These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#1241 - 2014-11-26 14:07:31 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
did he laugh in that popular didnt-want-it-anyways fashion?

Kind of, yeah. Like I said, there's going to be the hassle of positioning every character in the fleet manually now, but past that, there's very little practical difference if it's set up the way I described. Having to manually warp a bunch of characters to the target system isn't a realistic deterrent to the joys of suicide-ganking. Once in system, EVE's fleet controls accomplish much of the rest of the positioning work. All you have to do is fleet warp, then manually target on each client (once again, done with a single key stroke with a proper overview setup), and then perform the same process to shoot.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Seven Seas
Jump 2 Beacon
OnlyHoles
#1242 - 2014-11-26 14:09:41 UTC
page 65 :)
kraken11 jensen
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#1243 - 2014-11-26 14:10:33 UTC  |  Edited by: kraken11 jensen
Ahh, you quoted only an small part off what i said, like you do a lot. damm. That comfused me :P hehe.
Greg Inglis
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#1244 - 2014-11-26 14:15:21 UTC
Agent Intrepid wrote:
Greg Inglis wrote:
Krane Makanen wrote:
Greg Inglis wrote:
Does this mean that actual botters will be banned? I'm quite sick of seeing this in belts.

http://i.imgur.com/Oi3GynO.jpg?1

Report bot doesn't seem to do anything.



I once spoke with someone who used to BOT CCP cancled his accounts he appiled and they gave him them back just because he said he was not a BOT ing raise the question how will they police this.


Lol so basically they don't ban bots and they want to ban ISboxers... sigh


OMG man you've stumbled onto a theory here. CCP is targetting isboxers unfairly, it's abuse! Oh noes!

Ahem. How about stop smoking whatever you're smoking because it's making you delusional.

All that has changed is input broadcasting has been rightfully defined as a eula violation, which means stop doing it. And stop being such a drama queen.


To me, ISboxer = bot I see no difference. So apparently it's not a EULA violation to bot because BOTS STILL ROAM FREE after countless reporting.

The EULA only applies if it's enforced.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1245 - 2014-11-26 14:26:33 UTC
Greg Inglis wrote:
Agent Intrepid wrote:
Greg Inglis wrote:
Krane Makanen wrote:
Greg Inglis wrote:
Does this mean that actual botters will be banned? I'm quite sick of seeing this in belts.

http://i.imgur.com/Oi3GynO.jpg?1

Report bot doesn't seem to do anything.



I once spoke with someone who used to BOT CCP cancled his accounts he appiled and they gave him them back just because he said he was not a BOT ing raise the question how will they police this.


Lol so basically they don't ban bots and they want to ban ISboxers... sigh


OMG man you've stumbled onto a theory here. CCP is targetting isboxers unfairly, it's abuse! Oh noes!

Ahem. How about stop smoking whatever you're smoking because it's making you delusional.

All that has changed is input broadcasting has been rightfully defined as a eula violation, which means stop doing it. And stop being such a drama queen.


To me, ISboxer = bot I see no difference. So apparently it's not a EULA violation to bot because BOTS STILL ROAM FREE after countless reporting.

The EULA only applies if it's enforced.


which roaming bots are you talking about?
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#1246 - 2014-11-26 14:36:00 UTC
I have removed an off-topic and offensive post. Please be mindful of the forum rules before making replies. I have also edited some replies that were out of line or quoting rule infractions.

Please keep it civil.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#1247 - 2014-11-26 14:43:34 UTC
Ormand Audel wrote:
Question: Are we allowed to broadcast, but not duplicate commands? So I could have F1 bound to slot1 on client 1, F2 bound to slot1 on client 2 and so on, without alt tabbing? Not sure if it's possible without duplication, but if it is, is it allowed?

E: For those that say "it doesn't allow broadcasting", my definitions may vary to CCPs.


People, you are making this a lot harder than it needs to be.

If you press a key and one client responds, you are within the guidelines. If you press one key and more than one client responds, you are not.

Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!

This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury

It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.
Jeanette Leon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1248 - 2014-11-26 14:44:06 UTC
I'd like to suggest that allowed uses of Input Broadcasting that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience could include skill queue management, clone updates and mail handling.
Justice Zeta
Doomheim
#1249 - 2014-11-26 14:47:17 UTC
Good Smile
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#1250 - 2014-11-26 14:47:17 UTC
Anyone still confused or hung-up on what this means can reference this:

Am I violating the new rules?

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#1251 - 2014-11-26 14:50:40 UTC
Cannibal Kane wrote:
I, Cannibal Kane, Approve this change.


/thread

Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!

This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury

It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.
Prince Kobol
#1252 - 2014-11-26 14:59:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
Doc Fury wrote:
Anyone still confused or hung-up on what this means can reference this:

Am I violating the new rules?


Here is thing Doc, does

Quote:
Input Automation

Input Automation refers to actions that are commonly also referred to as botting or macroing. This term is used to describe, but is not limited to, the automation of actions which have consequences in the EVE universe.


Also apply to people using keyboards to map multiple keyboard short cuts to 1 key?

Technically you could argue that is automation of actions.

I have a feeling when CCP talked about these changes they either forget about the numerous keyboards / mice which have the facility to map multiple keys to 1 or just hoped nobody would bring it up.

Now CCP have always stated that this was fine however with these changes is this still the case?

A little clarification would be nice.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#1253 - 2014-11-26 15:07:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Doc Fury
Prince Kobol wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:
Anyone still confused or hung-up on what this means can reference this:

Am I violating the new rules?


Here is thing Doc, does

Quote:
Input Automation

Input Automation refers to actions that are commonly also referred to as botting or macroing. This term is used to describe, but is not limited to, the automation of actions which have consequences in the EVE universe.


Also apply to people using keyboards to map multiple keyboard short cuts to 1 key?

Technically you could argue that is automation of actions.


Yes, It applies if said mappings affect multiple instances of the client simultaneously and that involves anything other than login, window management or client settings.

See condition #4 of flowchart.

If you still don't get it, you are either being deliberately obtuse or do not understand what "multiple instances" means.

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Good Apollo BS4
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1254 - 2014-11-26 15:15:27 UTC
If people who weren't buy plex on their own 10 accounts still aren't, CCP doesn't lose money. But if that same group decides to pay for 2 of those same accounts with cash, ccp is making more money.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#1255 - 2014-11-26 15:17:36 UTC
Internet economists are coming out now...

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Square PI
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1256 - 2014-11-26 15:25:04 UTC
So, if i did count correct, there are more unsub multiboxer now as there were even active accounts.

So EVE will be the first game ever that has a negative number of players :).
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1257 - 2014-11-26 15:27:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
1) it might happen that less people buy PLEX due to isbot nerf.

2) Prices will most likely drop. If they drop too low because of reduced demand, people might stop selling them (read:less income for CCP) in order to acquire ingame money, because they are getting not enough ISK for the buck.

OR

3) prices wont drop all too low because enough of legit players start plexing their unsubbed alt-accounts again, who couldnt afford inflated PLEX prices anymore -> sellers receive less ISK for their PLEX and CCP wont notice anything at all.

I predict a mix of 2) and 3), less income for CCP but that will be compensated for a big part by non-isbotted players using more PLEX again at affordable prices, a pretty good deal CCP probably is willing to accept, for an improved publicity of their product not being totally infested by isbotters. Stuff like that seriously damages image of the game, presence of isbotters in turn does not improve it in any way.
Dustpuppy
New Eden Ferengi
#1258 - 2014-11-26 15:35:16 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
1) it might happen that less people buy PLEX due to isbot nerf.

2) Prices will most likely drop. If they drop too low because of reduced demand, people might stop selling them in order to acquire ingame money, because they are getting less ISK for the buck.

OR

3) prices wont drop all too low because legit players start plexing accounts again, who couldnt afford inflated PLEX prices anymore -> sellers receive less ISK for their PLEX and CCP wont notice anything at all.



or 4)
people willing to buy plexes to have additional isk purchase more plexes from CCP to compensate the reduced amount of isk when selling them on the market.

What won't happen is that plexes won't be sold any longer because there will always be someone who needs short term isk for a shiny bunch of ingame pixels.

On the ingame market beginning with next year we will see less people being able to pay high prices. The price for plex will go down until a point were the regular players can jump in and afford a plex without tools for income increase. At this point the plex price will stop
Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#1259 - 2014-11-26 15:37:16 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Congrats, CCP. The only players I see this change affecting more than marginally is those who use multiboxing software in a targeting-critical environment, such as logistics in incursions. For everyone else, you're adding the hassle of having to move each character manually, and that's about it.


And that's all they were trying to do.

Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!

This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury

It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1260 - 2014-11-26 15:39:46 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:


Yes, It applies if said mappings affect multiple instances of the client simultaneously and that involves anything other than login, window management or client settings.

See condition #4 of flowchart.

If you still don't get it, you are either being deliberately obtuse or do not understand what "multiple instances" means.



Quote:

Input Automation

Input Automation refers to actions that are commonly also referred to as botting or macroing. This term is used to describe, but is not limited to, the automation of actions which have consequences in the EVE universe.

Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy.


This has nothing to do with multiple instances, it forbids this kind of thing on single instances too, and always has AFAIK.

It's a VERY broad defintion too, even hotkeys that just do stuff like copy-paste-select or something like that for managing your market orders are technicaly 'automation'. Though I doubt this is actively policed.

Binding your tank modules or any other group of modules on a single key fall under 'automation' too. Again, I doubt that this is actively policed and it's something that should be possible in the EVE client itself to begin with imho.