These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rawthorm
The Establishment
#1701 - 2014-11-28 15:08:06 UTC
Volcane Nephilim wrote:
Chris Winter wrote:
What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.

So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it?


Everyone could bump titans with the cyno thing that later became an exploit. Obvious advantages to doing so but not everyone did, why? Because it was against the spirit of the game design.

This is no different.


This is EvE. The vast majority of people who claim to be taking the moral high ground are actually people who just can't be bothered to go to the effort of doing the thing in question. If it was there and instantly accessible, most people wouldn't hesitate to go for it regardless of how morally ambiguous it was P

ISBox is one of those things. Until this policy change anyone could use it, perfectly legally. Most of those who didn't just didn't have a use for it, or couldn't be bothered to set it up. I personally fall into the lazy category P
Also helps that CCP themselves actively green lit use of the software, so at that point what I thought was irrelevant. Not using it was my choice and I didn't feel the need to hate on those that chose differently.
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#1702 - 2014-11-28 15:15:42 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Volcane Nephilim wrote:
Chris Winter wrote:
What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.

So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it?


Everyone could bump titans with the cyno thing that later became an exploit. Obvious advantages to doing so but not everyone did, why? Because it was against the spirit of the game design.

This is no different.


Except it is. That was declared against the EULA because they couldn't figure out how to code jump bridges / jumping to take into account the POS code. A while back, you used to be able to warp a titan into a POS you didn't have the PW to, and it'd bump you out and anything in your way. Same thing with MJDs. They fixed those so you couldn't enter a POS unless you had the PW, even if you tried MJDing in.


And ISBoxer was declared to violate the EULA for over a year (see the previous version of the Third Party Policies under the Client Modification section), but CCP just stated they would not enforce the EULA. Now, after CCP Falcon's post about the new interpretation of the EULA and ToS, players can use ISBoxer as long as they turn off all features that can be considered input broadcasting or input multiplexing.

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

Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#1703 - 2014-11-28 15:29:37 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Volcane Nephilim wrote:
Chris Winter wrote:
What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.

So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it?


Everyone could bump titans with the cyno thing that later became an exploit. Obvious advantages to doing so but not everyone did, why? Because it was against the spirit of the game design.

This is no different.


Except it is. That was declared against the EULA because they couldn't figure out how to code jump bridges / jumping to take into account the POS code. A while back, you used to be able to warp a titan into a POS you didn't have the PW to, and it'd bump you out and anything in your way. Same thing with MJDs. They fixed those so you couldn't enter a POS unless you had the PW, even if you tried MJDing in.


And ISBoxer was declared to violate the EULA for over a year (see the previous version of the Third Party Policies under the Client Modification section), but CCP just stated they would not enforce the EULA. Now, after CCP Falcon's post about the new interpretation of the EULA and ToS, players can use ISBoxer as long as they turn off all features that can be considered input broadcasting or input multiplexing.



ccp has never declared a specific program as illegal they only ever declare functions as illegal. They specifically don't mention any programs as they don't want to green light something that someone could than change the functionality of to make it illegal .
Rawthorm
The Establishment
#1704 - 2014-11-28 15:33:20 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Volcane Nephilim wrote:
Chris Winter wrote:
What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.

So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it?


Everyone could bump titans with the cyno thing that later became an exploit. Obvious advantages to doing so but not everyone did, why? Because it was against the spirit of the game design.

This is no different.


Except it is. That was declared against the EULA because they couldn't figure out how to code jump bridges / jumping to take into account the POS code. A while back, you used to be able to warp a titan into a POS you didn't have the PW to, and it'd bump you out and anything in your way. Same thing with MJDs. They fixed those so you couldn't enter a POS unless you had the PW, even if you tried MJDing in.


And ISBoxer was declared to violate the EULA for over a year (see the previous version of the Third Party Policies under the Client Modification section), but CCP just stated they would not enforce the EULA. Now, after CCP Falcon's post about the new interpretation of the EULA and ToS, players can use ISBoxer as long as they turn off all features that can be considered input broadcasting or input multiplexing.


No, your interpretation declared it to violate the EULA. CCP correspondence if to be believed stated that manual issue of the same command to multiple game clients at the same time was allowed. I'd say that a statement given by senior employees trumps anyone's personal interpretation of some vague EULA terms.
kraken11 jensen
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#1705 - 2014-11-28 15:35:21 UTC
Nidal Fervor wrote:
The following screenshot is a good example of why input broadcasting had to be banned: http://i.imgur.com/fJMNIWi.jpg

It is an image taken from a hi-sec anomaly. There was around 75 miners present, 50 of them controlled by one person using input broadcasting, with immersion breaking names such as isbotter1, isbotter2, isbotter3, all the way up to isbotter 50. 15 were controlled by another person using input broadcasting, the rest were some small groups of people and a few randoms.

The 50 man isbotter had his freighter and orca bumped away, but said this doesn't bother him, and continued to strip mine the belt dry in no time at all. He admitted to having a second 50 man group of skiffs, currently actively in nullsec.

EVE does not benefit from having this kind of player in the game. They drive other players out of content and out of the game, while contributing nothing financially themselves. This means they have the same detrimental effect on the game as botters. Input broadcasting should have been banned a long time ago.

Part of what contributed to this is allowing people to pay for gametime with isk by purchasing PLEX from the market. It meant that some people created far more accounts than they would otherwise have made if they had to pay real money to subscribe each account. I wonder what would happen if CCP removed the ability to use plex to cover subscription costs. PLEX has many uses now, they could keep PLEX, but just remove the function PLEX has to add subscription time to your account. This would mean all players must contribute financially to EVE in order to play, in the form of subscription time. All the while, keeping the PLEX system in place with all its other uses as a means to generate extra income for CCP.




Broadcasting is not botting, he use his own time, and he probably used 3-4 months to get the characters ready. + not to speak off the setup. I think he can do all that without broadcasting. Isboxer give you an ability to stack Windows nicely (not thats it's needed.. but Nice to have) think about how long time it take for him to make all that accounts. lol. Also, if getting recorses into market is not constructive.. then i don't know, because industrialists buy them. and make ships etc to players. both old and New. Everyone can do it. it's a lot off ice belts in eve now. you can og somewhere else to mine if he's an that big off an issue. and if you dont feel that work. get 5-6 friends. and use smart bombs. (battleships) if not more.
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#1706 - 2014-11-28 15:47:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Rosewalker
Rawthorm wrote:
Rosewalker wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Volcane Nephilim wrote:
Chris Winter wrote:
What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.

So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it?


Everyone could bump titans with the cyno thing that later became an exploit. Obvious advantages to doing so but not everyone did, why? Because it was against the spirit of the game design.

This is no different.


Except it is. That was declared against the EULA because they couldn't figure out how to code jump bridges / jumping to take into account the POS code. A while back, you used to be able to warp a titan into a POS you didn't have the PW to, and it'd bump you out and anything in your way. Same thing with MJDs. They fixed those so you couldn't enter a POS unless you had the PW, even if you tried MJDing in.


And ISBoxer was declared to violate the EULA for over a year (see the previous version of the Third Party Policies under the Client Modification section), but CCP just stated they would not enforce the EULA. Now, after CCP Falcon's post about the new interpretation of the EULA and ToS, players can use ISBoxer as long as they turn off all features that can be considered input broadcasting or input multiplexing.


No, your interpretation declared it to violate the EULA. CCP correspondence if to be believed stated that manual issue of the same command to multiple game clients at the same time was allowed. I'd say that a statement given by senior employees trumps anyone's personal interpretation of some vague EULA terms.


So the correspondence someone posted from 2010 trumps CCP's stated policy first published in the spring of 2013 and not taken down until Tuesday?

You're just trolling, aren't you. 8/10 Lol

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

Josef Djugashvilis
#1707 - 2014-11-28 15:59:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
I do not use ISboxer, but I believe many ISboxers can now hear The Fat Lady Singing.

As ever when CCP make a change, most will not care, some will rage quit, some will threaten to rage quit, (it influenced and got CCP to mitiigate the proposed Jump Changes) some will rage quit and some will adapt.

The game will continue.

This is not a signature.

Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1708 - 2014-11-28 16:06:01 UTC
kraken11 jensen wrote:
Broadcasting is not botting, he use his own time, and he probably used 3-4 months to get the characters ready. + not to speak off the setup. I think he can do all that without broadcasting. Isboxer give you an ability to stack Windows nicely (not thats it's needed.. but Nice to have) think about how long time it take for him to make all that accounts. lol. Also, if getting recorses into market is not constructive.. then i don't know, because industrialists buy them. and make ships etc to players. both old and New. Everyone can do it. it's a lot off ice belts in eve now. you can og somewhere else to mine if he's an that big off an issue. and if you dont feel that work. get 5-6 friends. and use smart bombs. (battleships) if not more.


This. Even though smartbombs were nerfed slightly from some of the old videos, you can still get good mileage out of a talos or a few catalysts. Not every problem has to be fixed by CCP because players are too lazy to think for themselves and too carebear to buy a talos and use it.
Recyclers
Doomheim
#1709 - 2014-11-28 16:34:53 UTC
I understand why many are happy about this. As with anything taken to the extreme it can ruin the game for others.
Perhaps there was a better way to deal with it thou?

Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1710 - 2014-11-28 16:38:58 UTC
I'm trying to figure out what else could be made policy through petition spam
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1711 - 2014-11-28 16:42:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Nolak Ataru
Recyclers wrote:
I understand why many are happy about this. As with anything taken to the extreme it can ruin the game for others.
Perhaps there was a better way to deal with it thou?


I don't buy it. CODE took miner ganking and bumping to an extreme and there hasn't been a response by CCP on that.

Rain6637 wrote:
I'm trying to figure out what else could be made policy through petition spam

Wasn't the drone assist limit the result of mass petitions? I forget exactly how it came about since I wasn't in a null bloc at the time.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#1712 - 2014-11-28 16:42:56 UTC
Removed some off topic posts, some trolling, some GM correspondence, and made a post saying the thread has been cleaned up.

Again.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Longtooth
13-Bravo Group
#1713 - 2014-11-28 16:45:35 UTC
confirming 7 accounts not being resubbed. Time to find a game with Devs who are a bit more level headed. Thanks for 8 years of wasting time. o7

Recyclers
Doomheim
#1714 - 2014-11-28 16:52:34 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Recyclers wrote:
I understand why many are happy about this. As with anything taken to the extreme it can ruin the game for others.
Perhaps there was a better way to deal with it thou?


I don't buy it. CODE took miner ganking and bumping to an extreme and there hasn't been a response by CCP on that.

Rain6637 wrote:
I'm trying to figure out what else could be made policy through petition spam

Wasn't the drone assist limit the result of mass petitions? I forget exactly how it came about since I wasn't in a null bloc at the time.


Execllent point Attention

Well I just unsubed all 9 of my accounts. Not just because of the multiboxing thing.
CPP ramming way to many changes at once.
I play games if there fun. When there not.... oh well

Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1715 - 2014-11-28 16:55:07 UTC
I'm kinda burned out from the lack of communication myself. I hear devs participate on Reddit, though. whoop
Tiberius Zol
Moira.
#1716 - 2014-11-28 17:09:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberius Zol
Longtooth wrote:
confirming 7 accounts not being resubbed. Time to find a game with Devs who are a bit more level headed. Thanks for 8 years of wasting time. o7




and


Recyclers wrote:


Well I just unsubed all 9 of my accounts. Not just because of the multiboxing thing.
CPP ramming way to many changes at once.
I play games if there fun. When there not.... oh well



Your're welcome. Hope you enjoyed it.
Just send me a nice little contract with your stuff. I will take care of it.

Mr. Tibbers on twitter: @Mr_Tibbers

Mr. Tibbers Blog: www.eve-versum.de

Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1717 - 2014-11-28 17:16:34 UTC
https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthread.php?551097-Continued-discussion-from-SHIELD-transcript-RE-Raids-and-the-future&p=7190231#post7190231
Interesting post by LOTRO regarding who posts on their forums / complains the loudest. I wonder if this holds true for EVE...
Deck Cadelanne
CAStabouts
#1718 - 2014-11-28 17:28:14 UTC
Recyclers wrote:


Well I just unsubed all 9 of my accounts. Not just because of the multiboxing thing.
CPP ramming way to many changes at once.
I play games if there fun. When there not.... oh well



If even one more subscription *paying* player replaces you, that is a net win. And you have just reduced the demand for PLEX ever so slightly, so even good for your fellow non-sub-paying brethren.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."

- Hunter S. Thompson

Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1719 - 2014-11-28 17:35:36 UTC
Deck Cadelanne wrote:
Recyclers wrote:


Well I just unsubed all 9 of my accounts. Not just because of the multiboxing thing.
CPP ramming way to many changes at once.
I play games if there fun. When there not.... oh well



If even one more subscription *paying* player replaces you, that is a net win. And you have just reduced the demand for PLEX ever so slightly, so even good for your fellow non-sub-paying brethren.


Are you another one of those people who think using PLEX to sub somehow takes away from CCP's revenue? Because that's wrong. CCP / a CSM explained that PLEX is under the "deferred income" tab, not "expenses".
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1720 - 2014-11-28 17:44:17 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Deck Cadelanne wrote:
Recyclers wrote:


Well I just unsubed all 9 of my accounts. Not just because of the multiboxing thing.
CPP ramming way to many changes at once.
I play games if there fun. When there not.... oh well



If even one more subscription *paying* player replaces you, that is a net win. And you have just reduced the demand for PLEX ever so slightly, so even good for your fellow non-sub-paying brethren.


Are you another one of those people who think using PLEX to sub somehow takes away from CCP's revenue? Because that's wrong. CCP / a CSM explained that PLEX is under the "deferred income" tab, not "expenses".



don't be dense... if they unsubscribed they stopped paying the re-subscription cost. That is real life money.