These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#3541 - 2015-02-28 05:24:51 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

If you mean...

No, I don't mean those. I mean the threads, over and over again, that brought up whether controlling twenty clients with a single mouse click was acceptable or not.
Turns out, it's not.
I celebrate that decision, as it's one that I thought CCP would never have the balls to make.

You mean the threads where people pointed out time and time again where when an ISBoxer screwed the pooch, he lost 20x the ISK a single person with a single client would lose? Because that seems like a fairly hefty risk that the boxer would take whenever he undocks or attempts to perform an action. And let's not forget the very valid and ever-ignored factor of EWAR being used against an ISBoxer has a much greater effect than if EWAR were to be used against a fleet of human beings.

Quote:
Quote:

Except they do affect the EVE universe as mentioned previously.

They do not effect the in game client. Whether they have an effect on the person using them is entirely different from effecting the client. Such justification. Methinks he doth protest too much.

Please, leave the Kafkatraps to Corebloodbrother. He does them so much better, especially with his broken english.
ISBoxer does not modify any part of the client that would cause a given character to earn ISK at an accelerated rate than someone who isn't. ISBoxer does not allow a player to make decisions at an increased rate, nor does it magically slow down his client (a la Matrix) to the point that he would be able to input and execute multiple commands before another player would be able to react in any way, shape, or form. ISBoxer does not allow a player to ignore incoming DPS, or magically increase his tank, or his DPS, or anything else that would constitute an advantage. And finally, ISBoxer does not in any way, shape, form, or inkling offer any sort of advantage to a fleet of characters that an equally skilled, fitted, experienced, and connected fleet of people would not have.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3542 - 2015-02-28 05:51:11 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:

You mean the threads where people pointed out time and time again where when an ISBoxer screwed the pooch, he lost 20x the ISK a single person with a single client would lose?


No, I mean the threads discussing the people who would ISBot an entire incursion fleet, racking in a ludicrous income with zero downsides.


Quote:

ISBoxer does not modify any part of the client that would cause a given character to earn ISK at an accelerated rate than someone who isn't.


Except for the part that's banned, that lets you duplicate input clicks to multiple clients.

I mean, if it wasn't such a huge advantage, then losing it clearly is no big loss. You can't really have it both ways.

Quote:
And finally, ISBoxer does not in any way, shape, form, or inkling offer any sort of advantage to a fleet of characters that an equally skilled, fitted, experienced, and connected fleet of people would not have.


Except for the level of synchronicity that only a machine can achieve, on a scale that is otherwise impossible.

Why not just play fair, like everyone else?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#3543 - 2015-02-28 06:10:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Nolak Ataru
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, I mean the threads discussing the people who would ISBot an entire incursion fleet, racking in a ludicrous income with zero downsides.

Zero downsides, other than fear of gankers, getting jammed, selecting the wrong beacon and entering the wrong site, being contested out of a system, and being subjected to the whims of the larger incursion fleets with premature closings, sure, there's no downsides. And there is no ISBoxer out there who earned more isk per character than an identical fleet would.


Quote:
Quote:

ISBoxer does not modify any part of the client that would cause a given character to earn ISK at an accelerated rate than someone who isn't.
Except for the part that's banned, that lets you duplicate input clicks to multiple clients.
I mean, if it wasn't such a huge advantage, then losing it clearly is no big loss. You can't really have it both ways.

Again, leave the Kafkatraps to Corebloodbrothers.
Duplicating input clicks to multiple clients can be programmed as an OS level command, not a client level command.

Quote:
Quote:
And finally, ISBoxer does not in any way, shape, form, or inkling offer any sort of advantage to a fleet of characters that an equally skilled, fitted, experienced, and connected fleet of people would not have.

Except for the level of synchronicity that only a machine can achieve, on a scale that is otherwise impossible.
Why not just play fair, like everyone else?

Point out which machine is responsible for the arty tempest alpha synching, or bombing synching. Hint: It's not yours.
Because your definition of "unfair" dances down the line of "you have multiple accounts logged in / you have an OGB / you have implants / you use combat boosters, ergo you're cheating". I admit that was a slippery slope fallacy, but I've seen too many people express those exact sentiments in local / mails that I couldn't help include it.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#3544 - 2015-02-28 07:25:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Sibyyl wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

He only discussed banning input broadcasting / duplication, not Round Robin, and certainly not the entire program itself.
Please try to read instead of swallowing whatever pill is handed your way.


From folks I have spoken to, CCP is preferring to be ambiguous on the matter of Round Robin input. I would guess that silence is a way of not explicitly condoning, but not explicitly removing from the game.

This sort of grey area is, in my opinion, a very risky thing to be in. But each person has their own choices to make about their own accounts, right?

Gotta petition until you get a response.

They will doubtless just bounce you to the thread, if so you're not safe. I guess perhaps you might escalate it to someone who can/will give you a firm answer.


But don't share it, whatever it is



Wait, is Round robin the "press button X to move from window N to window N+1" ?

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 ?
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#3545 - 2015-02-28 11:15:52 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

You mean the threads where people pointed out time and time again where when an ISBoxer screwed the pooch, he lost 20x the ISK a single person with a single client would lose?


No, I mean the threads discussing the people who would ISBot an entire incursion fleet, racking in a ludicrous income with zero downsides.


They make no more than a standard incursion fleet, and require X more ships X more isk to fit and buy those ships, require X more plex or account subscriptions. In other words completely indistinguishable to a non isboxer fleet. And then you show your bias with that "ISBot" phrase. ISBoxer is not a bot. Has never been a bot and just shows that yout really only care about the fact that your not as space pixel rich as some incursion runners.

It is even funny that you think its all that much ISK. Compared to C5 C6 escals, its pretty grindy low return work. Multboxers have lived in C5s in the past and you can do it with less accounts and make far more total, so really a lot more per account. Also since this can be done with only 3-5 characters if you know what you are doing, alt tab works fine.

ISBoxer cannot make rats give bigger bounties, does not increase LP payout and doesn't change per player payouts in incursions.

And all this from CODE. You know a large part of you guys "cheat" according to your definition. CODE don't exactly hide it.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#3546 - 2015-02-28 11:17:30 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:


Wait, is Round robin the "press button X to move from window N to window N+1" ?

Yes. It something that you don't need anything but a clever setup in windows to do. Even more to the point, its not all that different from changing alt-tab to a just tab, and doing butting X, tab, button X tab....

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.
ashley Eoner
#3547 - 2015-02-28 21:07:14 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


No, I mean the threads discussing the people who would ISBot an entire incursion fleet, racking in a ludicrous income with zero downsides.
Other then losing billions of isk in ships because of a fluctuation in electrical power, a momentary ISP lag, a system crash, EVe's servers being fickle, something between you and eve being fickle, gankers appearing, ECM griefers, and more.

Think of all the times eve lagged for a few seconds and realize that when multiboxing incursions that means one ship maybe two dead.

Getting contested was a daily existence when boxing. Player fleets were generally hostile to boxed fleets.

If you thought they boxers were running in complete safety then you're clueless and you should of taken it upon yourself to remove that safety. I lost count of how many times I had gankers hit me because at times it was a daily event. I was even forced to dock many times because of persistent gank fleets.

You can make more isk in complete safety by playing the market which requires an hour or so of your time a day.

You can sit on a gate with a neutral and gank your way to more isk per hour with complete safety.

You can make similar isk in a variety of activities in eve. Some with less danger and some with more. Danger of course is something you could always bring to any of the highsec activities.


Regardless as nolak said earlier. No isboxed fleet could out earn a player run fleet.


What's hilarious is I made WAAAY more isk in almost complete safety in WHs and some sections of null. WHs in specific are isk printing machines. I had far fewer hostile interactions in a WH then I did incursion running. I just ran incursions because I had a job change and other stuff that occurred in personal life which screwed with my ability to log in consistently.






Kaarous Aldurald is a NERF HIGHSEC troll alt which was probably made by a bittervet to mess with the ability of others to make isk. He appears in nearly every single thread involving highsec and isk making. He then proceeds to make ridiculous claims and then distorts anything that gets said. All in an effort to get highsec nerfed as much as possible. His posting patterns seem to indicate anger at CCP as he seems to try everything he can to push ideas that would hurt EVE.
Jeanette Leon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3548 - 2015-02-28 23:36:47 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

...

The message was clear from the start: Stop giving yourself an unfair advantage with the ISBoxer program.

Apparently that's not clear enough for some people.


Clear as mud.

Tell us, oh enlightened One, all about fair and unfair advantages and maybe this thread will not reach 200 pages
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3549 - 2015-03-01 00:49:43 UTC
Jeanette Leon wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

...

The message was clear from the start: Stop giving yourself an unfair advantage with the ISBoxer program.

Apparently that's not clear enough for some people.


Clear as mud.

Tell us, oh enlightened One, all about fair and unfair advantages and maybe this thread will not reach 200 pages


Personally, I'd suggest ceasing any and all use of ISBoxer. Judging from some of the bleating, it looks like some people tried to find a way around the whole "input duplication is unequivocally banned" thing, and got hammered for that too. (of course, as I mentioned before, some of the people in that "dualboxing.com" site are likely botters trying to make excuses)

Stop using that program. I get it, you paid twenty bucks or whatever for it. You've racked up ridiculous advantages against your fellow players for years for that twenty bucks. Now it's time to give up the ghost.

Either bring out of the old extra monitors trick, or alt tab like the rest of us. No one ever got banned doing that.

I honestly cannot imagine why anyone would honestly need twenty accounts working together in perfect synchronization anyway. And I use the word "honestly" in there deliberately. If you guys aren't getting an unreasonable advantage using ISBoxer, then you're fighting awfully hard to keep something that you're claiming doesn't matter.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#3550 - 2015-03-01 01:09:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Nolak Ataru
Personally, I'd suggest ceasing any and all use of EVEMon, PYFA, EFT, and Fuzzworks. Judging from some of the bleating, it looks like some people tried to find a way around the whole "cannot gain an advantage over another" thing, and got hammered for that too. (of course, as I mentioned before, some of the people in that "Fuzzworks" site are likely lazy people trying to make excuses as to why they don't do the math themselves)

Stop using those websites and programs. I get it, you spent all that time downloading and installing them, or logging in and adding APIs to the websites. You've racked up ridiculous advantages against your fellow players for years for that time. Now it's time to give up the ghost.

Either bring out of the old cache scraping trick, or put some alts in each trade-hub like the rest of us. No one ever got banned doing that.

I honestly cannot imagine why anyone would honestly need any of these programs as you can just do the math and calculations by hand. And I use the word "honestly" in there deliberately. If you guys aren't getting an unreasonable advantage using EFT, PYFA, EVEmon, or Fuzzowkrs, then you're fighting awfully hard to keep something that you're claiming doesn't matter.

End of Sarcasm.
Someone *did* get banned for the old duct-tape-mouse-and-dowel trick: https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/oldrigs
You still haven't provided any claim or proof, tangible or otherwise, that ISBoxer provides advantages. Since you made such a claim without evidence, we can dismiss said claim without evidence.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3551 - 2015-03-01 01:17:49 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Personally, I'd suggest ceasing any and all use of EVEMon, PYFA, EFT, and Fuzzworks.


Those don't effect the game client, and you're only bringing up as a diversion.

Quote:

Stop using those websites. I get it, you spent all that time downloading and installing them.


You don't install websites... lol.



Quote:

Either bring out of the old cache scraping trick, or put some alts in each trade-hub like the rest of us. No one ever got banned doing that.


No one ever got banned for any of those websites either.

Keep comparing apples and oranges, dude. The ruling on ISBotter isn't going to change just because you stomp your feet and cry about Fuzzworks.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Marsha Mallow
#3552 - 2015-03-01 02:05:43 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Player fleets were generally hostile to boxed fleets.

Maybe they have a point.
Jeanette Leon wrote:
Tell us, oh enlightened One, all about fair and unfair advantages and maybe this thread will not reach 200 pages

200 pages of screaming 'BUT THAT ISN'T FAIR CCCCPEEEE' would be feeble. Let's aim for 500.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
You still haven't provided any claim or proof, tangible or otherwise, that ISBoxer provides advantages.

If it doesn't provide any advantages stop using it.

These rambling commentaries from ashley (which are really helpful to assist tear collectors work out exactly how to disrupt you in a EULA compliant manner) suggest that being an ISBotter has risk, is really annoying and isn't a particularly enjoyable game experience. Making sure newbros aren't sucked into such a disgusting cycle is a challenge, but we're all about that here.
Nolak Ataru wrote:
End of Sarcasm.

^ This is where you are going wrong btw. The sarcasm never ends, and even if it did you don't need to announce it. Cupcake.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#3553 - 2015-03-01 02:05:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Nolak Ataru
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Those don't effect the game client, and you're only bringing up as a diversion.

They affect the EVE Universe more than ISBoxer does. ISBoxer does not modify the game client in any way that can be construed to break the EULA or 6A3.

Quote:
Quote:
Stop using those websites. I get it, you spent all that time downloading and installing them.

You don't install websites... lol.

Thank you for pointing that out. I edited my post to reflect the correction.

Quote:
Quote:
Either bring out of the old cache scraping trick, or put some alts in each trade-hub like the rest of us. No one ever got banned doing that.

No one ever got banned for any of those websites either. Keep comparing apples and oranges, dude. The ruling on ISBotter isn't going to change just because you stomp your feet and cry about Fuzzworks.


Congrats at dodging where I debunked your "nobody got banned for multiple mice or keyboards".
Nobody ever got banned for said websites because nobody ever raised enough of a fuss to CCP about them. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand. You continue to provide no proof or anything to back up your claims that ISBoxer provides some advantage, and I'm beginning to grow tired of dealing with the EVE equivalent of the hobo on the corner ranting about how the government is a bunch of lizard people who also happen to be controlling members of the NWO and/or the Illuminati. Yes, it may be true, but since you have zero proof.....

And finally, on /r/TodayILearned: requesting proof for unsubstantiated claims, requesting simple sit-downs and chats, and asking for a corporation to implement their EULA across the board = stamping you feet and crying. Next week, on our segment on CODE: Are they really CCP employees in disguise, we delve in to the alliance that will not let a hulk live!

e:
If it doesn't provide any advantages stop using it.
We'll stop ISBoxing if everyone else stops using the other programs. Deal?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3554 - 2015-03-01 02:27:00 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:

They affect the EVE Universe more than ISBoxer does. ISBoxer does not modify the game client in any way that can be construed to break the EULA or 6A3.


CCP disagrees.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Marsha Mallow
#3555 - 2015-03-01 02:37:21 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
If it doesn't provide any advantages stop using it.
We'll stop ISBoxing if everyone else stops using the other programs. Deal?

Nope.

You need to look more closely at the comments from moderators on the forums you frequent btw.
Quote:
If you want to instigate EvE drama, you will need to find another place to do it. You are inviting negative attention to this community.

I really enjoyed the collective outrage here over an earlier poster relinking a Devmail clarifying the new botruling when you are openly posting your own forum sig ban message on playersites. Classy.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
JGar Rooflestein
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3556 - 2015-03-01 03:12:23 UTC  |  Edited by: JGar Rooflestein
Nolak Ataru I will say this you do keep bringing up the website apps like Eve wiki, Eve central and dotlan. Those don't really change the way the game is being played. ISBoxers feature for Input broadcast does change the way the game is played chages every game that it supports. You can control multiple clients with almost perfect timing. Something you will only rarely get in a fleet of actual players. CCP did what it thought was best by banning it. Now other features of ISBoxer are not really what i'd call game changing. Those features I would compare to the websites and other applications.
Which all those do is enhance the visual side of Eve.

Just wish CCP was a bit more clear and supportive to help people understand what can and can't be done. Just saying don't do it sometimes isn't enough.

Telling CCP to ban the use of EFT is like telling Blizzard to ban Icy-Viens.
Telling CCP to ban the use of EveMon (think thats the skill one) is like telling Blizzard to ban WoW app.
*ya for the blizz ref xD i went there.

These applications and webpages are supported 100% by eve to help newer and older players learn to play better and make there experience better. Which is why they added the feature to import/export your builds.

They removed Input Broadcasting not just because a few possible 100 people complained. They did to increase new player experience. Like hwo they nerfed the sov sturctures and more to come. They want new players to come in and enjoy the game. They want fleets of 20 actual people fight against a multiboxer to actual be enjoyable. With a player having to tab over and some what physically control the accounts makes it that much more enjoyable. Instead of ths guy controlling 20 accounts but only has to use 1 client. CCP just looking out to make the game better.
I was against it till I got the hang of controlling my miners. No matter how much complaining happens CCP will not bring that option back. But they should be more clear on Third party applications other than the obvious.

Just don't ban VideoFX. All I ask. Don't see how you can call VideoFX cheating honestly. Just my opinion tho.

IF a gm replied to this thread saying "Hey this is what is banned this is what you can do. " I'm sure this thread would stop. (probably not tho)

-JGar "Great man once said nothing."
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#3557 - 2015-03-01 04:05:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Nolak Ataru
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

They affect the EVE Universe more than ISBoxer does. ISBoxer does not modify the game client in any way that can be construed to break the EULA or 6A3.

CCP disagrees.

1) CCP has provided no proof or documentation to support their hilarious claim.
2) Certain CCP and CSM members also wants to reduce everyone to one client per person. Do you support that as well?

Marsha Mallow wrote:
I have nothing to say that would counter the arguments presented so I'll just use strawmen fallacies and tu quoque fallacies. I shall attack the player instead and pray that nobody realizes that he has brought up multiple valid points and that nobody has brought any evidence to support CCP's decision.


JGar Rooflestein wrote:
Nolak Ataru I will say this you do keep bringing up the website apps like Eve wiki, Eve central and dotlan. Those don't really change the way the game is being played. ISBoxers feature for Input broadcast does change the way the game is played chages every game that it supports. You can control multiple clients with almost perfect timing. Something you will only rarely get in a fleet of actual players.

1) I bring these up in reference to 6A3, the accelerated gameplay clause, as CCP has quoted that time and time again here. I outlined multiple programs and each way they can he used to gain ISK at an increased rate than a non-user. Nobody has bothered to dispute these claims other than to plug their ears, stick their head in the sand, and sing Ave Maria at the top of their lungs.
2) If you search around, you will obtain a fleet of players in alpha-BS that can coordinate an alpha strike that would match or even rival ISBoxer. Just because a fleet of BRAVE pilots cannot coordinate a 1400 strike does not mean that ISBoxer is suddenly overpowered.
The people who were complaining about the ISBoxed incursion fleets were comparing a fleet of nightmares and Nestors with more ISK in their fits and in their implants than a WTM HQ fleet, with razor-thin tanks, to an "average" VG fleet with LSEs or 1600s. This is whats known as a "fallacy of comparisons"; kind of like when someone tries to compare a Odyssey to a Mustang and asks "which is better".

e: Video FX isn't banned, but using it too quickly will get you banned.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3558 - 2015-03-01 04:09:12 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:

1) CCP has provided no proof or documentation to support their hilarious claim.


This is hilarious. The sheer entitlement of this statement, and the irony.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Jeanette Leon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3559 - 2015-03-01 04:23:00 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Personally, I'd suggest ceasing any and all use of ISBoxer. Judging from some of the bleating, it looks like some people tried to find a way around the whole "input duplication is unequivocally banned" thing, and got hammered for that too. (of course, as I mentioned before, some of the people in that "dualboxing.com" site are likely botters trying to make excuses)

Stop using that program. I get it, you paid twenty bucks or whatever for it. You've racked up ridiculous advantages against your fellow players for years for that twenty bucks. Now it's time to give up the ghost.

Either bring out of the old extra monitors trick, or alt tab like the rest of us. No one ever got banned doing that.

I honestly cannot imagine why anyone would honestly need twenty accounts working together in perfect synchronization anyway. And I use the word "honestly" in there deliberately. If you guys aren't getting an unreasonable advantage using ISBoxer, then you're fighting awfully hard to keep something that you're claiming doesn't matter.


Isboxer and the likes are cool as OP clearly stated examples of authorized input broadcasting. As I'm aware that function does not come default with EVE client.
I have no doubts at all when I'm allowed to use it.

My concerns are others, as we say in my country, 'you can't only be, you also have to look like you are' (hope that makes sense).
Is that the case here? Shall I gimp my game-play based on misinformation around the web?

I'm not trying to get around anything.
I'd just like that the people who actually make the game and the rules would not leave the costumers hanging with the lack of information. Commonly used functions by multiboxers are well known, the subject had been beat beyond dead, and I'm still waiting clarifications from CCP, wich cba it seems.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#3560 - 2015-03-01 05:01:39 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

1) CCP has provided no proof or documentation to support their hilarious claim.

This is hilarious. The sheer entitlement of this statement, and the irony.


TIL: Asking for evidence that a program is detrimental to EVE's health after CCP stated that it was = entitlement.
This isn't tumblr. We aren't run by entitlement, emotion, and privilege here. If I was really "entitled", as you said, I'd be demanding a full reimbursement of either my money, or my time spent not running, and I'd top it off by demanding CCP Seagull to personally apologize to me.

Since I don't,,,,,