These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
ashley Eoner
#3161 - 2015-01-20 01:01:32 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Dustpuppy wrote:
KC Kamikaze wrote:
ISBoxers most gameplay affecting feature is and has always been VideoFX not broadcasting.


If this would be the case the plex price wouldn't have dropped from 1 billion to 800 million after the announcement of the multicast ban and stay on this level since the change.

Why cancel subscription on plexed accounts if the main feature of something is not touched by a change?




You were getting ripped off. I never paid more then 900m for plex when people were complaining here about it being almost 1b...

Plex prices for me dropped a little. It's unknown how much was because of the change or because of something else. Like Nolak said speculators etc could be the real cause. It's probably a combination of all those things. Maybe CCP dumped some plex off banned accounts. No one that is willing to talk knows for sure.



EDIT : I broke down and extended some of my accounts because of a recent development that has my interest in game.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#3162 - 2015-01-20 05:27:12 UTC
Exactly. If PLEX was steady at 800m for a month or so, and *then* CCP banned broadcasting, and you saw PLEX drop, you *might* have an argument. You'd first have to look at any other changes CCP made to the game at the time of the ban, as well as take into account real life situations, as the global market does have an impact on the game.
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
#3163 - 2015-01-21 17:14:55 UTC
Dustpuppy wrote:
KC Kamikaze wrote:
ISBoxers most gameplay affecting feature is and has always been VideoFX not broadcasting.


If this would be the case the plex price wouldn't have dropped from 1 billion to 800 million after the announcement of the multicast ban and stay on this level since the change.

Why cancel subscription on plexed accounts if the main feature of something is not touched by a change?






That's right we control the price of plex. For every 100m isk you send me I will drop the price of PLEX on the market by 100m for one week. I'll do this for you because i'm nice ... and because I can. Just be sure when you send me the isk to put "For PLEX" in the reason box. Remember to follow the rules to get your discount PLEX prices!
Madchen Sterben
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#3164 - 2015-01-23 07:41:16 UTC
Multi boxers actually read the new rules very carefully.

Minor changes, no big deal.
Multi boxing, still a great choice.
ISboxer, still a great choice.

The overall plan by CCP might be to ban mboxing but it looks like baby steps.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#3165 - 2015-01-24 05:36:00 UTC
Madchen Sterben wrote:
Multi boxers actually read the new rules very carefully.

Minor changes, no big deal.
Multi boxing, still a great choice.
ISboxer, still a great choice.

Still a great choice, huh.

Really nice :)

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Flash Startraveler
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3166 - 2015-01-26 15:51:43 UTC
Falcon brought me here

So i'm just gonna quote a person i generally totally agree with, not all the time but usually... me:

Flash Startraveler aka he's right you are not wrote:
I hope i am allowed to post this and dont offend anyone in his or her personal space...

People that are not using input broascasting are having problems at the moment ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400578&find=unread ) which is obviously one of the first negative effects on the non ISBoxing community. I dont want to say non multiboxing community cause the considerated changes hit everyone multiboxing or not. There are posts on the forum Klick! that promote new per new regulation LEGAL ways of simplifying the control over several clients at the same time. So as i see it, the recent efforts to prevent players from getting a significant advantage by using the broadcast function of ISBoxer were more or less ineffective. As long a the game itself doesn't force you to do something different to issue the same command on another client, most used example is the entering of a code before you can lauch a bomb, nothing's really gonna change if the boxers dont have a problem with putting in a little bit more effort than before and klick several buttons and not only one.

I finance my stuff with incursions and i have seen some small effects on the incursion community since first of January. Some boxers reduced the amount of their clients and some stopped completely, but by far not all. In my humble opinion though, the incursion boxers are not the real problem. Ya i know some hold them responsible for the high plex prices despite loads of facts proving otherwise (for example a presentation a the last fanfest... war was it two years ago?) yadi yadi yada...
I see the bigger problems with the PvP boxes. Right, removing the fleetwarp could make it a bit harder but i can imagine just a little bit because issuing the warp command will still be the same on all clients and it will hit a huge amount of players that maybe dont even have a second account to multibox.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#3167 - 2015-01-26 16:42:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Nolak Ataru
I hope the irony of CCP Falcon responding to us long enough to tell us to use this thread is not lost on anyone here. This is exactly what we were talkin anout, Falcon. You had an opportunity to clear things up with some players, a chance to present a rebuttal to our claims and argument, but instead basically said "yeah we are banning people who are following the EULA."
E: oh and with all due respect, CCP's breach of the EULA was never a topic of this thread, not do we find it "amusing" that you have blown us off.
Agent Unknown
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3168 - 2015-01-26 17:38:07 UTC
Flash Startraveler wrote:
Falcon brought me here

So i'm just gonna quote a person i generally totally agree with, not all the time but usually... me:

Flash Startraveler aka he's right you are not wrote:
I hope i am allowed to post this and dont offend anyone in his or her personal space...

People that are not using input broascasting are having problems at the moment ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400578&find=unread ) which is obviously one of the first negative effects on the non ISBoxing community. I dont want to say non multiboxing community cause the considerated changes hit everyone multiboxing or not. There are posts on the forum Klick! that promote new per new regulation LEGAL ways of simplifying the control over several clients at the same time. So as i see it, the recent efforts to prevent players from getting a significant advantage by using the broadcast function of ISBoxer were more or less ineffective. As long a the game itself doesn't force you to do something different to issue the same command on another client, most used example is the entering of a code before you can lauch a bomb, nothing's really gonna change if the boxers dont have a problem with putting in a little bit more effort than before and klick several buttons and not only one.

I finance my stuff with incursions and i have seen some small effects on the incursion community since first of January. Some boxers reduced the amount of their clients and some stopped completely, but by far not all. In my humble opinion though, the incursion boxers are not the real problem. Ya i know some hold them responsible for the high plex prices despite loads of facts proving otherwise (for example a presentation a the last fanfest... war was it two years ago?) yadi yadi yada...
I see the bigger problems with the PvP boxes. Right, removing the fleetwarp could make it a bit harder but i can imagine just a little bit because issuing the warp command will still be the same on all clients and it will hit a huge amount of players that maybe dont even have a second account to multibox.


That multi-client preview is not against the EULA as all it does is draw the game's screen as an overlay and doesn't affect the game at all. This is very useful if you have more clients than monitors as an example ...or for keeping an eye on that link alt as you pew-pew in lowsec.

I didn't read most of the posts on this thread, but CCP's ban on input broadcasting was pretty clear to me. If you use a tool to mirror commands to multiple clients, it's the CONCORD slammer for you. If you use software to allow you to move the client to a specific place for easier access or have overlays for it, that's legal. I mean, Overwolf and Steam do overlays too, so users with client switchers should be fine.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#3169 - 2015-01-26 18:36:18 UTC
Re-read Flash's link. People who have adapted to the current EULA are getting banned.
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
#3170 - 2015-01-26 18:52:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Sexy Cakes
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Re-read Flash's link. People who have adapted to the current EULA are getting banned.


Charadrass is a known incursions multiboxer. He's the leader of a German community setup to ISBox.

He claims that 2 out of 4 people that were not even using ISBoxer got banned for input automation. Were they using another input automation program? Were the original 2 using input automation?

All you have is claims from Charadrass (of all people lol if you only knew who this guy was you'd see the hilarity) that friends of his got banned with no evidence.

CCP will not go into the details of the cases I'm sure so what are you really going on or asking here Nolak?

Edit: I see you are probably one of Charadrass's commandants. Ignore that last question.

Not today spaghetti.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#3171 - 2015-01-26 19:09:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Nolak Ataru
Sexy Cakes wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Re-read Flash's link. People who have adapted to the current EULA are getting banned.

Charadrass is a known incursions multiboxer. He's the leader of a German community setup to ISBox.
He claims that 2 out of 4 people that were not even using ISBoxer got banned for input automation. Were they using another input automation program? Were the original 2 using input automation?
All you have is claims from Charadrass (of all people lol if you only knew who this guy was you'd see the hilarity) that friends of his got banned with no evidence.
CCP will not go into the details of the cases I'm sure so what are you really going on or asking here Nolak?


I am well aware of Charadrass's reputation and his "vocation" in EVE. I've had lots of contact with the fellow, and do not in this instance believe him to be lying. I would also like to draw your attention to this statement made by another boxer: http://puu.sh/f3SyN.png
I spoke to other incursion boxers, and obtained a first-hand account of what happened by one of the banned people. I'm not on the best of terms with the guy, but again, I don't believe him to be lying as he was one of those involved in the multiboxing brainstorm on ways to work around the broadcast ban.

e: If you mean to insinuate that I am some servant of Charadrass, I'd like to point out that I was one of those who spoke out, rather loudly, against DIN and Charadrass's involvement in the incursion drama last year.
Dirritat'z Demblin
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#3172 - 2015-01-26 19:17:55 UTC
Ya... and on the German EVE-Boards he repeated multiple times that his Tec-Ni-Ca-Ly EULA-approved workarrounds that do not broadcast will look like the now banned broadcasting on the Serverside. So, if he indeed is not lying on the subject, then he is at least a bit naive and retardet.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#3173 - 2015-01-26 19:31:14 UTC
Dirritat'z Demblin wrote:
Ya... and on the German EVE-Boards he repeated multiple times that his Tec-Ni-Ca-Ly EULA-approved workarrounds that do not broadcast will look like the now banned broadcasting on the Serverside. So, if he indeed is not lying on the subject, then he is at least a bit naive and retardet.

Personal attacks aside, the legality of round robin broadcasting has been petitioned and asked multiple times, all with the same answer: Legal. As I said, CCP stated that they cannot tell the difference, which leads me to wonder why, exactly, if they were unable to detect the differences, did they not take me (and other ISBoxers) up on my offer to work with them to target the trouble areas of ISBoxer to do what CCP intended to do with the broadcast ban.
Dirritat'z Demblin
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#3174 - 2015-01-26 19:51:08 UTC
It leads me to wonder why one wants to do something that is well known for looking illegal. Well, guess some peeps just like riding razorblades...

And, tbh: Of corse CCP will not tell you how they Identify Bots. If they would the could as well stop searching, since any bot and broadcast-program will then avoid exactly what CCP is looking for.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#3175 - 2015-01-26 20:07:00 UTC
We never asked CCP to reveal their exact detection methods. At most, we asked for reassurances from them.

Cache scraping breaks the EULA, yet people do it as it was explicitly allowed. Same with ISBoxing and broadcasting pre Nov24. And before you try to argue it, no, we aren't talking about actual bots that do stuff when you alt-tab or go get a beer from the corner deli.
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#3176 - 2015-01-26 20:23:00 UTC
God dam... Just Say What the **** is going on CCP. Pick a side. Muliboxers... The care bare solo folks that will never be happy unless there is ZERO risk.

stop wasting our time time.......

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#3177 - 2015-01-26 20:44:26 UTC
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
God dam... Just Say What the **** is going on CCP. Pick a side. Muliboxers... The care bare solo folks that will never be happy unless there is ZERO risk.

stop wasting our time time.......


I'm sure Everlasting Vendetta would like to have a word with you regarding zero risk. You know, the wormhole multibox alliance living in a C5. If there's any carebears whining about wanting zero risk, it's miners and freighter pilots.
We know the risks we take when we start multiboxing. We know we paint a bullseye on our butt when we undock. We accepted that ages ago.
Josef Djugashvilis
#3178 - 2015-01-26 20:46:55 UTC
I do not know if I am impressed or depressed that this thread is still going.

I guess everybody has a right to fight their corner.

This is not a signature.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3179 - 2015-01-26 21:01:00 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
I do not know if I am impressed or depressed that this thread is still going.

I guess everybody has a right to fight their corner.


I figure another couple of months before people learn the new borders or are removed

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Angrod Losshelin
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#3180 - 2015-01-26 21:09:04 UTC
ya at this point we are basically testing the new electric fence the "rulers" have put in place. Eventually we will forget what sky looks like and just tell our children that the sky was always concrete....

Check out my Podcast! My Blog!