These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Darkblad
Doomheim
#3821 - 2015-03-21 16:58:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Darkblad
Charadrass wrote:
None of the Petitioned question is beeing answered on Team security on fan fest.

nice ccp. ignoring us again.
Posting this at 15:18 (the presentation was in its first 20 minutes by that time), while there's:
Schedule wrote:
16:00 - CCP Security - Better Safe Than Sorry!
In the security roundtable you will have the chance to ask questions regarding the security presentation and about all things security in CCP and EVE Online.
You did'nt jump to that opportunity?

NPE – ISD – RIP
Nolak Ataru
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#3822 - 2015-03-21 17:26:20 UTC
Darkblad wrote:
Charadrass wrote:
None of the Petitioned question is beeing answered on Team security on fan fest.

nice ccp. ignoring us again.
Posting this at 15:18 (the presentation was in its first 20 minutes by that time), while there's:
Schedule wrote:
16:00 - CCP Security - Better Safe Than Sorry!
In the security roundtable you will have the chance to ask questions regarding the security presentation and about all things security in CCP and EVE Online.
You did'nt jump to that opportunity?


Not all of us have over 2 grand to drop on tickets + a flight to Iceland. If CCP's only going to listen to people who shuck out $2k and ask in person, I've got some bad news for this game...
Darkblad
Doomheim
#3823 - 2015-03-21 17:36:55 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Not all of us have over 2 grand to drop on tickets + a flight to Iceland. If CCP's only going to listen to people who shuck out $2k and ask in person, I've got some bad news for this game...
I'm also stuck @ home. But I don't complain when I don't have the chance to ask myself @ Fanfest, I ask those that are there to ask questions on my behalf. And it actually worked. Maybe C. should've tried that instead of complaining before the roundtable started.

NPE – ISD – RIP
Nolak Ataru
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#3824 - 2015-03-21 17:51:46 UTC
Darkblad wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Not all of us have over 2 grand to drop on tickets + a flight to Iceland. If CCP's only going to listen to people who shuck out $2k and ask in person, I've got some bad news for this game...
I'm also stuck @ home. But I don't complain when I don't have the chance to ask myself @ Fanfest, I ask those that are there to ask questions on my behalf. And it actually worked. Maybe C. should've tried that instead of complaining before the roundtable started.

We're doing that. However, his complaints were justified as CCP Falcon promised a sit-down after Jan1 with the ISBoxers and then lied about it later on in an interview.
JGar Rooflestein
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3825 - 2015-03-21 19:32:11 UTC
You do realize that CCP will not say if ISBoxer is allowed. No major MMO company will. They will always give a blanket result most likely that result is and has been read the EULA. If you read on InnerSpaces site they cover this part.

They say No Third Party software or Apps that modify or effect the gameplay. BUT they tend to look past certain ones if they are major problems or really causing harm. They came out and said hey you cant Input Broadcast anymore BUT we will allow you to use it to log in and use it for window management. So technically they said We will allow use of isboxer, without actually saying it. I see it and they probably see VideoFX as window management. When asking CCP if this is allowed you will just get there generic answer which is a copy of the EULA. If they haven't asked you to stop or banned you then you are fine (once again my opinion).

For those that were banned there is always a reason to why. More than likely they were still input broadcasting or abusing Round Robin which if done right can look like Input Broadcasting. But like 90% of people ever banned in games they did nothing wrong they were within the EULA 100%..

-JGar "Great man once said nothing."
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#3826 - 2015-03-21 20:13:24 UTC
Darkblad wrote:
Charadrass wrote:
None of the Petitioned question is beeing answered on Team security on fan fest.

nice ccp. ignoring us again.
Posting this at 15:18 (the presentation was in its first 20 minutes by that time), while there's:
Schedule wrote:
16:00 - CCP Security - Better Safe Than Sorry!
In the security roundtable you will have the chance to ask questions regarding the security presentation and about all things security in CCP and EVE Online.
You did'nt jump to that opportunity?
I did, and they confirmed that the punishment for multiplexing falls under botting, not EULA violation (lose accounts and assets), that round robin and video fx are against the rules if used for an advantage (though how much of an advantage is an advantage is questionable) that they have no client side detection (and instead rely on data analysis over period of months) and that players can be under investigation for months before action is taken.

All in all I'm not at all satisfied that they don't hit too many false positives, banning manual multiboxers. What worse is that in the presentation they stated that they use banned players and confirmed false positives to build profiles to aid in detection, so when someone is falsely banned and they refuse to believe that the player was in fact not using tools, they are using data from incorrectly banned players to help build violation profiles.

To me it seems like a very nonchalant way of dealing with the issue. Of course most other players will simply dismiss it as "whining from isboxers" so there's really very little point arguing with it. At the end of the day, if you were a user of any tools to assist you in multiboxing, to CCP and the CSM, you and your opinions are irrelevant. That seems to be the general consensus.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#3827 - 2015-03-21 20:15:40 UTC
JGar Rooflestein wrote:
For those that were banned there is always a reason to why. More than likely they were still input broadcasting or abusing Round Robin which if done right can look like Input Broadcasting. But like 90% of people ever banned in games they did nothing wrong they were within the EULA 100%..
While many players will claim innocence regardless of whether or not they are innocent, that doesn't mean everyone is automatically lying. There's a fair percentage of convicted people in prison that will be found to be innocent too.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3828 - 2015-03-21 20:21:18 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
JGar Rooflestein wrote:
For those that were banned there is always a reason to why. More than likely they were still input broadcasting or abusing Round Robin which if done right can look like Input Broadcasting. But like 90% of people ever banned in games they did nothing wrong they were within the EULA 100%..
While many players will claim innocence regardless of whether or not they are innocent, that doesn't mean everyone is automatically lying. There's a fair percentage of convicted people in prison that will be found to be innocent too.

The number of people released from death row after DNA testing became reliable shows that. The numbers exist despite most counties/states fighting to prevent inmates from having access to those tests.



Having said that I'm still recording every time I run. I just need a 4 TB drive to keep all of it =/
Nolak Ataru
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#3829 - 2015-03-21 20:24:02 UTC
Actually, unless I'm mistaken, Blizzard said ISBoxer was allowed as long as you don't turn it into a bot (where "bot" = "down at the corner store buying a pack of smokes while the program still does stuff"), but they enacted changes to prevent usage of ISBoxer in PVP battlegrounds.

CCP gave us their word that they could detect the difference between IB and RR, and then it turns out they can't. Furthermore, they also have failed to prove how ISBoxer breaks 6A3 while discluding PYFA, Fuzzworks, and that new market program.
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3830 - 2015-03-21 20:28:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Kinete Jenius
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Actually, unless I'm mistaken, Blizzard said ISBoxer was allowed as long as you don't turn it into a bot (where "bot" = "down at the corner store buying a pack of smokes while the program still does stuff"), but they enacted changes to prevent usage of ISBoxer in PVP battlegrounds.

CCP gave us their word that they could detect the difference between IB and RR, and then it turns out they can't. Furthermore, they also have failed to prove how ISBoxer breaks 6A3 while discluding PYFA, Fuzzworks, and that new market program.

Yes there are blue statements as such. Trion has said the same thing in the past.


http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1535574817?page=3#43


Here's blizzard telling their subscribers to HTFU about isboxer players.

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3053895611?page=1#15
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#3831 - 2015-03-21 20:30:25 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I did, and they confirmed that the punishment for multiplexing falls under botting, not EULA violation (lose accounts and assets), that round robin and video fx are against the rules if used for an advantage (though how much of an advantage is an advantage is questionable) that they have no client side detection (and instead rely on data analysis over period of months) and that players can be under investigation for months before action is taken.


Lucas, it was nice to finally get to meet you in person Big smile

About the penalty. Botting is a EULA violation that violates sections 6A2 & 6A3 of the EULA. The penalties includes the following:

  • 1st offense - 30 day ban, all accounts
  • 2nd offense - permanent ban, all accounts
  • Removal of all illicitly gained proceeds.
  • The ability to trade characters off the account is disabled.


Don't concentrate on the wording of 6A3, which mentions "advantage". Stick with 6A2 and how the software changes the way the game is played. For the best analysis I've seen on what CCP intends, I would start reading Lord's Servant's posts in this Dual-Boxing.com thread starting with this post.

http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/51980-The-Banned-thread?p=397025&viewfull=1#post397025

I know that Nolak and Shadow have already dismissed Lord's writings, but I think they come closest to how CCP plans on enforcing the EULA.

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
#3832 - 2015-03-21 20:41:49 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:


I know that Nolak and Shadow have already dismissed Lord's writings, but I think they come closest to how CCP plans on enforcing the EULA.


Considering you were present for Team Security's non-clarification of Round-Robin / VFX / Rollover (and gave a presentation on RMT soon after, which was good, congratulations btw)

The ONE thing I can say they did state semi clearly is that VFX falls into client modification (in some twisted sense).

So Lord Servant would be incorrect in saying that VFX is fine to use.

Now, if your using VFX in a dxnothing window, that falls outside of any "modification of the game client" since dxnothing is not a game client in upon itself.

Same thing for using rollover. If putting the rollover buttons inside of a client window is now against the rules (is it? can CCP please clarify?) then I'll just put them in a small dxnothing window next to the client. Am I still breaking any rules? Anyone?

You didnt happen to attend the Team Security round table and get specific answers did you? Not like I expect them to give any, there is what appears to be direct policy from Team Security to not give any specifics to anything, other then "Read the EULA".

Legacy - An EVE Online Blog

Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast

EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
#3833 - 2015-03-21 20:48:08 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
...that round robin and video fx are against the rules if used for an advantage (though how much of an advantage is an advantage is questionable) that they have no client side detection (and instead rely on data analysis over period of months) and that players can be under investigation for months before action is taken.


did they offer any clarification on what constitutes an "advantage"? How fast or slow must I use my multiple clients to not be considered "cheating"?

That is really my main question, it seems to come down to some vague definition of an unfair advantage. So we need specifics, how fast am i allowed to click buttons on other clients before I am considered breaking some nondescript rule?

Did anyone ask about other 3rd party tools and why they are ok to give an in-game advantage (EVEMon, EVEHQ, EFT, Evernus, Dedaf's Spreadsheets are examples that provide tremendous market capabilities and analysis that the average person could never do)

but using tools to multibox now starts to put you into a territory of getting your accounts banned?


Legacy - An EVE Online Blog

Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast

EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#3834 - 2015-03-21 20:53:59 UTC
ShadowandLight wrote:
Rosewalker wrote:


I know that Nolak and Shadow have already dismissed Lord's writings, but I think they come closest to how CCP plans on enforcing the EULA.


Considering you were present for Team Security's non-clarification of Round-Robin / VFX / Rollover (and gave a presentation on RMT soon after, which was good, congratulations btw)

The ONE thing I can say they did state semi clearly is that VFX falls into client modification (in some twisted sense).

So Lord Servant would be incorrect in saying that VFX is fine to use.

Now, if your using VFX in a dxnothing window, that falls outside of any "modification of the game client" since dxnothing is not a game client in upon itself.

Same thing for using rollover. If putting the rollover buttons inside of a client window is now against the rules (is it? can CCP please clarify?) then I'll just put them in a small dxnothing window next to the client. Am I still breaking any rules? Anyone?

You didnt happen to attend the Team Security round table and get specific answers did you? Not like I expect them to give any, there is what appears to be direct policy from Team Security to not give any specifics to anything, other then "Read the EULA".


I thought that they were pretty clear. Let me get the presentation to watch and try to write a detailed blog post in the next week or so. But basically, everything you did in your demo video that used the MWD instead of launching bombs violates the EULA.

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#3835 - 2015-03-21 21:11:06 UTC
ShadowandLight wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
...that round robin and video fx are against the rules if used for an advantage (though how much of an advantage is an advantage is questionable) that they have no client side detection (and instead rely on data analysis over period of months) and that players can be under investigation for months before action is taken.


did they offer any clarification on what constitutes an "advantage"? How fast or slow must I use my multiple clients to not be considered "cheating"?

That is really my main question, it seems to come down to some vague definition of an unfair advantage. So we need specifics, how fast am i allowed to click buttons on other clients before I am considered breaking some nondescript rule?

Did anyone ask about other 3rd party tools and why they are ok to give an in-game advantage (EVEMon, EVEHQ, EFT, Evernus, Dedaf's Spreadsheets are examples that provide tremendous market capabilities and analysis that the average person could never do)

but using tools to multibox now starts to put you into a territory of getting your accounts banned?
No, they didn't. There was a vague reference to 20% above the average but I believe that was just spitballing rather than a real figure. The other software all seems to be fine as its not inbound control, which is ludicrous considering the vast advantage I have over tool-less traders. And yes, any form of multibox tools, and in face muliboxing efficiently and frequently in the same way without tools will put you at risk. What it comes down to is how confident you are that ccp will both respond and believe you if you get banned in error. The room was a little too hostile to ho too much into nuances and it was literally me vs the room in afraid. Seems there's very little chance of clarification beyond what you already have, so make of it what you will.

Phone posting at party ftw.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
#3836 - 2015-03-21 21:34:00 UTC  |  Edited by: ShadowandLight
It really incesses me that Team Security States in their opening statement on "input multiplexing" that they want to clarify what is or is not allowed then say "read the EULA".

These are incredibly simple questions.

If you dont want to name features directly then draw a line

" you cannot send more then x commands to your clients in x seconds."

Simple, easy to follow, no confusion.

Something like that would be completely feature agnostic.

This current vagueness is complete garbage.

Legacy - An EVE Online Blog

Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast

EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#3837 - 2015-03-21 22:39:34 UTC
ShadowandLight wrote:
It really incesses me that Team Security States in their opening statement on "input multiplexing" that they want to clarify what is or is not allowed then say "read the EULA".

These are incredibly simple questions.

If you dont want to name features directly then draw a line

" you cannot send more then x commands to your clients in x seconds."

Simple, easy to follow, no confusion.

Something like that would be completely feature agnostic.

This current vagueness is complete garbage.
Honestly, I don't like how the whole thing has been handled, I don't like the lack of communication, and I don't like that manual players are at risk, but I don't think CCP are going to clarify it any further. My advice to you is to not use round robin, not use vfx, and preferably not use isboxer. Beyond that, at this point I think you're fighting a losing battle, and you need to just move on. Its not right, but it's reality.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3838 - 2015-03-22 05:06:39 UTC
It is possible to sue CCP currently under american law; [UCC, view; Deceit, Entrapment, False advertisement] So... if anyone is interested in a mass tort.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/

https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3

Yep..
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
#3839 - 2015-03-22 05:13:32 UTC
Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:
It is possible to sue CCP currently under american law; [UCC, view; Deceit, Entrapment, False advertisement] So... if anyone is interested in a mass tort.


-100% not gonna happen. Who knows the mess of laws between an Icelandic company with holdings in the USA. Then you have to find a lawyer willing to take it on, show you have real damages (pretty hard barrier to get over in a video game). They can at any time refuse to serve customers and while the EULA / TOS provides some protection for the player, it is written specifically to protect CCP. Thats the reason its pretty damn vague.

- Now show they are operating under new rules (which they clearly state they are not since they refused to change the EULA, I am positive that was a legal maneuver having a lot of lawyer friends and being a casual observer into their legal cases) and how they somehow broke their contract with you without offering you to close out your account and receive any unused time back as credit to your credit card.

Its way too little to gain and way too much in legal fees to bother.

Legacy - An EVE Online Blog

Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast

EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
Aru Kacbis Danvill
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3840 - 2015-03-22 05:22:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Aru Kacbis Danvill
ShadowandLight wrote:
Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:
It is possible to sue CCP currently under american law; [UCC, view; Deceit, Entrapment, False advertisement] So... if anyone is interested in a mass tort.


-100% not gonna happen. Who knows the mess of laws between an Icelandic company with holdings in the USA. Then you have to find a lawyer willing to take it on, show you have real damages (pretty hard barrier to get over in a video game). They can at any time refuse to serve customers and while the EULA / TOS provides some protection for the player, it is written specifically to protect CCP. Thats the reason its pretty damn vague.

- Now show they are operating under new rules (which they clearly state they are not since they refused to change the EULA, I am positive that was a legal maneuver having a lot of lawyer friends and being a casual observer into their legal cases) and how they somehow broke their contract with you without offering you to close out your account and receive any unused time back as credit to your credit card.

Its way too little to gain and way too much in legal fees to bother.



way i see it hundreds have been affected; my returns would be 15000$, 7500$ if we assumed lawyer got 50%. [10+yrs of advertising one way, then a complete 180; false advertisement]

Imagine what some of the older and bigger guys would get.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/

https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3

Yep..