These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dustpuppy
New Eden Ferengi
#2601 - 2014-12-15 13:43:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Dustpuppy
Lucas Kell wrote:
Of course it will. People who are willing to spend $15 to get 900m isk aren't necessarily going to spend the same amount of cash for half that in isk.


Is this statement based on an assumption or based on facts?


Concerning botting: please explain to me how a client which is using the identical input of another one is not a bot? Does it have it's own brain and individual reaction scheme or does it just follow the orders without thinking?

You might want to splice hairs here but as long as more than one ship reacts in an identical way (because of multiplexing the input to more than one client) it is a bot. Doesn't matter if in the end a person sits ans steers 20 ships with a single mouse click or if the remaining brain also is substituted by another program.

Consider yourself lucky because CCP accepted this kind of game style a grey zone but now also decided to think in the same way: if one player presses one button and ten ship do the same then nine of them are bots and are no longer legal.

Meet you in 2015, maybe, and maybe with less chars. o/ If you decide to leave and still are frustrated for not being refunded, contact me. I will take all your stuff :)

And if CCP wants to make me even more happy - ban the round robin feature of the third party software. Let the is multiboxer click around just like the regular ones and another resort of resistance for this plague will fall.
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#2602 - 2014-12-15 14:29:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Battle Cube
Dustpuppy wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Of course it will. People who are willing to spend $15 to get 900m isk aren't necessarily going to spend the same amount of cash for half that in isk.


Is this statement based on an assumption or based on facts?


Concerning botting: please explain to me how a client which is using the identical input of another one is not a bot? Does it have it's own brain and individual reaction scheme or does it just follow the orders without thinking?

You might want to splice hairs here but as long as more than one ship reacts in an identical way (because of multiplexing the input to more than one client) it is a bot. Doesn't matter if in the end a person sits ans steers 20 ships with a single mouse click or if the remaining brain also is substituted by another program.

Consider yourself lucky because CCP accepted this kind of game style a grey zone but now also decided to think in the same way: if one player presses one button and ten ship do the same then nine of them are bots and are no longer legal.

Meet you in 2015, maybe, and maybe with less chars. o/ If you decide to leave and still are frustrated for not being refunded, contact me. I will take all your stuff :)

And if CCP wants to make me even more happy - ban the round robin feature of the third party software. Let the is multiboxer click around just like the regular ones and another resort of resistance for this plague will fall.


Does the computer have its own brain and individual reaction scheme, or does it just follow orders without thinking?

Congrats - Every Single Player is a bot for replicating their moves from their fingers into the keyboard which replicates to the computer which replicates to the game which replicates to the network, etc etc.


And there is no "round robin feature".... its literally just going around and clicking on each one in a circle
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2603 - 2014-12-15 14:35:45 UTC
Dustpuppy wrote:
Is this statement based on an assumption or based on facts?
Obviously it's an assumption based on people's behaviour. People have differing values of money. Claiming that a decrease in PLEX price will not affect the number of PLEX bought at all assumes that everyone buying PLEX is getting enough value for money that a marked decrease wouldn't change their minds. On top of that it assumes that players who get 900m this month would be happy to get considerably less next moth for the same price, which I very much doubt.

Again though, the short of it is that a decrease in subs is a decrease in income for CCP, no matter which way you twist it.

Dustpuppy wrote:
Concerning botting: please explain to me how a client which is using the identical input of another one is not a bot? Does it have it's own brain and individual reaction scheme or does it just follow the orders without thinking?
Because it's not automated. A bot takes actions on it's own. It may not have decision makign capability, but it doesn't require a player to input every command it performs for it to do it. A broadcast multiboxer has to tell their clients what to do. The fact that it hits more than one client is irrelevant. A global keybind will hit multiple windows, but you wouldn't suggest that a global keybind is botting. You seem to be very confused as to what bots actually do. The OP pretty well defined the difference between input automation and input broadcasting, maybe you should read it.

Dustpuppy wrote:
Consider yourself lucky because CCP accepted this kind of game style a grey zone but now also decided to think in the same way: if one player presses one button and ten ship do the same then nine of them are bots and are no longer legal.

Meet you in 2015, maybe, and maybe with less chars. o/ If you decide to leave and still are frustrated for not being refunded, contact me. I will take all your stuff :)
I think you misunderstand. I generally don't multibox. I have in the past, but I don't these days. I'm considering running out a fleet again however specifically to harvest the tears from all the people that seem to think it's now impossible to mass multibox within the rules. But I'm not arguing this change because I don't think changes are required, I'm arguing it because the method they are choosing to use is the wrong one. They are treating the symptom. The cause is that several gameplay mechanics are far too simple and don't require much interaction from players. Those mechanics should be reviewed. But hey, that's just me. Maybe you prefer keeping crappy gameplay, CCP certainly seem to.

Dustpuppy wrote:
And if CCP wants to make me even more happy - ban the round robin feature of the third party software. Let the is multiboxer click around just like the regular ones and another resort of resistance for this plague will fall.
Well that's very unlikely to happen. Round robin can be done with enough pieces of software and hardware that it would be impossible ban them all specifically (not to mention unlikely to even be tried, since gaming keyboards can do it - I doubt a game would want to ban gaming hardware), and from a server point of view there would be no reliable way to differentiate between a manual multiboxer and a round robin.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2604 - 2014-12-15 14:39:20 UTC
Battle Cube wrote:
And there is no "round robin feature".... its literally just going around and clicking on each one in a circle
Round robin is a type of keybind, which when pressed performs the same task on the next client, moving on each time. So say you set up one for F1 on 3 clients, each press would be like this:

Press 1 - F1 on Client A
Press 2 - F1 on Client B
Press 3 - F1 on Client C
Press 4 - F1 on Client A
Press 5 - F1 on Client B

It means that instead of broadcasting, you just set these up then hammer the bound key (or bind it to your scrollwheel and scroll down quickly). Between that and VideoFX (the ability to chop up multiple clients and put key UI elements on a single screen), this entire change is pointless.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#2605 - 2014-12-15 15:26:30 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Battle Cube wrote:
And there is no "round robin feature".... its literally just going around and clicking on each one in a circle
Round robin is a type of keybind, which when pressed performs the same task on the next client, moving on each time. So say you set up one for F1 on 3 clients, each press would be like this:

Press 1 - F1 on Client A
Press 2 - F1 on Client B
Press 3 - F1 on Client C
Press 4 - F1 on Client A
Press 5 - F1 on Client B

It means that instead of broadcasting, you just set these up then hammer the bound key (or bind it to your scrollwheel and scroll down quickly). Between that and VideoFX (the ability to chop up multiple clients and put key UI elements on a single screen), this entire change is pointless.


ah, scrollwheel....

Well its not entirely pointless.... it DOES make it inconvenient to play the way we want to - and they may just make that method against the rules too, although it gets more convoluted
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#2606 - 2014-12-15 15:32:36 UTC
Of course you can always set up your OS so the following would work

F1 , Tab.........F1 client 1
F1 , Tab.........F1 client 2
F1, Tab.........F1 client 3
F1, Tab.........F1 client 1
F1, Tab.........F1 client 2

No need for any extra software and i can type that just as fast as just hitting F1. So you can't ban that without banning multiboxing.

And well a large chunk of eve multibox. So if the CSM is something that is suppose to represent the players..........

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.
Battle Cube
Cube Collective
#2607 - 2014-12-15 15:35:27 UTC
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Of course you can always set up your OS so the following would work

F1 , Tab.........F1 client 1
F1 , Tab.........F1 client 2
F1, Tab.........F1 client 3
F1, Tab.........F1 client 1
F1, Tab.........F1 client 2

No need for any extra software and i can type that just as fast as just hitting F1. So you can't ban that without banning multiboxing.

And well a large chunk of eve multibox. So if the CSM is something that is suppose to represent the players..........


Man, and you know, i was going to run for CSM but i coudlnt get my passport in time >.< XD
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2608 - 2014-12-15 16:32:12 UTC
kraken11 jensen wrote:
Rain6637 wrote:

mining is fairly noble, imo. players need miners. in contrast, no one needs incursion runners.

despite incursions being level 4 missions on steroids, it makes a difference what players do with incursion income. if it's to support activity elsewhere in the game, that makes sense to me. farming incursions to support a lossy PVP habit, for example. but those players whose mains are -all- incursion pilots, and their only goal is green, blue, and purple incursion ships? it really doesn't contribute to the pulse of this game.

when it comes to key broadcasted fleets... miners drive prices down. incursion runners... not so much.


Well, Lp is an big part of incursions as far as i know. So through that it make items etc. (with the lp store) and there is plenty of People who need that's etc implants.. Lol

Edit: Huh`?

don't kid yourself, it's not healthy. no one is dying for implants, and no one will miss incursion runners.

Battle Cube wrote:
Rain6637 wrote:
yeah about incursion "communities." the PVE is isolated from the rest of the game yet it affects the game economy. I don't agree with its existence. mining is different, it contributes. I'm basically saying incursion communities can die too. one can wish.


and i could just as easily say that nullsec is isolated from the rest of the game and yet it affects the economy. I dont agree with its existence. Incursions are different, they contribute. Im basically saying nullsec communities can die too. one can wish. :D

you can type what you want, but it doesn't make it true. between the two of us, one is more or less getting their wish.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2609 - 2014-12-15 17:25:33 UTC
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
So if the CSM is something that is suppose to represent the players..........


Hahahahahaha. Good one, mate. Haven't had quite a laugh in a long time.

Rain6637 wrote:
don't kid yourself, it's not healthy. no one is dying for implants, and no one will miss incursion runners.


And nobody's "dying" for deadspace modules either, so who's gonna miss the null anom runners, amiright?
The biggest difference between null anom runners and highsec incursion runners is that HS incursion runners are subject to more interaction with the rest of the playerbase than the average nullsec farmer.
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#2610 - 2014-12-15 17:53:51 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Nico Fruehinsfeld wrote:
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
If you think there was an arms race to have the most accounts, you are wrong. Really put up or shut up. Show us these fleets of 50+ ships roaming around winning eve? Hell even 20+. I see the odd 3-5 ships (including scout+links), and when i see they are probably multiboxing, I deliberately PvP in a way to make it hard to deal with (spread points/webs/ewar).

If you think these changes will reduce multiboxing or isboxing much at all your also wrong.



Maybe, but we'll have the right to report broadcasters when we detect them. Hopefully many guys will take the chance to do it.
For a more fair game.


Cheers
Nico

How would YOU detect a broadcaster?
Can you tell the difference between someone broadcasting and someone using round robin key sets?
Can you tell the difference between someone running 9 or 10 accounts, who has a highend machine with good internet and someone who is broadcasting to multiple clients via software?
Are you going to report and possibly get someone banned because YOU think he is broadcasting?

I have 9 accounts that can all do the same task very efficiently OR they can do many different tasks nearly as efficiently.
Am I multicasting or do I play my accounts as single entities, just very quickly?
Would you report me as a broadcaster / multicaster.

The simple idea CCP is accepting reports of breaches from players is going to see lots of multiboxers come under scrutiny for no other reason than - his characters all have similar names (mine don't).
Like any EULA breach, it falls on the player to prove his or her innocence, how does one go about proving he or she did not break the rules if CCP get it wrong?
EG;
CCP got it wrong, they believe I am multicasting and gave me a 30 day ban but I am not - How do I prove it is due to the amount I spent on my computer and the strength of my internet that allows me to play multiple accounts so efficiently?



Detection is fairly straightforward. Here is a prime example:

1) You spot a fleet of fourteen ships - one freighter, one Orca, a cruiser, eleven Skiffs, & an MTU.
2) You add them all to your contacts and watchlist and make notes that they all fleet together.
3) All the fleet members have random/generic/boring/similar names.
4) Another common signifier is that all accounts may have been started on the same day or very close together.
5) The next day they all log in within a few seconds of each other.
6) All their mining lasers turn on virtually at the same time.
7) All the ships are grouped very close together.
8) They all jettison their ore holds at the same time.

The above isn't playing the game - it's farming ISK at best and verges on RMTing.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2611 - 2014-12-15 18:01:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
Detection is fairly straightforward. Here is a prime example:

1) You spot a fleet of fourteen ships - one freighter, one Orca, a cruiser, eleven Skiffs, & an MTU.
2) You add them all to your contacts and watchlist and make notes that they all fleet together.
3) All the fleet members have random/generic/boring/similar names.
4) Another common signifier is that all accounts may have been started on the same day or very close together.
5) The next day they all log in within a few seconds of each other.
6) All their mining lasers turn on virtually at the same time.
7) All the ships are grouped very close together.
8) They all jettison their ore holds at the same time.

The above isn't playing the game - it's farming ISK at best and verges on RMTing.
Only 6 and 8 would even qualify as detecting a broadcaster, all of the others are entirely irrelevant. Even 6 and 8 though, because of server timings they might all get turned on or jetissoned individually within a couple of server ticks quite legitimately, but would appear to you to be turning on in 2 sequential blocks.

So basically, you can guess.

Edit: Oh, and no. Unless they are selling isk for money it's not RMT. Even if they have 500 miners, it's still not RMT unless they trade isk for money. That's what RMT means.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2612 - 2014-12-15 18:05:40 UTC
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
Detection is fairly straightforward. Here is a prime example:

1) You spot a fleet of fourteen ships - one freighter, one Orca, a cruiser, eleven Skiffs, & an MTU.
2) You add them all to your contacts and watchlist and make notes that they all fleet together.
3) All the fleet members have random/generic/boring/similar names.
4) Another common signifier is that all accounts may have been started on the same day or very close together.
5) The next day they all log in within a few seconds of each other.
6) All their mining lasers turn on virtually at the same time.
7) All the ships are grouped very close together.
8) They all jettison their ore holds at the same time.

The above isn't playing the game - it's farming ISK at best and verges on RMTing.


1) Random mining fleet, woopty-do.
2) Perfectly within your right, and indeed with the latest patch it makes it easier to keep track and target people.
3) I know one group of friends who specifically made an alt group following a naming scheme just to mess with people. Not saying that's whats happening, but leap of logic fallacy.
4) Again, leap of logic fallacy. Many people make an alt when CCP has their power-of-two promotion. If one of those alts proceeds to RMT, that does not mean all of them are RMTers.
5) This is explicitly allowed by CCP.
6) What is Round Robin Broadcasting and binding F1 to Wheel Down/Up for 500 please, Alex?
7) What is Regroup command via fleet window for squad/wing/fleet commanders for 200 please, Alex?
8) Again, what is RRB for 500 Alex?

I'll admit it's farming isk to a degree, but it falls apart when you remember that he still has to pay for the accounts, whether it be ISK or $$$. As for RMTing, bull. Acquiring vast amounts of ISK for any reason other than directly selling it is perfectly fine. If it wasn't, we'd see every station trader get banned. ISBoxing for ISK is only RMT if a player explicitly sells it for RL cash. Just because one idiot nullsec ISBoxing miner was RMTing does not mean every ISBoxer is a RMTer, even using CCP's recent logic of guilt by association, as that player may have never come into contact with other ISBoxers in any way, shape, or form.

2/10, work on your trolling.
Opertone
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2613 - 2014-12-15 21:06:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Opertone
people who macro all day long - deprive me of player driven environment (they create min max bot driven spam world)

I have less motivation to play the game, because I need to rely on macroes to stay competitive.

Macro players ruin my fun in EVE.

lim (marcro rage -> +8) (eve universe diversity/macro rage) -> Singularity -> const.
(static frozen world, no player driven deviation)

where macro rage is exponential

This post sums up why the 'best' work with DCM inc.

WARP DRIVE makes eve boring

really - add warping align time 300% on gun aggression and eve becomes great again
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2614 - 2014-12-15 21:18:02 UTC
Opertone wrote:
people who macro all day long - deprive me of player driven environment (they create min max bot driven spam world)
I have less motivation to play the game, because I need to rely on macroes to stay competitive.
Macro players ruin my fun in EVE.
lim (marcro rage -> +8) (eve universe diversity/macro rage) -> Singularity -> const.
(static frozen world, no player driven deviation)
where macro rage is exponential


By your absolutely awful logic and definitions, station trader moguls should also be banned because some of them min/max to an extreme degree and process billions of ISK a day/week compared to those less invested in trading. Similarly, we should ban industrial players who crank out massive amounts of modules or ships far greater than a less skilled pilot can. Shall we also ban titan production, something which requires a not-insignificant amount of time to setup and Excel-warrioring to properly calculate needed materials and time spent?

From what I can tell, you're confused about what macros are and are simply repeating the "hurr it's a bot" propaganda. A macro can be a simple string of keypresses (F1-F8), and that is not against the EULA. When a macro or program continue to do something like mine, jettison, and mine again without player input, that's breaking the EULA.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2615 - 2014-12-15 22:16:15 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:

From what I can tell, you're confused about what macros are and are simply repeating the "hurr it's a bot" propaganda. A macro can be a simple string of keypresses (F1-F8), and that is not against the EULA. When a macro or program continue to do something like mine, jettison, and mine again without player input, that's breaking the EULA.

Actually even the simple string of keypresses is against the EULA Nolak, the EULA is very clear.
What CCP have said is that they won't prosecute the very simple ones that simply press F1-F8 in a row under normal circumstances.

But they are against the EULA so CCP could decide to change that at any time without having to change the EULA.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2616 - 2014-12-15 23:06:43 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Actually even the simple string of keypresses is against the EULA Nolak, the EULA is very clear.
What CCP have said is that they won't prosecute the very simple ones that simply press F1-F8 in a row under normal circumstances.
But they are against the EULA so CCP could decide to change that at any time without having to change the EULA.


Please show me where simple non-automation macros are breaking the EULA. I've read it multiple times and all I see is the blanket ban on macros that automate gameplay.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2617 - 2014-12-15 23:30:04 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Actually even the simple string of keypresses is against the EULA Nolak, the EULA is very clear.
What CCP have said is that they won't prosecute the very simple ones that simply press F1-F8 in a row under normal circumstances.

But they are against the EULA so CCP could decide to change that at any time without having to change the EULA.
What is with people repeating this dumbass argument. CCP don't need to keep things in the EULA to ban you. They can literally ban you for liking the colour purple and not have to change the EULA to do it.

That said, simple key combination binds are not against the EULA regardless.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lady Areola Fappington
#2618 - 2014-12-16 01:04:50 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Round robin is a type of keybind, which when pressed performs the same task on the next client, moving on each time. So say you set up one for F1 on 3 clients, each press would be like this:

Press 1 - F1 on Client A
Press 2 - F1 on Client B
Press 3 - F1 on Client C
Press 4 - F1 on Client A
Press 5 - F1 on Client B

It means that instead of broadcasting, you just set these up then hammer the bound key (or bind it to your scrollwheel and scroll down quickly). Between that and VideoFX (the ability to chop up multiple clients and put key UI elements on a single screen), this entire change is pointless.



There's one small flaw in this idea, that I can see. If you make yourself "just as fast" as input multiplication with a round robin setup, you're likely going to bounce off of CCPs detection system for input multiplication. It'd be up to CCP at this point to either say "Yah, good" or "you're functionally input multiplying"

My next part of this is very much admitted speculation. If CCP is doing what we all think they are, they're looking for a set number of module activations within one server tick, on interconnected accounts. This could be two, it could be 10, who knows.

CCP is known for, lets say, "interpreting" rules for us before we get them. They could be running under the assumption that any trigger of their input multiplication detector is proof of broadcasting. Basically "A normal mulitplexer couldn't do it this fast, so they must be broadcasting". The actual rule broken is "you triggered the detector", the CCP interpretation for us is "Don't input broadcast."

There's actually some similar case history on just such an event. I remember the EUni guy who got busted for market botting. It wasn't botting by standard definition because he was manually doing each input, but he'd set up custom scripts and such to give himself the "speed" of a botter. CCP let that one stand.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2619 - 2014-12-16 01:44:16 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Rain6637 wrote:
don't kid yourself, it's not healthy. no one is dying for implants, and no one will miss incursion runners.


And nobody's "dying" for deadspace modules either, so who's gonna miss the null anom runners, amiright?
The biggest difference between null anom runners and highsec incursion runners is that HS incursion runners are subject to more interaction with the rest of the playerbase than the average nullsec farmer.

okay.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Black Pedro
Mine.
#2620 - 2014-12-16 07:26:20 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Actually even the simple string of keypresses is against the EULA Nolak, the EULA is very clear.
What CCP have said is that they won't prosecute the very simple ones that simply press F1-F8 in a row under normal circumstances.
But they are against the EULA so CCP could decide to change that at any time without having to change the EULA.


Please show me where simple non-automation macros are breaking the EULA. I've read it multiple times and all I see is the blanket ban on macros that automate gameplay.

It's in section 6, A-3:
CCP wrote:
You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play.

Their policy expands on this section and clearly says it is prohibited, but they will tolerated it if it "maintains fair gameplay".

A simple "rapid keystroke" macro that presses F1-F8 in sequence is against the EULA as written, but is apparently tolerated (although you probably should petition it to be sure for your use case as they suggested). However, if CCP decides in the future it gives too much of an advantage, they could change their enforcement policies and ban it like they just did with input broadcasting.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?