EVE General Discussion

Eve noobs these days. Multiboxing mass fleets has been around a lot longer that ISBoxer has been popular kiddo.

Strange, because it really does seem like you do care.

So are you saying that when you click on an object to lock onto it, that you do it individually for each client? If so then that's fine. But if you click once and all your clients select/lock the same target, then this is still input broadcasting...

He must click once for each client to lock / target / activate button.
This was stated ages ago.
Please learn to read, or do some research before jumping on the bandwagon.

I don't use software that provides "round robin" service, so I don't know what any such software, that exists currently, does.

Suppose, though, that "round robin" means that there is an automatically generated alt-tab after the first keystroke, then two auto-alt-tabs after the second keystroke, etc., so that successive keystrokes go to different EVE-sessions.

Although this might not fall afoul of the Prohibition Against Broadcasting, might it not violate the Prohibition Against Generating Keystroke Sequences?

But how about an intermediate case? What if one had a foot-pedal that generated alt-tab for every pump of the pedal? One could pump once after the first keystroke, twice after the second, etc., to switch round-robin amongst multiple sessions.

Would using such a foot-pedal violate the Prohibition Against Generating Keystroke Sequences?

Argument in the Affirmative: Yes, because alt-tab is a two-keystroke sequence.

Argument in the Negative: No, because alt is just a shift that modifies other keys; only the tab-keystroke is a keystroke.

I tried to file a Support Ticket asking this question, but it has been several hours since I submitted it and the ticket not -- or at least not yet -- appeared under "My Tickets". Since I have not filed a support ticket since 2006, I don't remember how long it's supposed to take for a ticket to appear after filing.

Its pretty clear to me that this CCP policy is not subject to negotiation.
Here CCP did some research using player input first. But I don't think CCP ever said players had a vote on this issue.

CCP does a very good job of working letting players in on deciding many issues.-- maybe most. But CCP has to claim exclusive ownership of a few decisions to keep the game wide open to all players....rather than letting the loudest or strongest cliche drive everyone else out through rule management.

Jesus christ the irony is burning. You claim that the game should be wide open to all players and not let "the loudest or strongest cliche drive everyone out" yet you don't see that this change was brought about by a loud minority of players who's arguments consist of "I don't do it so he shouldn't", "hurrdurr it's a bot even though I know nothing about the software", and, my favorite, "he's cheating because he has multiple accounts open" which is similar to "I know nothing about 6A3 and how it works, so I'll claim he's gaining an unfair advantage because I'm under the impression that he doesn't have to pay for his accounts." CCP did the exact same research that Target did after presented with the Change.org petition that was so full of lies, the North Korean propaganda team stood in awe of it. Listening to the whiners in the minority may change something in the short term, and may indeed cause a short-term improvement, but in the long term will cause more harm as players remember that they bent to the will of the equivalent of SJWs, or if they continue to bend over for said lunatic few.

Round Robin sends 1 command to 1 client per input. It then sends 1 command to the next client on the next input. It uses similar concepts on window focusing that VideoFX does.

If any issue warranted, no, NEEDED player input and discussion before a go-ahead, it would be this. Instead, we're treated like third-class citizens thanks to, in part, the public's lack of knowledge as to what ISBoxer lets a player do, the unwillingness to differentiate between an ISBoxer with a human behind the keyboard that stops doing things when the player goes for a smoke break, and a botter that continues to operate while the person went down to the corner store for a pack of smokes and a 40. Not to mention that CCP absolutely refused to sit down with multiple ISBoxer reps until after Jan 1, after lying to EVERYONE at Fanfest and EVE Vegas, where CCP Seagull and other CCP devs were seen by dozens if not hundreds of witnesses going around telling people "Multiboxers have nothing to fear" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing."

Technically no. It sends command A to window 1 on button press #1. It then sends command A to window 2 without changing windows on button press #2. If it sent the command and then alt-tabbed, or something similar, then yes, it would be a macro.
Since it doesn't, it isn't, and you don't know what you're talking about.

VideoFX allows a player to have multiple window's focus on a single screen. Doesn't break EULA. Neither does RR no matter how loud you cry.

it does break the eula. you may look in the eula under conduct, section 3. it always did.
ccp only stated that, come januar, they will activly enforce this rule against the current overusage of input broadcasting. which was against the eula as well, stop claiming it wasn't. wether you can get away with your "workaround" remains to be seen, but you clearly can not see the writing on the wall.
the only one crying is you at all. "whawhaa why don't ccp listen to isboxers. we're humans to. :(("

Aside from the fact that the negative press they would receive if they banned this would be unbelievable (many gaming keyboards and mice perform other tasks directly while you are interacting with your game) it would be impossible to detect without a massive amount of false positives. So there's no way they'll enforce it beyond multiple simultaneous game affecting actions (multiplexing). CCP are pretty dumb, but not that dumb.

Their ruling is pretty clear. 1 press = 1 action on 1 client. What else it does outside that is irrelevant. Using round robin or VFX isn't side stepping that, it's simply not included in that ruling. I'm sure people using static timed delays will get caught, as that's actually macroing and turning 1 press into multiple actions, but someone sitting there manually pressing one button for a round robin bind isn't. I'm sure if they could find a reliable way to differentiate between that and a legit multiboxer that they would ban it but they won't, so...