These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2621 - 2014-12-16 07:40:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
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.
True, but with how fast manual multiboxers can be, the threashold will be pretty low. And for a broadcasters it's not about speed, it's simply about effort. They will still be able to pace their keypresses leaving the accounts staggered, but without needing to manually switch between clients to do so. Other than being slightly staggered, there will be no difference.

EDIT: And I will truly laugh my ass off if they start banning manual multiboxers. It's CCP so it's likely to happen.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2622 - 2014-12-16 08:27:47 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
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.


For the millionth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is for per-client, not per-human, and refers to modifying the client or introducing automation that does not require human input. The "rapid keystroke" most likely refers to spamming a single command through a client to do something that is not humanly possible, much like the XBox modified controller hardware hack.

1/10.
Rawthorm
The Establishment
#2623 - 2014-12-16 08:32:49 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


Can you honestly say that just because there may be 30 toons sitting next to you, that the mind numbing task of mining is suddenly less fun? And why should the level to which someone can get obsessive with EvE be capped at wherever you feel your effort to reward ratio sits and no further? Eve has always been about squeezing out that last half a % to get an edge over the other guy and if you can't bothered then don't complain when others are more competitive than you.

It's bad enough as it is that the once glorious EvE sandbox now comes with an assembly guide and a pre-aproved list of what you can and can't do. The last thing we need to do is remove the last few rewards for taking the effort to be ahead of the curve.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#2624 - 2014-12-16 08:40:13 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:

For the millionth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is for per-client, not per-human, and refers to modifying the client or introducing automation that does not require human input. The "rapid keystroke" most likely refers to spamming a single command through a client to do something that is not humanly possible, much like the XBox modified controller hardware hack.

1/10.

I am not sure why you think this. The EULA is clearly written and applies regardless of "modifying the client". It clearly says that third-party software is not allowed to input "patterns of play" that facilitate your playing of the game.

That would include macros that enter F1-F8 with the single press of the button.

I am not sure how it could be written more clearly.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2625 - 2014-12-16 09:03:07 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
I am not sure why you think this. The EULA is clearly written and applies regardless of "modifying the client". It clearly says that third-party software is not allowed to input "patterns of play" that facilitate your playing of the game.
That would include macros that enter F1-F8 with the single press of the button.
I am not sure how it could be written more clearly.


Except CCP is not going to attempt to police and ban every relatively new keyboard, mouse, and software that allows a player to create quick macros, so they have stated that their interpretation of the macro clause is anti-automation and anti-client-modification, not "softcore" stuff like F1-F8. If we're going to interpret the EULA that strictly, we'd have to ban ISBoxer and any sort of window management software, as well as multiple monitors, KVM switches, gaming keyboards and mice, and limit each player to using a Commodore 64, because people with better hardware can receive a statistically significant advantage over someone with subpar hardware.

Easy way to make it written clearly: "Players are not allowed to use any sort of macros, including macros that send multiple keystrokes for a single key pressed, including any sort of software (example: AutoHotKey) or hardware (Logitech G600) or any combination of the two (G600 with Logitech Gaming Software [which allows macro binding]).

But since simple macros are allowed and have always been, it doesn't really matter how they phrase it.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#2626 - 2014-12-16 09:30:03 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:

Except CCP is not going to attempt to police and ban every relatively new keyboard, mouse, and software that allows a player to create quick macros, so they have stated that their interpretation of the macro clause is anti-automation and anti-client-modification, not "softcore" stuff like F1-F8. If we're going to interpret the EULA that strictly, we'd have to ban ISBoxer and any sort of window management software, as well as multiple monitors, KVM switches, gaming keyboards and mice, and limit each player to using a Commodore 64, because people with better hardware can receive a statistically significant advantage over someone with subpar hardware.

Easy way to make it written clearly: "Players are not allowed to use any sort of macros, including macros that send multiple keystrokes for a single key pressed, including any sort of software (example: AutoHotKey) or hardware (Logitech G600) or any combination of the two (G600 with Logitech Gaming Software [which allows macro binding]).

But since simple macros are allowed and have always been, it doesn't really matter how they phrase it.

Ok, but the EULA specifically bans all software and hardware based macros, including everything you described (except for the silliness with the keyboard and mice). That EULA is broadly written and clearly prohibits all macro-generating software that affects your gameplay - including "simple macros".

That is what you asked for and I provided it. How they choose enforce it, and the practicalities of detecting macro use are a different and more complex matter. But the fact remains that any system that generates "patterns of play" and/or "rapid keystrokes" is against the EULA even if tolerated for now, and CCP could change their enforcement policy at any time (like they just did for input broadcasting) and ban them completely from use.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#2627 - 2014-12-16 09:36:38 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
]
Ok, but the EULA specifically bans all software and hardware based macros, including everything you described (except for the silliness with the keyboard and mice). That EULA is broadly written and clearly prohibits all macro-generating software that affects your gameplay - including "simple macros".

That is what you asked for and I provided it. How they choose enforce it, and the practicalities of detecting macro use are a different and more complex matter. But the fact remains that any system that generates "patterns of play" and/or "rapid keystrokes" is against the EULA even if tolerated for now, and CCP could change their enforcement policy at any time (like they just did for input broadcasting) and ban them completely from use.


It depends on if you use the gamer definition of a macro, which will include combination keybinds without repetition or timers, the programmer's definition of macros, which require repetition or timers or something in between. English is not a precise language in this instance, so the problem ends up stemming from the fact that different subsets of the population define the non-concrete noun "macro" differently.

The problem gets even worse if you look at it as a legal document translated into different languages, as the implication of the translations as posted on alternative language versions of the EULA differ greatly.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Black Pedro
Mine.
#2628 - 2014-12-16 09:54:51 UTC
James Baboli wrote:

It depends on if you use the gamer definition of a macro, which will include combination keybinds without repetition or timers, the programmer's definition of macros, which require repetition or timers or something in between. English is not a precise language in this instance, so the problem ends up stemming from the fact that different subsets of the population define the non-concrete noun "macro" differently.

The problem gets even worse if you look at it as a legal document translated into different languages, as the implication of the translations as posted on alternative language versions of the EULA differ greatly.

I'm not a lawyer, but the clause I quoted is very broadly worded and doesn't just ban "macros" but also actually bans "your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play" that influence your gameplay. Notice all the use of "or" in there.

I am pretty sure that covers all eventualities.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#2629 - 2014-12-16 10:01:18 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
James Baboli wrote:

It depends on if you use the gamer definition of a macro, which will include combination keybinds without repetition or timers, the programmer's definition of macros, which require repetition or timers or something in between. English is not a precise language in this instance, so the problem ends up stemming from the fact that different subsets of the population define the non-concrete noun "macro" differently.

The problem gets even worse if you look at it as a legal document translated into different languages, as the implication of the translations as posted on alternative language versions of the EULA differ greatly.

I'm not a lawyer, but the clause I quoted is very broadly worded and doesn't just ban "macros" but also actually bans "your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play" that influence your gameplay. Notice all the use of "or" in there.

I am pretty sure that covers all eventualities.

And the strictest interpretation of that clause is that killboards, teamspeak and any third party tool to co-ordinate players is bannable. It again, comes down to enforcement and which interpretation of a programming technical term, which is frequently misused in a gaming context, as used in a legal document, is correct.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2630 - 2014-12-16 10:02:36 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
I am not sure why you think this. The EULA is clearly written and applies regardless of "modifying the client". It clearly says that third-party software is not allowed to input "patterns of play" that facilitate your playing of the game.

That would include macros that enter F1-F8 with the single press of the button.

I am not sure how it could be written more clearly.
Whoa whoa whoa, slow down buddy. Sure, if you miss off the key part of the EULA section you are quoting then you can argue that, but read the rest:
"... 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". Simple control activation macros, like activating sets of your defensive modules, launch and engage drones, etc. these don't allow you to gain anything at an accelerated rate to normal gameplay. That EULA segment is there to prevent people controlling characters in ways which would be impossible to replicate using normal gameplay.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2631 - 2014-12-16 10:12:38 UTC
sorry all, I forget. If I make a G-key bind that is F1 through F8 for a rack of smartbombs, is that a ban after January?

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Black Pedro
Mine.
#2632 - 2014-12-16 10:21:49 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Whoa whoa whoa, slow down buddy. Sure, if you miss off the key part of the EULA section you are quoting then you can argue that, but read the rest:
"... 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". Simple control activation macros, like activating sets of your defensive modules, launch and engage drones, etc. these don't allow you to gain anything at an accelerated rate to normal gameplay. That EULA segment is there to prevent people controlling characters in ways which would be impossible to replicate using normal gameplay.

Now I agree that is open to some interpretation. The strictest interpretation would suggest that activating all your modules at once would allow you to finish a mission (slightly) faster thus is accelerating your gameplay.

Practically though, this isn't really the case and this is probably the main reason CCP hasn't enforced this part of the EULA against simple macros.

Still, if a game situation arose where activating multiple key-presses with a single binding provided a significant advantage, this clause would apply. And if there is no advantage, there is no point worrying about it as CCP will continue to tolerate it as is the present case now.

However, the standard for tolerance isn't "impossible to replicate" as you suggest in your post, but rather "an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play".

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#2633 - 2014-12-16 10:24:21 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

However, the standard for tolerance isn't "impossible to replicate" as you suggest in your post, but rather "an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play".


The issue is do we define normal gameplay as the limits of what is possible in normal game play, or as the average player, who, propaganda aside, is generally pretty terrible at eve?

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Black Pedro
Mine.
#2634 - 2014-12-16 10:34:23 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:

However, the standard for tolerance isn't "impossible to replicate" as you suggest in your post, but rather "an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play".

The issue is do we define normal gameplay as the limits of what is possible in normal game play, or as the average player, who, propaganda aside, is generally pretty terrible at eve?

Again I am no lawyer, but it would seem to be apply to each player's "ordinary Game play". Obviously hardware, skill, biology and internet connection impact on the speed of game play, so the only reasonable standard is does it allow you to significantly accelerate your game play over what you are capable of without the software/macro. Using that definition many things become banned though but I think that is the intent of this clause to be as broadly written and all-encompassing as possible.

By doing this CCP retains the discretion to make case-by-case decisions on each situation and that power is obviously in their interest. Clearly it is not in their interest (or perhaps capability) to detect and ban all types of input modification so in practice much is tolerated.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Zerberus Valheru
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#2635 - 2014-12-16 10:48:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Zerberus Valheru
A very welcome and much needed change.

Ethically there is very little difference between macro multi-boxing and good old fashioned aimbots.


EDIT: It can't be hard for them to detect, regardless of how you are doing it. (ie. 10ppl in a system querying the server for the same thing instantaneously)
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2636 - 2014-12-16 11:58:18 UTC
Zerberus Valheru wrote:
Ethically there is very little difference between macro multi-boxing and good old fashioned aimbots.
Well, no. One is a generally accepted method of multiboxing with reduced effort (when by macro you don't mean automated botting), the other is a well established method of cheating. The only thing they have in common is that you dislike them because you think other people should be forced to play in the same way you do, and think it's unfair when someone has more than you.

Zerberus Valheru wrote:
It can't be hard for them to detect, regardless of how you are doing it. (ie. 10ppl in a system querying the server for the same thing instantaneously)
I'm sure broadcasting isn't hard to detect at all. But considering the removal of broadcasting will only remove the laziest minority of multiboxers, it's pretty much irrelevant. The difference will be so small that January will probably be record breaker for false reports as people report every multiboxer they see, not realising they aren't broadcasting.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
wonneman
Meltem Down Mining Corp.
The-Expanse
#2637 - 2014-12-16 12:42:21 UTC
Fiberton wrote:
Hrm so Mining goods are about to sky rocket. Ok so I have never used one of these things you speak of but even I after over 10 years in the game know that this is a terrible idea. So when you are making decisions did you consult an accountant? You realize that you are prob going to reduce CCP income about 3M a year just from logins who will drop accounts that are used for that sort of thing ? Ok not to tell you guys how to run a company but just flying around for so many years and knowing persons who use that.. At least 5% of eve is just miners on isboxer. Good luck on driving into a brick wall or whatever you dudes do.. Phobe great idea. this.. I would consult an accountant.

I don't think they will lose as much as your saying cause a lot of that multiboxing is being used to mine rocks and ice that is then made into a product or ice that is sold on the market to buy plex for all the accounts. I just came from an ice field that one guy was controlling 40 miners an orca and a freighter and the ice field was gone in about 30 minutes. And he's been doing it every time the field respawns ...... everyday. Then sells the ice on the market to buy plex for his accounts therefore playing for free...... So how is CCP losing money to let this continue???
They will be losing money by allowing it to continue.

Good for you CCP Big smile
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2638 - 2014-12-16 12:51:18 UTC
wonneman wrote:
I don't think they will lose as much as your saying cause a lot of that multiboxing is being used to mine rocks and ice that is then made into a product or ice that is sold on the market to buy plex for all the accounts. I just came from an ice field that one guy was controlling 40 miners an orca and a freighter and the ice field was gone in about 30 minutes. And he's been doing it every time the field respawns ...... everyday. Then sells the ice on the market to buy plex for his accounts therefore playing for free...... So how is CCP losing money to let this continue???
They will be losing money by allowing it to continue.

Good for you CCP Big smile
So tl;dr, you have no idea how PLEX works...

Paying for an account with PLEX potentially gets CCP slightly more cash than paying with a credit card as a PLEX is worth more than a sub. Losing subs is losing money, no matter how they are paid.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
marly cortez
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2639 - 2014-12-16 12:54:35 UTC
wonneman wrote:
Fiberton wrote:
Hrm so Mining goods are about to sky rocket. Ok so I have never used one of these things you speak of but even I after over 10 years in the game know that this is a terrible idea. So when you are making decisions did you consult an accountant? You realize that you are prob going to reduce CCP income about 3M a year just from logins who will drop accounts that are used for that sort of thing ? Ok not to tell you guys how to run a company but just flying around for so many years and knowing persons who use that.. At least 5% of eve is just miners on isboxer. Good luck on driving into a brick wall or whatever you dudes do.. Phobe great idea. this.. I would consult an accountant.

I don't think they will lose as much as your saying cause a lot of that multiboxing is being used to mine rocks and ice that is then made into a product or ice that is sold on the market to buy plex for all the accounts. I just came from an ice field that one guy was controlling 40 miners an orca and a freighter and the ice field was gone in about 30 minutes. And he's been doing it every time the field respawns ...... everyday. Then sells the ice on the market to buy plex for his accounts therefore playing for free...... So how is CCP losing money to let this continue???
They will be losing money by allowing it to continue.

Good for you CCP Big smile


Hmmmm....Someone actually bought those plexes with CASH MONEY before that 40+ multiboxer ever got the chance to consider buying them to sub his accounts......Think on.

Humanity is the thin veneer that remains after you remove the baffled chimp.
Zerberus Valheru
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#2640 - 2014-12-16 12:56:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Zerberus Valheru
Lucas Kell wrote:
[quote=Zerberus Valheru]Ethically there is very little difference between macro multi-boxing and good old fashioned aimbots.Well, no. One is a generally accepted method of multiboxing with reduced effort (when by macro you don't mean automated botting), the other is a well established method of cheating. The only thing they have in common is that you dislike them because you think other people should be forced to play in the same way you do, and think it's unfair when someone has more than you.


Nah mate I just make the point that they're both download skill.
Take it as you will.