These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
JGar Rooflestein
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2101 - 2014-12-02 10:05:35 UTC  |  Edited by: JGar Rooflestein
Beledia Ilphukiir wrote:

You outlined it quite well yourself, but what it really boils down to is your previous actions are no longer in agreement with the rules of the game. The change in policy is a reaction to the things you describe. You admit getting direct in-game competitive advantage over other players from your use of the function, that is soon to be a bannable offense and it allows you to mine and provide an excessive amount of items to the market. Similar to a bot you squeeze out actual people with little effort on your part, but you don't give a **** about any of that, since you're the one enjoying all the advantages. You can still continue to do everything you currently do in the game, but the amount of effort needed to achieve it will go up. If you're willing to put in that extra effort, good for you. If not, the advantage was always the result of the automation and not something attributed to you.



I will keep doing what i do with all accounts still subbed. Will be a little bit more work but no big deal. The input broadcasting must made it a little less of a headache. I'm with CCP on this. I do also beilve there is another way to resolve this issue without removing this third party function that has been accepted and allowed in mmos for years upon years.

I can see CCP wants change they want to open the game for newer players by making it easier for them.
A-Reduction to jump drives
B-Nerfing sov stuctures
C-Removal of Input Broadcasting
D-Possibly reducing sov/alliance sizes
E-?No more high sec awoxing (probably,not sure)

-JGar "Great man once said nothing."

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2102 - 2014-12-02 10:12:56 UTC
Lord Battlestar wrote:
The problem with ISBoxer is that it does it's job too perfectly and you can have an instant command sent to every character instantly. Whereas if I have to alt tab windows or whatnot to put in those same commands you are going to win. If I am 2-3 character mining operation in a belt multiboxing the old fashioned way, there is no way I can compete with a person multiboxing a 20 mining character operation and being able to instantly send commands to every character.
Even following this change you still won't be able to compete. The other non-banned features of ISBoxer are easily powerful enough to crush a non-isboxer user. Take for example VideoFX - this allows you to place segments of another EVE window into a single window (like this}. With this, an isboxer can put all of his module controls in a neat little block. No alt tabbing or broadcasting required.

If you ever watch someone efficiently isboxing miners on a mid scale (not he 100+, more like 20-30), they'll usually only broadcast up until they start mining. Following that they'll usually deal with individual miners modules, then broadcast drag the ore to the orca, then drag it to the hauler.

After the change, they can still log in broadcasting, they then round robin the undock, fleet warp to location, then just use the VideoFX panels to target an start lasers on each client and move cargo individually. It really is minimal extra effort because mining mechanics require so little input.

Lord Battlestar wrote:
Same thing in PVP, is it fair that a single person can run an entire pvp fleet from a single keyboard? If I tried to pvp with 20 characters without ISboxer I would likely see them all die because I couldn't switch tabs fast enough.
Depends on the PvP. In "normal" PvP isboxers die too. They only benefit in ganks and bombing runs, which can be done without isboxer relatively easily.

Lord Battlestar wrote:
The only reason people are mad now is they are losing a distinct and massive advantage they have clung onto, and now they are mad because they no longer have that massive advantage.
No, they aren't. They will still have a massive advantage.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2103 - 2014-12-02 10:17:09 UTC
I'll let you in on a secret. there's really no need to multibox when you're in a horde.
kraken11 jensen
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#2104 - 2014-12-02 10:28:24 UTC  |  Edited by: kraken11 jensen
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:
Lucas, you are talking about having a reasonable argument with the same people who think that ISBoxer is somehow unfair when EVEMon and EFT confering advantages is unrelated and ok. Not even sure why you're arguing with me. You know very well how rule interpretations go in this game.

You are shooting the messenger here. Do you not see that?
Oh I'm fully aware of how rule interpretations go, I just can't see them banning "normal" multiboxers any time soon, which means other methods of controlling clients with 1 click per client click will generally be safe. This means the likelihood is banning broadcasting is going to have little effect on what the whiners are whining about. So the net result will be some reduced subs, whiners still whining and isboxers still gaining an advantage, because once again CCP are avoiding tackling the problem in favour of trying to work around it.


you can set it up in other ways than using the Isboxer (like video fx kinda, or stacked) It also have a lot to do With what People prefer.
There're free options for screen setup. Personally i like isboxer.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2105 - 2014-12-02 10:29:29 UTC
Beledia Ilphukiir wrote:
You outlined it quite well yourself, but what it really boils down to is your previous actions are no longer in agreement with the rules of the game. The change in policy is a reaction to the things you describe. You admit getting direct in-game competitive advantage over other players from your use of the function, that is soon to be a bannable offense and it allows you to mine and provide an excessive amount of items to the market. Similar to a bot you squeeze out actual people with little effort on your part, but you don't give a **** about any of that, since you're the one enjoying all the advantages. You can still continue to do everything you currently do in the game, but the amount of effort needed to achieve it will go up. If you're willing to put in that extra effort, good for you. If not, the advantage was always the result of the automation and not something attributed to you.
Actually isboxer users are less effective per character than solo players (broadcasting is dumb, it doesn;t take into accoutn different circumstatnces like nearly depleted rocks, etc). So when you say they gain an advantage, you mean that individual has an advantage over someone with less miners. That is true regardless of whether or not they use isboxer. More characters = advantage. I've used isboxer in the past, and I've multiboxed without it. Either way I crushed the single character players.

Botters are bad because they are generally harvesting 24/7 at a far more efficient rate than a single player ever could and doing so to support RMT. Comparing isboxer players to botters is utterly ridiculous.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2106 - 2014-12-02 10:34:01 UTC
kraken11 jensen wrote:
you can set it up in other ways than using the Isboxer (like video fx kinda, or stacked) It also have a lot to do With what People prefer.
There're free options for screen setup. Personally i like isboxer.
Yeah, I like the CPU and FPS restrictions in isboxer. Lowers the amount of impact running extra clients has. The rapid screen swapping (I don't need to alt tab, have 2 global hotkeys which cycle back and forth through windows) and Video FX to dxNothing bit is pretty cool too. Amusingly, following this announcement I've resubbed isboxer and played around to get a decent no broadcast setup.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

kraken11 jensen
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#2107 - 2014-12-02 10:37:44 UTC  |  Edited by: kraken11 jensen
Lucas Kell wrote:
kraken11 jensen wrote:
you can set it up in other ways than using the Isboxer (like video fx kinda, or stacked) It also have a lot to do With what People prefer.
There're free options for screen setup. Personally i like isboxer.
Yeah, I like the CPU and FPS restrictions in isboxer. Lowers the amount of impact running extra clients has. The rapid screen swapping (I don't need to alt tab, have 2 global hotkeys which cycle back and forth through windows) and Video FX to dxNothing bit is pretty cool too. Amusingly, following this announcement I've resubbed isboxer and played around to get a decent no broadcast setup.


yea, the CPU and FPS Restrictions in isb boxer is Nice :) And the work setting up (DxNothing) Take some time, (obviously) and what i kinda like and at the same .. is that you can always improve Your setup :)'etc

Edit: :)
Adicuss Starfyre
ANZAC Knights
#2108 - 2014-12-02 11:49:03 UTC
So reading the Dev Blog and some of the 44pages of posts, I've probably missed one that is talking about what I'm going to write below.

If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2109 - 2014-12-02 12:08:51 UTC
Adicuss Starfyre wrote:
If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters?
Fleet warping is fine.

Chances are they will be looking at how closely commands on multiple clients from the same IP come in. If they all happen together they are likely broadcasting. Where they set the threshhold for that will be internal, but I do expect to see false positives banned, who will then petition it, and get ignored or told "tough luck" as is the usual case.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sentenced 1989
#2110 - 2014-12-02 12:09:32 UTC
Adicuss Starfyre wrote:
So reading the Dev Blog and some of the 44pages of posts, I've probably missed one that is talking about what I'm going to write below.

If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters?


Erm.. by reading game logs, which they can do....

Fleet warped -> reason: FC clicked warped fleet button in game, nothing to see here, move along

Fleet warped -> reason: Ships warped themselves x 10 at same time... hmm lets look at this toon a bit more for next few minutes to see if this happens often, if yes banhammer, if not then its coincidence.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#2111 - 2014-12-02 12:10:21 UTC
Adicuss Starfyre wrote:
So reading the Dev Blog and some of the 44pages of posts, I've probably missed one that is talking about what I'm going to write below.

If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters?



Uh, no.

No third party software installed.

One command sent to CCPs servers, saying 'warp all the ships in my fleet'

It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous. It's far from hard to see the difference between using a built in command, and using a totally different bit of software.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Daneau
Roprocor Ltd
#2112 - 2014-12-02 12:12:05 UTC
Sentenced 1989 wrote:
Adicuss Starfyre wrote:
So reading the Dev Blog and some of the 44pages of posts, I've probably missed one that is talking about what I'm going to write below.

If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters?


Erm.. by reading game logs, which they can do....

Fleet warped -> reason: FC clicked warped fleet button in game, nothing to see here, move along

Fleet warped -> reason: Ships warped themselves x 10 at same time... hmm lets look at this toon a bit more for next few minutes to see if this happens often, if yes banhammer, if not then its coincidence.



Lies! Big smile

We all know the logs show nothing,
Sentenced 1989
#2113 - 2014-12-02 12:26:25 UTC
Daneau wrote:
Sentenced 1989 wrote:
Adicuss Starfyre wrote:
So reading the Dev Blog and some of the 44pages of posts, I've probably missed one that is talking about what I'm going to write below.

If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters?


Erm.. by reading game logs, which they can do....

Fleet warped -> reason: FC clicked warped fleet button in game, nothing to see here, move along

Fleet warped -> reason: Ships warped themselves x 10 at same time... hmm lets look at this toon a bit more for next few minutes to see if this happens often, if yes banhammer, if not then its coincidence.



Lies! Big smile

We all know the logs show nothing,


Hit crtl+shift+alt+m ingame and also start logserver.exe in your root from EVE installation folder and it will become clear how they will know :)

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2114 - 2014-12-02 12:39:46 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous. It's far from hard to see the difference between using a built in command, and using a totally different bit of software.
You say that Steve, but someone with 4 clients tiled on their desktop can hit a button on each very quickly. Isboxer broadcasting with a slight delay between clients would look no different. There has to be a threshold and some are worried about that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sentenced 1989
#2115 - 2014-12-02 12:41:58 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous. It's far from hard to see the difference between using a built in command, and using a totally different bit of software.
You say that Steve, but someone with 4 clients tiled on their desktop can hit a button on each very quickly. Isboxer broadcasting with a slight delay between clients would look no different. There has to be a threshold and some are worried about that.


Yes, but I'm not going to click each time on same spot, isboxer even with delays will hit same spot... Sometimes I might be jer**** off and will use F1-F4, sometimes I'll use my mouse. Sometimes you miss to activate guns on your alt on that specific enemy, or you miss click, or million other stuff... I don't think there will be that many false positives.
Karana Yotosala
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2116 - 2014-12-02 12:42:16 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:

[quote=Karana Yotosala]I'll be going back to using just 1, maybe 2 accounts due to the outlawing of key broadcasting. This means I have advance subs paid on accounts that I won't be using. Rather than seeing that game time credit go to waste, It'd be nice if it were possible to swap that credit to the 1 or 2 accounts that I will continue to use.

Please note, this isn't a request for a refund of cash, it's a request to transfer game time credits. CCP wouldn't lose any money as it's already been paid, but it would soften the blow for folk like me that won't be able to use multiple accounts effectively due to the changes.
Why? Set up your isboxer right and you can still be as effective if not slightly more effective up to about 20 chars. I've actually resubbed my old isboxer account specifically so I can ensure the crying noobs continue to cry. You can still crush their spirits without input broadcasting. I'm checking with CCP, but reading their change, using the Video FX viewers to create clickable zones for the extra windows will still be fine as long as you click each one, not all of them together. That pretty much makes input broadcasting irrelevant for any but the biggest multiboxers.


I hear what you're saying and understand the concept of Vfx/clickthroughs, although I'm not sure if this would be classed as broadcasting or not.

Either way, it won't make much difference to me. As I mentioned in my post, some of us don't have the manual dexterity to control numerous clients without key/mouse broadcasts (I know it would be a struggle for me to manage my mini mining fleet without).

From a personal viewpoint, I get the impression that philosophies within CCP are shifting and I don't particularly want to invest hundreds of pounds a year subbing accounts to then have something that should be fun turn into something that becomes an unnecessary struggle with dexterity.. if you get what I mean.

I'd rather streamline my accounts down to a level I can physically manage without the aid of broadcasting and maybe try doing something other than mining.

It is disappointing to not be able to do what I enjoy and want and also disappointing that CCP seemed not to take into account that some of it's subcribers might suffer from medical conditions before deciding to implement this change, but at the end of the day CCP own Eve and we just pay for access.

Who knows? I might be able to carve myself a different little niche within the game that I might enjoy?

Anyhoo, thanks for trying to give me a heads up. ;)
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#2117 - 2014-12-02 13:06:25 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous. It's far from hard to see the difference between using a built in command, and using a totally different bit of software.
You say that Steve, but someone with 4 clients tiled on their desktop can hit a button on each very quickly. Isboxer broadcasting with a slight delay between clients would look no different. There has to be a threshold and some are worried about that.



This is fleet warp being talked about.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2118 - 2014-12-02 13:43:33 UTC
Sentenced 1989 wrote:
Yes, but I'm not going to click each time on same spot, isboxer even with delays will hit same spot... Sometimes I might be jer**** off and will use F1-F4, sometimes I'll use my mouse. Sometimes you miss to activate guns on your alt on that specific enemy, or you miss click, or million other stuff... I don't think there will be that many false positives.
As far as I am aware, they don't transmit the spot that is clicked, only the action. And yes, "sometimes" people miss and such, but it will also be pretty common for people to run it like clockwork. Without isboxer I've been playing long enough for everything to pretty much be automatic.

Steve Ronuken wrote:
This is fleet warp being talked about.
In this instance, yes, but when you say "It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous.", I imagine since I've not seen anyone else raise up fleet warp as an issue you are talking about the people suggesting that false positives will occur, which is a legitimate concern, especially considering CCPs response (or lack thereof) to people who petition after being banned in error.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2119 - 2014-12-02 13:51:14 UTC
Karana Yotosala wrote:
From a personal viewpoint, I get the impression that philosophies within CCP are shifting and I don't particularly want to invest hundreds of pounds a year subbing accounts to then have something that should be fun turn into something that becomes an unnecessary struggle with dexterity.. if you get what I mean.
It certainly seems that way lately, yes. Whether it will work in their favour or not is yet to be determined.

Karana Yotosala wrote:
I'd rather streamline my accounts down to a level I can physically manage without the aid of broadcasting and maybe try doing something other than mining.

It is disappointing to not be able to do what I enjoy and want and also disappointing that CCP seemed not to take into account that some of it's subcribers might suffer from medical conditions before deciding to implement this change, but at the end of the day CCP own Eve and we just pay for access.
Yeah, that's understandable. To me it's a real shame, not that they've declared it against the rules, but that it's been allowed for so long and they've suddenly done a 180 due to a change in policy for some unknown reason and with little consideration to the effects. Worse still, when people realise that for many multiboxers it doesn't change much, the status quo remains the same and the whiners are back here whining for further action to be taken.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#2120 - 2014-12-02 14:22:07 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
Actually he used the term bot aspirant correctly. And given that CODE coined the term, I'd be prepared to take their definition over yours pretty much any day.
Considering CODE refer to actively playing players, ones not even multiboxing as being "bot aspirant", and the majority of them are kids looking to grief other players, I'd tend to not take their definition of anything.


Meh, CODE just formalized what was already prevalent in the game and gave it an immersive backstory. They're like yammering puppies - annoying, but easy to avoid if you pay attention.

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.