NYXES

Heres a song for this blessed event...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NelVX9y0es

Loving Eve again.

Not ISBoxer, just one of it's functions. CCP just added a ton of effort to multiboxers. That's all.
Sarah Shadow
Lotus Industrial Collective
Goonswarm Federation
#129 - 2014-11-25 17:00:01 UTC
So 35 days notice on a feature that pretty seriously affects our decision to keep multiple accounts subbed.,..

That's a load of bullshit by itself.

The other load is the question of why activities couldn't be segregated based on their impact to others.
Otto Erich Stollmmler
Deutsche EvE Lehranstalt
#130 - 2014-11-25 17:00:04 UTC
Vielen Dank CCP Falcon und das ganze Team!

Es geschehen noch Zeichen und Wunder!

MfG
Otto E. Stollmmler
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2014-11-25 17:00:16 UTC
Kant Boards wrote:
Kubiq wrote:
Kant Boards wrote:
CCP making bold and courageous and much needed changes. Whats next!? An end to AFK cloaking?!

Cloaking creates content (victims form defense fleets) isboxer does not

Well yeah but if they did something entirely reasonable like booting you from the server after 15-20 minutes of not interacting with the client like most games do it would end afk cloaking and Jita would never be capped out.

DARE TO BELIEVE


jita cap has nothing to do with the inactive players. it's only there to limit gatejumps and undocking/docking. That's where the load comes from
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#132 - 2014-11-25 17:00:16 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselFinance
Kenneth Feld wrote:

No, but the fact I am running Mac OSX and it provides these functions, how would the distinguish between legal and illegal actions. I run 6 monitors and typically have 12-25 clients running, i can see every client on the screens simultaneously, so clicking from screen to screen and pressing keyboard buttons happens super fast and I can broadcast to multiple clients or a single client, but clicking from one to the other is instant.

The default would be ban first and sort it out later. I dont' have that kind of time, it took me 5 months to get a simple reimbursement thru the CCP bureaucracy, i can't imagine how many years a petition here would take.


Just thinking outloud, I could make a script to cycle the windows and do the commands a window at a time, them I am not broadcasting to multiple clients - this may work after all

you are running eve on a turing-complete computer, just like the rest of us

a turing-complete computer can bot

ergo, you probably would already have been banned under this theory that if you use a computer that can violate the rules you will be banned

also, your planned countermeasure IS botting
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#133 - 2014-11-25 17:00:19 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:
No, but the fact I am running Mac OSX and it provides these functions, how would the distinguish between legal and illegal actions. I run 6 monitors and typically have 12-25 clients running, i can see every client on the screens simultaneously, so clicking from screen to screen and pressing keyboard buttons happens super fast and I can broadcast to multiple clients or a single client, but clicking from one to the other is instant.

The default would be ban first and sort it out later. I dont' have that kind of time, it took me 5 months to get a simple reimbursement thru the CCP bureaucracy, i can't imagine how many years a petition here would take.


Just thinking outloud, I could make a script to cycle the windows and do the commands a window at a time, them I am not broadcasting to multiple clients - this may work after all

The bold part is the part you should probably cease.

If you're worried about it, don't do it. Simple.

You've got a month and change to start practicing.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#134 - 2014-11-25 17:00:37 UTC
Imagine if you will a setting whereby there is not enforcement or a lack of regulation about the age of consent to have sex.

Believe it or not, it was like that back in the 1980s. It was quite common for say a 16 yo to date a 14 yo, or an 18 with 15 year old. Nobody really cared as long as the two were teenagers and the "maturity level of the individual" was taken into account.

You know, that whole "she won't date me I'm just a Freshman" cliché from all those dumb films in the 80s.


Now imagine if, lacking regs or enforcement, you have men in their 20s and up dating 12 year old girls. It becomes a bit too much, a bit "in your face" and most of all, a little difficult to pretend it's still OK.


So, there was no problem with the multi box thing, all "within the rules" and an area where while it appeared illegal it was not.....


and then, like the 30 year old dating the 12 year old, suddenly you have entire fleets gratuitously hoovering up entire belts, each pilot not even having a real name, all in the safety of highsec.



If there is one mistake that CCP tends to make, it's the underestimation of the Min-Max player. If there is one little tiny atom-sized little teensy iota of a chance that something will be taken all the way in one direction as the mechanics allow it, then it WILL. If there is a "possibility" of something, anything, and that possibility leads to more ISK or more stats, then that possibility by itself becomes the reality. Thera for example, if the stations can be death bubbled by dictors, it WILL and by people who have all the time in the world for it.

So, while the multibox fleet may be OK per the rules and all that, we have seen the min max sperglords take that all the way to the absurd.

And absurd, even if in the rules, eventually starts to look bad. People get to wondering "what kind of people am I dealing with here?" and nobody is really having a good time when hit with crazy vibes.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Red Rose
Thundercats
The Initiative.
#135 - 2014-11-25 17:00:48 UTC
First nerf since Falcon range / strengh nerf back in 2009 which does not f*** me over Big smile
I approve this product - make it real!
white male privilege
Doomheim
#136 - 2014-11-25 17:00:49 UTC
Lyron-Baktos wrote:
Jesus, can you be any more vague Falcon?

Its not vague at all? You can use isboxer to manage your clients but you can't use it to replicate commands. What is vague about that?
Makhpella
Bad Taste.
#137 - 2014-11-25 17:01:20 UTC
Hi CPP if I warp squad do I get banned?
big miker
Frogleap Factories
#138 - 2014-11-25 17:01:36 UTC  |  Edited by: big miker
CCP is going places! Big smile

Finaly real skill and teamwork is needed again instead of boxing 10+ accounts.
Goodbye ISboxers, happy to see you leaving o/

> A very glad Miker

Latest video: Ferocious 9.0 - Vertical Supremacy

Nano Naglfar!
Arrendis
TK Corp
#139 - 2014-11-25 17:01:43 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:

• EVE Online client settings
• Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating system’s desktop environment)
• The login process [/i]


Emphasis added.

I'm confused by why this would be something you would ever have to expressly say you're not trying to control, unless you're simultaneously of the opinion that you could.

Is CCP actually claiming they have the right to police where I put my client window on my desktop?
Jarod Garamonde
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#140 - 2014-11-25 17:01:49 UTC
Goodbye, ISBoxer. We won't miss you.

That moment when you realize the crazy lady with all the cats was right...

    [#savethelance]