These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Luscius Uta
#801 - 2014-11-25 22:18:29 UTC
Literally Space Moses wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
As a fan of replicator, I'm genuienely saddened by this :(
I think it's pretty easy to figure out who pushed forward this change as replicator's bombers caused more Goon losses than entire 0.0 alliances
But I still think CCP shot themselves in a foot with this decision as it will cause a big drop in active subsciptions


Uhh, Replicator works for the CFC. Like, he's on our side, sorry.


Well you gotta forgive me for not being up to date with trends in sov-null space
Also can't blame me for reading an article on a certain EVE News site about a certain Rorqual ORE Developement kill that happened one month ago and assuming that it was one of the events that triggered the ISBoxer ban

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Xavi Bastanold
Sveipar Trade and Transport
#802 - 2014-11-25 22:18:47 UTC
Contract Wench wrote:
Makhpella wrote:
Hi CPP if I warp squad do I get banned?


CCP technically this is input broadcasting. Please remove fleet based warps.


Now you guys are starting to sound like my teenager son having a surge.

Good hunting,

Xavi
Josef Djugashvilis
#803 - 2014-11-25 22:18:53 UTC
Jedediah Arndtz wrote:
Balder Verdandi wrote:


We're grown ups, we can handle it.




What? We're adults? SINCE WHEN? WHY DIDN'T ANYONE TELL ME?!?!


Because you are too young to handle it Smile

This is not a signature.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#804 - 2014-11-25 22:19:20 UTC
Contract Wench wrote:
Makhpella wrote:
Hi CPP if I warp squad do I get banned?


CCP technically this is input broadcasting. Please remove fleet based warps.

Within the client, controlled/limited by CCP. It is not 3rd party software.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Angela Daemonic
Outcasts of New Eden
#805 - 2014-11-25 22:20:21 UTC
Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven.
sample2501
sample's playground
#806 - 2014-11-25 22:21:24 UTC
nice, good work CCP
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#807 - 2014-11-25 22:22:45 UTC
Angela Daemonic wrote:
Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven.

Indeed, very quickly the volume on PLEX sales will increase again sharply due to the lower prices... however this time it will not be fueled by people that don't care if the price is too high.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#808 - 2014-11-25 22:22:46 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Except they already have a massive amount of subjectiveness with their current wording. Just look at how many pages of argument this has spawned.
Most of that seems like comprehension failure. There is only one question which I haven't been able to answer by referring back to the op and that is not the most commonly asked question by far. the number of people who are answering questions and coming to the same conclusions would evidence that the fault of the failure to comprehend doesn't really fall on CCP.

Well no. CCP is using words and phrases that we aren't used to in regards to multiboxing. I have offered my services to help CCP attempt to fix these issues as nobody on the CSM team has any experience with the "Multibox Dictionary", so to say.

Quote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
As to the defender thing, I merely mentioned that because if i didn't, what would happen if someone in a site gets dropped? WOuld he have to take the losses without trying to defend himself?
Yes, if you cannot control a ship in an attack you should lose it. It's fundamentally no different than asking if you should be immune to attack while AFK. If a client can't individually respond to an aggressor then the ship being controlled by that client should be lost per the attackers ability to destroy it.


I think we're trying to say the same thing but doing it two different ways. I support banning auto-bots that do not need human interction, and I wouldn't mind banning direct PVP using ISBoxer. I realize and admit this would be strange, but WoW did something similar, and I had hoped CCP could as well.

At the very least, I had hoped CCP would come to us to talk about ideas and whatnot.
dark heartt
#809 - 2014-11-25 22:24:37 UTC  |  Edited by: dark heartt
DragonHelm III wrote:
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Ama Scelesta wrote:
RIP ISBoxer?


ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not.

For god's sake CCP stop all the bluster and give a straight answer

ISBOXER banned or not? It just needs a yes or no

All this crap about terms like Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing mean squat to me as I have no idea what they are.


ISBoxer isn't the only program that can do it. So they can't just say ISBoxer, they need to be more vague.

Prisoner11213 wrote:

I think CCP should make some exceptions in the rule. " We dont want PPL to Software Multibox in PVP but the PVE part doesnt matter " or something like that. FInding the Middle solution for all, thats the hard part.



Nope, either ban it completely or allow it all. Otherwise people will find loopholes. This is Eve we're talking about.

http://tetrisisunrealistic.blogspot.com.au/
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#810 - 2014-11-25 22:25:34 UTC
KeeperRus wrote:
I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly.


its obvious. CCP doesnt need a proof, its enough if they see you're doing it.
Contract Wench
Argentum Holdings
#811 - 2014-11-25 22:27:18 UTC
Max Kolonko wrote:
Alp Khan wrote:
Never establish a rule that you cannot enforce with considerable accuracy.


Do You have any idea how trivial it is to detect? with nothing less than 100% accuracy?


100% accuracy haha I see someone is not an engineer.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#812 - 2014-11-25 22:28:06 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
KeeperRus wrote:
I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly.


its obvious. CCP doesnt need a proof, its enough if they see you're doing it.

All they have to look for are patterns of simultaneous synchronized commands being given in proximity to each other.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#813 - 2014-11-25 22:31:23 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
KeeperRus wrote:
I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly.


its obvious. CCP doesnt need a proof, its enough if they see you're doing it.

All they have to look for are patterns of simultaneous synchronized commands being given in proximity to each other.


Exactly, when 10 guys in a belt turn on their mining lasers virtually simultaneously, it is most likely ISBoxer. Especially when it is 10 accounts all owned by the same guy. Could it be a fleet with different people all waiting for the FC to say, "Go"? Sure, but then that might be a case of account sharing...whooops another EULA violation. Or we can go with the principle of parsimony and say....ISBoxer or a similar program.

"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
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#814 - 2014-11-25 22:32:56 UTC
I support the regulation.

I'd like to think that the nerf bat doctrine you guys employ is the result of little choice. That we might see buffs to content volume outside level 4 missions if the result wasn't feeding farm teams controlled by very select groups of people. Multiplying the size of an Asteroid belt was never a consideration because it just meant piling on 5 more accounts to the ISBox account. It's now possible to adjust up, the needs of the game and have some hope it benefits the masses more than it does the easy button few.

I watched -A- implode after Ti-Di was introduced and I'd make the unsubstantiated claim that they did so because what ever free version of ISBotter they were using failed to match up to the new theater. I will now sit back and laugh at any Alliance that crumbles because they only have a hundred guys and were cheating to hold large belts of space.

I won't sugar coat this. EVE has burned a lot of bridges and has a reputation for coddling douche bags. It's old enough it might never live that down. It still doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
Forgotten N Forsaken
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#815 - 2014-11-25 22:32:57 UTC
THANK YOU CCP. ABOUT TIME I.S BOXERS GOT BANNED. WOOOTT!!!!!!
ashley Eoner
#816 - 2014-11-25 22:33:31 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Ranger 1 wrote:
Angela Daemonic wrote:
Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven.

Indeed, very quickly the volume on PLEX sales will increase again sharply due to the lower prices... however this time it will not be fueled by people that don't care if the price is too high.

Keep dreaming.


Forgotten N Forsaken wrote:
THANK YOU CCP. ABOUT TIME I.S BOXERS GOT BANNED. WOOOTT!!!!!!
You're dreaming. There's so many ways to hide it from CCP's eyes it'll still be abused. Hell Blizzard with their millions spent on warden can't even stop basic hackers and multibox programs.

If you really want them stopped then I hope you're prepared to have your system compromised by CCP so they can scan every aspect and control what you can and cannot run.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#817 - 2014-11-25 22:33:38 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Well no. CCP is using words and phrases that we aren't used to in regards to multiboxing. I have offered my services to help CCP attempt to fix these issues as nobody on the CSM team has any experience with the "Multibox Dictionary", so to say.
CCP clearly defined what we are and aren't allowed to do. They also specified that the method used to do it is irrelevant, what is prohibited is prohibited through any means it is done.

It is also stated that those same tools have legitimate use cases and what those cases are.

The terms they used they took the time to define and as such it's irrelevant that they may not have been the most common usages of those terms.

Quote:
I think we're trying to say the same thing but doing it two different ways. I support banning auto-bots that do not need human interction, and I wouldn't mind banning direct PVP using ISBoxer. I realize and admit this would be strange, but WoW did something similar, and I had hoped CCP could as well.

At the very least, I had hoped CCP would come to us to talk about ideas and whatnot.
I don't think we are talking about the same thing. You mention botting, but I was in no way referring to that. If you have multiple clients that are vulnerable there is no justifiable reason to have a single touch escape when the aggressor cannot have a single touch attack for multiple clients. A comparison to a game with a different PvP landscape altogether does not allow direct equivalencies.
Frumushika
New Eden Parking Cooperative
#818 - 2014-11-25 22:36:14 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.


Can I have your stuff?
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#819 - 2014-11-25 22:36:30 UTC
Technical question.. If I train 10 parrots to repeat by voice the commands I give and each one is interpretated by a voice recognition software controlling one computer.. how would that classify? I mean.. besides "sick"

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Forgotten N Forsaken
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#820 - 2014-11-25 22:37:20 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Angela Daemonic wrote:
Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven.

Indeed, very quickly the volume on PLEX sales will increase again sharply due to the lower prices... however this time it will not be fueled by people that don't care if the price is too high.

Keep dreaming.


Forgotten N Forsaken wrote:
THANK YOU CCP. ABOUT TIME I.S BOXERS GOT BANNED. WOOOTT!!!!!!
You're dreaming. There's so many ways to hide it from CCP's eyes it'll still be abused. Hell Blizzard with their millions spent on warden can't even stop basic hackers and multibox programs.

If you really want them stopped then I hope you're prepared to have your system compromised by CCP so they can scan every aspect and control what you can and cannot run.




I would be okay with that :) **** the I.S boxing Cheating Pricks.