These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1601 - 2014-11-27 19:26:36 UTC
Cervix Thumper wrote:
Going back a few pages...

Mike Azariah wrote:

3) Yes there are workarounds, some using ISBoxer, others using scripted mice or keyboard. Some are fair game others skate close enough to the edge that they risk a ban. Basically it comes down to a question of economics. Are you willing to risk ALL your accounts (and assets) being banned by skating on the thin ice knowingly? Risk vs reward in the metagame.



This is very disturbing. For a few reasons. A 1 man team of 10 gets caught... 10 accounts banned? As opposed to the main that is commanding the fleet that is the account that ISboxer is logged into? That is kind of harsh.

Then 10 acct fleet teams up with some buddies for a roam... All parties involved would have to be investigated and I am sure the ban hammer would not spare some of the innocents.

This seems like it would be an administrative nightmare investigating false claims, alt accts replying they were acting independently, and the fleet members that really had nothing to do with any transgression.

In reality the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Banning AN account would. Banning all no.

Oh wait then if the TOS / EULA isn't updated to include this and some will say they haven't read THIS forum discussion.. oops they still get banned anyway?

That just doesn't fit right.


Edit after thought... if a player owns 10 toons and 3 were involved in the transgression.. all 10 are baned?


I doubt ten players would suddenly be mustaken for a multicaster. Yes I support all ten accounts of a multiboxer being on the line. Make the call, take the risk.

Or don't

I recommend the latter

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1602 - 2014-11-27 19:27:06 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:

It wasn't. Lax talks to devs in order to make sure his tools aren't in violation of the EULA. CCP did nothing but ban a specific part of the program. If it was against the EULA, they would have banned it outright. But since it isn't, they didn't.

1) learn quoting to make clear which part of my posting you are adressing.
2) it was. To be clear here, not entire isbotter is illegal as program but its input broadcast functionality was always agains the rules for 2 simple reasons:
- its 3rd party
- it allows accelerated gameplay
Both points are covered by EULA for more than a decade, which is why CCP doesnt need to even extend EULA for new policing.


Nolak Ataru wrote:
A ratting carrier bot or a mining bot is very different from someone behind the keyboard controlling multiple accounts. Stop trying to say they're the same thing when one requires a person to continually input commands and one doesn't.

I'm not trying to do that at all. I'm saying the difference is very thin and some could classify self-acting, controlled by isbotter clients as bots.

Nolak Ataru wrote:

As I thought, you have no problem comparing a Honda Civic to a Formula 1 car. You first claimed that the clause was on a per human basis,

where did I do that? Link please.

Nolak Ataru wrote:
and when you were informed otherwise, you then changed your claim to say that ISBoxer improves the rate for each toon by comparing someone who has invested billions of isk into his fits, hours of tweaking into his setup, and months in training, to a kitchen sink fleet. You are grasping at straws and moving your goalposts.

what? kitchen sink fleet? oh dear,... you seem confused.
And how the heck is the amount of invested ISK relevant for this discussion?
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1603 - 2014-11-27 19:32:15 UTC
Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:
[quote=Cervix Thumper]Going back a few pages...

Thats why there's a month ban first. As stated in the OP. I'm also pretty sure that only those accounts which are actually broadcasting/recieving the broadcasts will get banned, since all detection will be on their servers when commands enter. The other people will not constantly hit every button at the exact same time.


Yes.. but according to that above quote it said ALL accounts. so suppose I am running 3 but own 10. I transgress and since all 10 are under the same user .. that could be a HUGE issue.

Point #2: 3 toons transgress a second time. = 3 permabans. = $300

In fleet 10 toons 10 transgress = 10 permabans. =$1000

scary thought.

Replicator: =$3000 lost instantly for the same transgression as a 3 toon player.


No I can not and will not agree with this.

Rep (sorry for using you as an example) may cost players ISK. Those players are spread out and in turn fuel the market. There is no $1000 ~ $3000 hit to an individual player by any ISboxer out there that I know of. These guys make ppl spend MORE, not less.

Just food for thought.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1604 - 2014-11-27 19:35:37 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:

You have no idea what you're talking about. Just because you have isboxer doesn't mean you're accelerating anything on a single account basis. It doesn't make your ship fly faster it doesn't fire it's weapons with a shorter cycle time. There is absolutely nothing there to accelerate an account.

isbotter saves you time processing each client separately and manually, which means each single of isbotted clients targets quicker, fires quicker and for example turn quicker. This is why isbotter is used primarily, otherwise noone would ever pay money for it, right?

ashley Eoner wrote:

There was also nothing automated by the isboxer program. Every command has to be issued by a person at the keyboard.

no. human commands are only issued to the main client, all others are controlled and thus automated by 3rd party software named ISBoxer.

ashley Eoner wrote:

There was nothing in the EULA that was being violated by isboxer or other repeater based systems. That's why they had to make this thread and amend the EULA to begin with. So despite your delusions CCP clearly saw that their own EULA as it stood wasn't banning the repeaters and thus changed it.

they changed EULA? When? Where? Show me.
ashley Eoner
#1605 - 2014-11-27 19:36:08 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:

1) learn quoting to make clear which part of my posting you are adressing.
2) it was. To be clear here, not entire isbotter is illegal as program but its input broadcast functionality was always agains the rules for 2 simple reasons:
- its 3rd party
- it allows accelerated gameplay
Both points are covered by EULA for more than a decade, which is why CCP doesnt need to even extend EULA for new policing.
Clearly not as CCP wouldn't of needed to make this announcement amending the policy if what you say is true.

It doesn't accelerate per account gameplay. You know this but you don't care because you want to score points by being vague enough to be like "OMG PEOPLE MULTIBOX FASTER SO THAT"S ACCELERATED GAMEPLAY!!". Guess what? owning multiple machines with multiple inputs accelerates gameplay. Having a higher end system that can alt tab faster accelerates gameplay under your definition. So those would be bannable offenses too if CCP took your ridiculous definition as the rule.


Quote:

I'm not trying to do that at all. I'm saying the difference is very thin and some could classify self-acting, controlled by isbotter clients as bots.
Only someone being entirely disingenuous would classify a person controlling a client as being the same as an automated program controlling the client.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1606 - 2014-11-27 19:40:22 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:

Clearly not as CCP wouldn't of needed to make this announcement amending the policy if what you say is true.

so, if its true what you say, they would change EULA properly, right? Did that happen? No? Do you know why?
I tell you, because everything in this thread was already covered by it.
They made this announcement because they changed their policing of certain points already covered by EULA.

ashley Eoner wrote:

It doesn't accelerate per account gameplay.

it does. See my previous posting.
Its why people used it in the first line.
ashley Eoner
#1607 - 2014-11-27 19:42:40 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Robert Calderaisbotter wrote:
saves you time processing each client separately and manually, which means each single of isbotted clients targets quicker, fires quicker and for example turn quicker. This is why isbotter is used primarily, otherwise noone would ever pay money for it, right?
Except you're wrong in that you have to target much slower then normal when isboxing because clients desynch easily. You have to do everything in game slower then you would if you had multiple boxes or were alt tabbing. So on a per account basis you're actually moving slower then you would controlling one account. You don't magically cycle your guns quicker you don't magically reload faster or anything like that. Your coming up with a ridiculous definition for accelerated gameplay that would ban anyone using more then one computer or for using SSDs and such. I paid money because it has a far superior windows management features AND resource management features compared to the stock setup. That alone is worth the piddly sum that he charges.

I don't know if you realize it but using names like "isbotted" "isbotter" just makes your appear childish.

Quote:

no. human commands are only issued to the main client, all others are controlled and thus automated by 3rd party software named ISBoxer.
Human commands are the source of all the inputs. If you had any clue about how operating systems work you'd realize how stupid your statement is. Technically through your definition every single key command given is automated as it's translated from hardware through the OS to the targeted program.

Quote:

they changed EULA? When? Where? Show me.


First page. If CCP felt the EULA covered this clearly then they wouldn't of made this post.
ashley Eoner
#1608 - 2014-11-27 19:47:21 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:

Clearly not as CCP wouldn't of needed to make this announcement amending the policy if what you say is true.

so, if its true what you say, they would change EULA properly, right? Did that happen? No? Do you know why?
I tell you, because everything in this thread was already covered by it.
They made this announcement because they changed their policing of certain points already covered by EULA.

ashley Eoner wrote:

It doesn't accelerate per account gameplay.

it does. See my previous posting.
Its why people used it in the first line.

It doesn't see reality.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1609 - 2014-11-27 19:51:28 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Except you're wrong in that you have to target much slower then normal when isboxing because clients desynch easily. You have to do everything in game slower then you would if you had multiple boxes or were alt tabbing. So on a per account basis you're actually moving slower then you would controlling one account.

lmao, I understand. Isbotters used it just to do everything slower than they would usually without.
Right. hahahah


ashley Eoner wrote:
You don't magically cycle your guns quicker you don't magically reload faster or anything like that. Your coming up with a ridiculous definition for accelerated gameplay that would ban anyone using more then one computer or for using SSDs and such.

its not about guns cycling time, its about reaction time, you obtain status faster (in EULA speak, lock is status) to tell one of many.

ashley Eoner wrote:

I paid money because it has a far superior windows management features AND resource management features compared to the stock setup. That alone is worth the piddly sum that he charges.

you might be one of the few who paid money for window management, majority, which this thread is about, did not!

ashley Eoner wrote:

Human commands are the source of all the inputs. If you had any clue about how operating systems work you'd realize how stupid your statement is. Technically through your definition every single key command given is automated as it's translated from hardware through the OS to the targeted program.

go on splitting hairs. Point made is that you dont control clients at your own, and this is the whole purpose of isbotter being used, thats why people paid for it.

ashley Eoner wrote:

First page. If CCP felt the EULA covered this clearly then they wouldn't of made this post.

I didnt ask for any thread pages but for changed EULA, as you claimed before.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#1610 - 2014-11-27 19:52:41 UTC
Why do people in this forum think when CCP changes something, everyone involved just says, "Well, I guess that's that then. Might as well stop what I'm doing"

Seriously?

That's never happened before and it won't happen now. You have to know the alliance weasels are already half way to figuring out how to get around this. And you also have to know that the ISBoxer coders are working overtime to make sure they won't be losing any subs over this.

CCP took a bold step. But it's only a step. Not even close to a solution. They've got a long road ahead of them and it's mostly uphill.

Sure, there are some fleets for sale in the CB, but that's still a tiny percentage of the people that are sticking around and adapting.

Mr Epeen Cool
ashley Eoner
#1611 - 2014-11-27 20:02:04 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Robert Caldera wrote:

lmao, I understand. Isbotters used it just to do everything slower than they would usually without.
Right. hahahah
Okay it's clear you're just a troll. No one can be this unintentionally dense.


Quote:

its not about guns cycling time, its about reaction time, you obtain status faster (in EULA speak, lock is status) to tell one of many.
So anyone reacting quicker then you is cheating. Anyone who has alts is cheating. Anyone with a faster computer is cheating. Anyone that has more then one computer is cheating. etcetcetc


Quote:

you might be one of the few who paid money for window management, majority, which this thread is about, did not!
Irrelevant.

Quote:

go on splitting hairs. Point made is that you dont control clients at your own, and this is the whole purpose of isbotter being used, thats why people paid for it.
Despite me and others clearly telling you otherwise you continue to spout this ignorance. I control my clients just as well without isboxer as with. The only difference is I can run teh clients smoother with isboxer.

Quote:

I didnt ask for any thread pages but for changed EULA, as you claimed before.
This thread changes the EULA hence all the conversation. I would expect there to be changes the actual ingame EULA once CCP figures out how they are going to enforce this incredibly vague change.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1612 - 2014-11-27 20:03:44 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:

1) learn quoting to make clear which part of my posting you are adressing.
2) it was. To be clear here, not entire isbotter is illegal as program but its input broadcast functionality was always agains the rules for 2 simple reasons:
- its 3rd party
- it allows accelerated gameplay
Both points are covered by EULA for more than a decade, which is why CCP doesnt need to even extend EULA for new policing.


2. No, it wasn't. You're trying to argue semantics that have already been argued and responded to by CCP stating it wasn't. Stop trying to say it is when a DEV told people it isn't.

Robert Caldera wrote:
I'm not trying to do that at all. I'm saying the difference is very thin and some could classify self-acting, controlled by isbotter clients as bots.


One could, with a leap of logic the size of a carrier. With your same leap of logic, we can also carpet-ban drone assist and drone boats simply because they *may* drone assist.

Robert Caldera wrote:
where did I do that? Link please.

When you tried to compare ISBoxers to botters.

Robert Caldera wrote:
what? kitchen sink fleet? oh dear,... you seem confused.
And how the heck is the amount of invested ISK relevant for this discussion?

You're attempting to compare (for example and in simple terms) a kitchen sink lowsec roam fleet to a HAC fleet of very skilled pilots who have very good skills and reaction times, with interdictors and EWAR support.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#1613 - 2014-11-27 20:07:27 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
I've cleaned up the thread yet again. Removed some spam, personal attacks, trolls, and more. Keep it on topic and civil, same as before. Thanks!

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Challenged
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1614 - 2014-11-27 21:33:13 UTC
Sentenced 1989 wrote:
Challenged wrote:

I doubt many players will quit over it, but the amount of accounts subscribed may take a dip.

I have 14 subscribed accounts (im too bad at eve to plex them), as of next month that will drop down to 3, possibly 2, depending on what activities I plan on doing. That's a $1400 - $1900 loss for CCP annually from myself alone.

I never used them for bombing, or to gain advantages in pvp apart from bashing structures.

I believe CCP probably have already factored an ballpark figure of how much money may be lost from this, and since they are going forward, it is probably not high enough to affect them long term.

I find it annoying, but not game breaking. By the looks of replies here overall it's a pretty unpopular thing in general, so probably for the best of the game.


That is loss for them yea, unless you sell your toons who are then again going to be payed.
And if you don't, you won't be buying plex which will cause some increase in supply, causing plex to go a bit down in price (10 accounts ins' that much, but lets assume there is 5.000 of cases like this). Since you will then get less ingame ISK for a plex, you might decided to buy more plexes from CCP, in the end evening it out. So yea, generally they won't lose much money if any at all.

Yeah that does make sense, and I wouldn't complain if plex prices dropped a little (850 ea in Amarr as we speak, naice).
See this is why smarter people than myself run economics.
Mildew Wolf
#1615 - 2014-11-27 21:41:41 UTC
Thread delivers. Thanks for the laughs
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1616 - 2014-11-27 21:44:48 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
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

Nah, I'm not the refund crowd, I'm not even the ISBoxer crowd. I was just curious what your play habits were like regarding this situation.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1617 - 2014-11-27 21:58:47 UTC
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?


And the OP said multi-boxing is fine. Really, I think we all know who the troll is here. Roll

"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
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1618 - 2014-11-27 22:42:09 UTC
Cervix Thumper wrote:
Miomeifeng Alduin wrote:
[quote=Cervix Thumper]Going back a few pages...

Thats why there's a month ban first. As stated in the OP. I'm also pretty sure that only those accounts which are actually broadcasting/recieving the broadcasts will get banned, since all detection will be on their servers when commands enter. The other people will not constantly hit every button at the exact same time.


Yes.. but according to that above quote it said ALL accounts. so suppose I am running 3 but own 10. I transgress and since all 10 are under the same user .. that could be a HUGE issue.

Point #2: 3 toons transgress a second time. = 3 permabans. = $300

In fleet 10 toons 10 transgress = 10 permabans. =$1000

scary thought.

Replicator: =$3000 lost instantly for the same transgression as a 3 toon player.


No I can not and will not agree with this.

Rep (sorry for using you as an example) may cost players ISK. Those players are spread out and in turn fuel the market. There is no $1000 ~ $3000 hit to an individual player by any ISboxer out there that I know of. These guys make ppl spend MORE, not less.

Just food for thought.



How about you do NOT use the damm tool at all? The idea is nto to make afair and balanced punishment for people trying to go aroudn the rules. It is to GET RID OF PEOPLE THAT GO AROUND THE RULES!


DO NOT MAKE THE TRANSGRESSION AT ALL!! THen you have nothign to worry. The fact that you are worried abotu that indicated thatyou INTEND to try it anyway!

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1619 - 2014-11-27 23:30:10 UTC
There are many things that can go wrong with a boxer's fleet. You can have crystals fail to reload, guns can "false cycle", you can get jammed and miss your web, you can start targeting your alts, you can fail to lock a target and mess up your webs and thus have to unlock everything and re-lock, etc.

As for the claim of people needing to find a fleet, there are no less than 14 VG groups listed in Incursion Public MOTD. There are probably more out there that declined to be listed. There are also HQ fleets that are running near 24/7.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1620 - 2014-11-27 23:32:19 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
There are many things that can go wrong with a boxer's fleet. You can have crystals fail to reload, guns can "false cycle", you can get jammed and miss your web, you can start targeting your alts, you can fail to lock a target and mess up your webs and thus have to unlock everything and re-lock, etc.

As for the claim of people needing to find a fleet, there are no less than 14 VG groups listed in Incursion Public MOTD. There are probably more out there that declined to be listed. There are also HQ fleets that are running near 24/7.


Those can happen to the 10 man fleet too.

What we are talking about is that players themselves screw up, or are even working against the group.

"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