These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Communication Center » EVE General Discussion » Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page7778798081Next pageLast page

Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation First post First post First post
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Santa Spirit

Christmas Spirit and Goodwill Toward Man

Likes received: 650

#1561 - 2014-11-27 15:48:32 UTC | Edited by: Santa Spirit

Nolak Ataru wrote:

Is it true that during Fanfest, CCP Seagull, you were telling people that multiboxers had nothing to worry about?

And during EVE Vegas, that other devs were telling people that multiboxing was "ok", even if they personally disagreed with it?

If I may?

the issue here is not multi-boxing.

the issue here is the automated sending of signals/commands to multiple clients at the same time.

The difference being in the delivery method of the command, not the fact that there are multiple client instances receiving it.

My Main uses as many as 11 accounts at once, each one manually selected and given its orders (squad/fleet actions sent by the server excluded), that is what's known as multi-boxing.

A program such as ISBoxer that sends the signal to all clients at once without the need to select the individual clients instances is what CCP is referring to when they talk about multiple broadcasting, or multi-plexing the commands via software.

Santa

PS. Come join us this year: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5181952 <- blatant advertisement :)

Please come join the fun Dec 14th., 2017 Find the details [HERE] when the post is made

Bagatur I

Caldari Provisions

Caldari State

Likes received: 87

#1562 - 2014-11-27 15:54:17 UTC

Brutus Le'montac wrote:

are logitech keyboards with macro keys now also prohibited ( if i use the 1 or more of the 18 macro keys)?

if so please send me the info i need to claim 150$ from ccp for a new keybord, or send me a gamer keyboard that does not have macro keys ccp, tyvm in advance.

macros have been prohibited looooong time ago, way before this automated multiboxing ban. why are you whining about it now and in this thread?

Raziel Walker

NPC Tax Evasion Corp

Likes received: 30

#1563 - 2014-11-27 16:05:49 UTC

If ISboxers were such a huge factor in mineral pricing and supply then the game was unhealthy and in need of a fix anyway.

CCP could gradually increase mining or ore refine yields until the remaining miners can cover the shortfall created. This will also draw in new miners because the activity becomes rewarding.

No revenue is lost with ISboxers quitting and unsubscribing because ISBoxers were plexing accounts anyway, now someone else can buy that plex. Less demand will push down plex prices. No idea if lower plex prices will result in more or in less people selling PLEX on the market though.

Robert Caldera

Caldera Trading and Investment

Likes received: 1,247

#1564 - 2014-11-27 16:08:18 UTC | Edited by: Robert Caldera

Heckar Ottig wrote:

Basically, as long as the peripheral doesn't get any data from the game and is only used to broadcast commands it's not automation.

there is no such restriction.

Lacking feed-back from client does not make a difference in this case.
Automation does not describe just a set of methods but for a big part the purpose being targetted as well.
When asking the question if something is automated or not you should primarily ask the question about the goal being pursued by certain means/tools - in case of isbotter it is clearly controlling x clients without direct human interaction with them, which pretty much meets the definition of automation, i.e. controlling complex machinery/technology with reduced human workload.

I yet wonder how many people confuse multiboxing (which is still perfectly fine for CCP) with
multiboxing automation, which is topic of this thread. Is it ignorance, pure idiocy or just trolling??

Mike Azariah

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 3,756

#1565 - 2014-11-27 16:22:05 UTC

Rain6637 wrote:

how many characters do you multibox?

Funny thing. I have just one account active. 99.9% of the time I am on I am on as Mike Azariah. I admire the skill of people who can multibox and, as said before (many times), THAT is not on the chopping block. I just like being a single entity.

As to the refund request folks? Probably not, although I do not speak for CCP. If anything I would request a refund from the maker of ISBoxer or whomsoever you bought that software from (or is that a subscription too?) IF they said it would work in a specific way with Eve. Eve did not say it would work with third party software so it is under no obligation to do so nor to refund you if it decides to change how it interacts with third party folks.

I won't go all rules lawyery beyond the above. Just say that I am not pushing for a refund for you. Hey, maybe you voted for someone else and he or she will take up your banner.

I won't.

m

Mike Azariah ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯

Cervix Thumper

School of Applied Knowledge

Caldari State

Likes received: 72

#1566 - 2014-11-27 16:22:28 UTC

Sibyyl wrote:

This announcement comes with a 1 month look-ahead warning. What if someone subscribed a large number of accounts for a year, while depending on what has been for years a legal avenue of gameplay?

Exactly. I had purchased 2 new toons simply to use with ISBoxer (with the intention of purchasing 8 more). I then purchased ISBoxer and started setting it up and playing with it. The day I was able to get all the ships to launch together in formation (via broadcasting), was the day this notice came out.

Do I feel perturbed about subbing 2 accts for a year? somewhat. Do I feel cheated for purchasing ISBoxer when its main feature is going to get nerftf? A little.

Should CCP have given us a little more notice. Yea... that would have been appreciated. Adding a little lube to the stick in the butt would have been nice.

Will I keep playing eve? oh yea.. will I continue to multibox? hell yea. Will this change have a huge impact? That is something yet to be seen.

What is surprising is the amount of anger and hostility shown here in this "discussion". If the active forum posters represent a small faction of the player base, then I am more than happy to keep multiboxing and doing my own thing.

The Scope Gallente Federation 9
Maurice Shepard The Scope Gallente Federation Likes received: 9	#1567 - 2014-11-27 16:27:20 UTC 2 Kant Boards wrote: CCP making bold and courageous and much needed changes. Whats next!? An end to AFK cloaking?! One can only hope.

Heckar Ottig

Brutor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 10

#1568 - 2014-11-27 16:38:06 UTC

Robert Caldera wrote:

Heckar Ottig wrote:

Basically, as long as the peripheral doesn't get any data from the game and is only used to broadcast commands it's not automation.

there is no such restriction.

Lacking feed-back from client does not make a difference in this case.
Automation does not describe just a set methods but for a big part the purpose as well.
When asking the question if something is automated or not you should primarily ask the question about the goal being pursued by certain means/tools - in case of isbotter it is clearly controlling x clients without direct human interaction with them, which pretty much meets the definition of automation, i.e. controlling complex machinery/technology with reduced human workload.

I yet wonder how many people confuse multiboxing (which is still perfectly fine for CCP) with
multiboxing automation, which is topic of this thread. Is it ignorance, pure idiocy or just trolling??

We ask about the programmable keys because of this part of the op:

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.

We want to make it clear at which point does CCP consider using programmable keys as automation (with use cases examples preferably). I agree with the definition of the word "automation" you provided, but, unless you relog under your CCP dev/gm character and tell me the exact same thing, your point is irrelevant.

If they say "grouping resist mods and ewar is a nono" that's fine, whatever. More frustrating to mash 4 keys instead of 1, but masochism is the reason half the people here play this game in the first place.

Nolak Ataru

Hedion University

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 840

#1569 - 2014-11-27 17:09:00 UTC

Rosewalker wrote:

The multiboxing application referred to above was ISBoxer. So for over a year, (the wayback machine shows the same language on the page back in June 2013) CCP posted in writing that ISBoxer violated the prohibitions against client modification (6A2, 6A3, and 9C) but that they were not going to enforce the EULA. However, CCP warned that they could enforce these provisions of the EULA in the future and to use the software "at your own risk."

Well, CCP has decided to start enforcing these provisions, and gave everyone 5 weeks notice. Even then, CCP is only banning the functionality that violates the EULA, which means that ISBoxer is not banned, just using some of the optional features is.

I have the feeling that giving over 30 days notice for the change was due to legal reasons.

Except that's wrong.

6a2 doesn't apply as ISBoxer doesn't re-skin or otherwise change how a player sees the game. An example of this would be the WoW healing mod that places everyone's name in a nice little box and automatically healed them when you clicked.

CCP has stated countless times in the past that the "accelerated gameplay" clause was on a PER TOON BASIS. If you continue to believe differently, send them a ticket or spend 30 seconds looking through all the old "PLZ BAN ISBOXER MY FEELINGS WERE HURT" threads.

Lax did not do anything to modify, decompile, or otherwise disassemble the EVE source code. At this stage, you're fishing for ANYTHING to grasp a hold of to justify your lack of education on the issue.

Radkiel

HIgh Sec Care Bears

Brothers of Tangra

Likes received: 13

#1570 - 2014-11-27 17:13:12 UTC

Robert Caldera wrote:

Skia Aumer wrote:

The Ironfist wrote:

bombing does not require any skill it is too easy to wipe out fleets

How many times did you organize bombing runs that wiped out fleets?
My guess is... hm... ZERO!
You have no idea what you're talking about. Get educated first.

with isbotter, it IS LITTLE SKILL!
Get prober in your fleet, probe fleet, warp your bomber fleet to prober in position, all simultaneously decloak, all simultaneously warp drop bomb, all simultaneously warp out. The organizing part is clearly missing there, idgi why you dont unterstand the concept of isbotted bombing.

For all of your statements it is blatantly obvious you have never used this program yet you continue act as if your the worlds foremost authority. You have no clue what Isboxer is, therefore your opinions are worthless. IF a person wish to debate a point that person should educate themselves before making wild and misleading accusations.

GS

Robert Caldera

Caldera Trading and Investment

Likes received: 1,247

#1571 - 2014-11-27 17:13:48 UTC | Edited by: Robert Caldera

Nolak Ataru wrote:

CCP has stated countless times in the past that the "accelerated gameplay" clause was on a PER TOON BASIS.

this clause covers exactly isbotters input broadcast functionality.

Radkiel wrote:

which part of my statement is wrong? Feel free to correct it.

Sgt Ocker

What Corp is it

Likes received: 1,401

#1572 - 2014-11-27 17:18:33 UTC

Steve Ronuken wrote:

Fonac wrote:

So is-boxer is banned?

edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it.

isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned.

Technically, ISBoxer is not banned but the use of it is.

My opinions are mine.

If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Nolak Ataru

Hedion University

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 840

#1573 - 2014-11-27 17:19:37 UTC

Robert Caldera wrote:

Nolak Ataru wrote:

CCP has stated countless times in the past that the "accelerated gameplay" clause was on a PER TOON BASIS.

this clause covers exactly isbotters input broadcast functionality.

What? No it hasn't. Unless you're referring to the new clause in which case I'll simply laugh you out of court.

From a multiboxer in 2010:
https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/oldrigs

CCP told him even back then that their main issue was the AUTOMATION of the gameplay. If CCP was getting too many petitions regarding actual multiboxers vs bots and gave up, then I must seriously question the quality of their GMs if they cannot tell the difference (or if indeed, they don't have the proper tools to tell the difference. Hint: Multiboxers chat with a "main" character. Bots are silent and never speak.) then the community should not be punished for this failure.

Robert Caldera

Caldera Trading and Investment

Likes received: 1,247

#1574 - 2014-11-27 17:24:02 UTC

Nolak Ataru wrote:

Robert Caldera wrote:

Nolak Ataru wrote:

CCP has stated countless times in the past that the "accelerated gameplay" clause was on a PER TOON BASIS.

this clause covers exactly isbotters input broadcast functionality.

What? No it hasn't. Unless you're referring to the new clause in which case I'll simply laugh you out of court.

isbotter accelerates gameplay on PER TOON BASIS. I explained why few pages back.
This accelerated gameplay is the exact reason people used it.

Nolak Ataru wrote:

From a multiboxer in 2010:
https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/oldrigs

CCP told him even back then that their main issue was the AUTOMATION of the gameplay. If CCP was getting too many petitions regarding actual multiboxers vs bots and gave up, then I must seriously question the quality of their GMs if they cannot tell the difference (or if indeed, they don't have the proper tools to tell the difference. Hint: Multiboxers chat with a "main" character. Bots are silent and never speak.) then the community should not be punished for this failure.

I dont know how the ruling and policy enforcement from 2010 is relevant for this discussion,
Many others and me already explained many times, even on this page why isbotter automates gameplay,
dont get it why you you quote these statements.

kraken11 jensen

ROOKS AND KRAKENS

Likes received: 100

#1575 - 2014-11-27 17:26:49 UTC

Robert Caldera wrote:

Nolak Ataru wrote:

CCP has stated countless times in the past that the "accelerated gameplay" clause was on a PER TOON BASIS.

this clause covers exactly isbotters input broadcast functionality.

Radkiel wrote:

which part of my statement is wrong? Feel free to correct it.

you just keep posting and posting here (not that there is anything wrong in that), for anyone who have used isboxer do understand (more likely if they have tried/done their research) And people should do some research before they (''yell'' ''rage'') out about something they dont know anything about, and please dont quote only (1/4 off what i Write) because everything is relevant.

Rosewalker

Khumaak Flying Circus

Likes received: 203

#1576 - 2014-11-27 17:28:23 UTC

Nolak Ataru wrote:

Rosewalker wrote:

You left out the quote from CCP stating that "the multiboxing application" (aka ISBoxer) violated the client modification portions of the EULA. I'll add it for you.

Previous Third Party Policy on Client Modification wrote:

We do not endorse or condone the use of any third party applications or other software that modifies the client or otherwise confers an unfair benefit to players. We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay. For instance, the use of programs that provide in-game overlays (Mumble, Teamspeak) and the multiboxing application is not something we plan to actively police at this time. However, if any third party application or other software is used to gain any unfair advantage, or for purposes beyond its intended use, or if the application or other software violates other parts of the EULA, we may fully enforce our rights to prohibit such use, including player bans. Please use such third party applications or other software at your own risk.

For over a year, CCP stated that they would not enforce the EULA where ISBoxer was concerned. Now, they've given a 5 week notice that the policy is changing and that using some optional features of ISBoxer starting on 1 January 2015 will result in player bans. ISBoxer itself is not banned, so users can still use the windows management features in ISBoxer.

Look, if you don't like the fact that CCP published its ruling under the Client Modification section of the Third Party Policies that specifically refers to Sections 6A2, 6A3, and 9C, then yell at CCP and tell them they don't know what does and does not violated their own EULA. I can just go by CCP's published policies.

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"

Tikra Vargur

Eagle Feathers

Likes received: 10

#1577 - 2014-11-27 17:29:49 UTC

Radkiel wrote:

Robert Caldera wrote:

Skia Aumer wrote:

The Ironfist wrote:

bombing does not require any skill it is too easy to wipe out fleets

How many times did you organize bombing runs that wiped out fleets?
My guess is... hm... ZERO!
You have no idea what you're talking about. Get educated first.

All I know about isboxer is that it allows one person to play many characters at once. This is wrong. The evidence that it is wrong is all over these forums all over the eve universe, and all through the game play.

You came to a sandbox with a bulldozer while everyone else has a shovel. It's about time the bulldozer got kicked out. It is a shame you still get another few weeks to play. I would have made it effective immediately

Robert Caldera

Caldera Trading and Investment

Likes received: 1,247

#1578 - 2014-11-27 17:32:17 UTC

kraken11 jensen wrote:

your posting lacks substance, what are you trying to tell? You want to fix one of my quoted statement or what? Then do it specifically, instead of ranting for no reason.

kraken11 jensen

ROOKS AND KRAKENS

Likes received: 100

#1579 - 2014-11-27 17:39:27 UTC

Strata Maslav wrote:

The SMUG in this thread is pretty sickening not very conducive for discussion. I play and love the same game you guys do and unfortunately I will be removing some of my monetary support from this game as a result of a decision that CCP has made out of the blue.

This change will not effect my over all eve game play. I am not a heavy user of the broadcast function of the Isboxing software. I mainly use it to manage my windows and have used the controversial 'Isboxer broadcast + bomber' combination with 5 characters only once.

Recently and before this u-turn by CCP, I did invest in a couple more accounts but this recent change has pretty much condemned them to be immediately unsubbed. Even with this action the 'investment' of time and money that I have put into these accounts feels like it has been wasted.

I purchased these subscriptions from CCP to play their game in a specific fashion which at the time was considered legitimate by CCP. I have liked the direction that CCP have been moving towards with EVE Online and I will by no means be quitting the game due to this change but I do have a bad taste left in my mouth.

I cannot speculate CCP's reasoning for announcing this today but the delay on making this statement has caused some people supporting the game to feel they have been deceived.

Im sorry:/ i understand that .... Yeah. This is very destructive for some players who have invested their own time and Money in it, so.. Yeah, i see it... (and it obviusly going to change my gameplay too) so, Yeah.

3,578
Josef Djugashvilis Likes received: 3,578	#1580 - 2014-11-27 17:41:32 UTC 3 If I get ganked by ten players at a gate camp, that is fine and dandy. If I get ganked at a gate camp by one ISboxer player it is wrong. At least the ten gate campers had to organize the camp. In any case, CCP have made their decision, so ISboxers need to adapt, stop using ISboxer, or well..rage quit. This is not a signature.

First pagePrevious page7778798081Next pageLast page