These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Charadrass
Angry Germans
#3961 - 2015-04-07 12:59:51 UTC
corebloodbrothers wrote:

Also eve is going up, not down in logins and other metrics. Dont try to make the whole thing bigger then the few hundred accounts affected.

I know for sure that eve's active subs are shrinking. dont know where your intel is coming from, but i think youre just talking.

corebloodbrothers wrote:

Ccp will not role back on this, if anything data and inquiry show its so the right decision, and no you dont get too see them, nor try too manipulate them.

you didnt even read the thread here did you?
its not about rolling back into allowing broadcasting again.
it is about not banning players who are now using eula conform methods to multibox.

corebloodbrothers wrote:

Or had opinion cause of lack of knowledge aboht it.

i truly believe that no one voting against multiboxing has ever done it. period.


Again. this is not about forcing ccp to take back the broadcast ban.

were doing this to get a clear statement from ccp about the eula conformable multiboxing.

and stop beeing proud about your csm status, you have been elected, you have to serve your people. serve <--- google that if you dont know what it means.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3962 - 2015-04-07 13:02:30 UTC
Charadrass wrote:

i truly believe that no one voting against multiboxing has ever done it. period.


I alt tab routinely, and have often run multiple clients between two computers.

But I don't cheat, and I never have.

Quote:
were doing this to get a clear statement from ccp about the eula conformable multiboxing.


It wasn't clear before? Here, I'll restate it.

Stop. Cheating.

"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.
Jason Xado
Doomheim
#3963 - 2015-04-07 13:14:42 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Stop. Cheating.


As the metrics have shown we have stopped cheating.

The questions at hand are:

1.) Why did I wake up one morning a cheater, when I wasn't a cheater the day before?
2.) Why does CCP and the CSM not want solo players to be able to defend themselves against group players?
3.) Why is CCP and the CSM wanting to force me to "group up" in a sand box game.
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#3964 - 2015-04-07 13:17:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Archibald Thistlewaite III
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Point out one lie and hypocritical thing I said. I challenge you. I have been subjected to countless threats, fallacies, insults, and other such crudity in this thread and in other mediums, and have responded with nothing but civility, logic, and common decency. I have patiently responded to people who came here to jeer and with surgical precision dismantled each argument that was thrown haphazardly my way riddled with nothing but illogic and fallacies. Not one single person has given me a solid reason why ISBoxer and it's functions should be banned, including CCP themselves, and I will continue to offer a 1b isk reward for such an argument. The CSM members are by no means infallible, as demonstrated by corebloodbrother and his obliterated BS fleet sitting on a planet. CBB and Xander have not presented any argument whatsoever regarding ISBoxer other than "wah muh BS fleet" by CBB.

(3826) You said "I was saying you needed citations / evidence for your claim that ISBoxer = cheating."---You lied. I never claimed ISBoxer =cheating (I said the exact opposite)

(3830) You said "CCP has always had an anti-bot policy which has been enforced regularly which makes your statements strange regarding this change"---You lied. I never made any statement about a change in CCPs anti-bot policy, which hasn't changed.

As for the hypocrisy, every time you go [Citation Needed] when you are unable or unwilling to back your own statements up with proof yourself you become a hypocrite.

Specifically, your claims that CCP is banning people who use ISBoxer without breaking the EULA(4022)(4026)

You really need to back claims like that up with proof if you are going to ask everyone else to provide proof for their statement.

Also you quite vehemently accused CCP Falcon of lying (3889)(4022). Accusing someone of lying when you are a liar yourself is hypocritical and you really should back up your claim that CCP Falcon is lying with some proof.

I've been kind enough to provide proof of my claim, how about providing some of your own?

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'
Charadrass
Angry Germans
#3965 - 2015-04-07 13:17:23 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Charadrass wrote:

were doing this to get a clear statement from ccp about the eula conformable multiboxing.


It wasn't clear before? Here, I'll restate it.

Stop. Cheating.


I am using my keyboard with windows to control my 10 boxes nearly simultainously.
no third party software involved.

what should i stop doing?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3966 - 2015-04-07 13:26:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I alt tab routinely, and have often run multiple clients between two computers.

But I don't cheat, and I never have.
Noone here has cheated. People having used software that at the time was completely allowed and accepted by CCP isn't cheating, even if you think it's unfair. The interesting part is though that you don't need to do anything beyond alt tabbing to get banned. CCP have made it pretty clear that they have no client side checking and are basing bans purely on data analysis from their side. If you multibox manually and become too efficient at it, you run the risk of being banned.

Quote:
It wasn't clear before? Here, I'll restate it.

Stop. Cheating.
Define cheating. When I manually multibox (which to be clear, is the only way I multibox) I use just windows to hover and see all of my screens tiled so I can rapidly interact with a window when it requires attention. It's no different to using VFX within innerspace and no different from using EVE-O preview which has been stated by CCP as being allowed, yet all 3 could end up getting you banned if you're too quick.

My problems with CCP aren't that they choose to ban multiplexing - hell they could ban multiboxing altogether if they want - my problems are with how they detect it, how they enforce it and what benefit it gives to put many legitimate players at risk.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3967 - 2015-04-07 13:30:37 UTC
corebloodbrothers wrote:
Its been a while now, most poeple move on and take blows in life for granted and regroup. Find new goals and targets. I whish anyone the same. The thread turned into a sad display of bitternes over a subject the majority of players agree. No matter how the same poeple going to turn my words over and over.

Also eve is going up, not down in logins and other metrics. Dont try to make the whole thing bigger then the few hundred accounts affected. Noone misses a bombrun of 3 waves of 20 bombers in total done by 1 guy, honestly we dont. Nor ever will.

Ccp will not role back on this, if anything data and inquiry show its so the right decision, and no you dont get too see them, nor try too manipulate them. You want to test the borders of words and actions, try, maybe you get lucky, maybe u ll burn your fingers. Noone using a normal eve client, starting it 3 times to perform different tasks on them ever gotten in trouble. All mentioned examples are ways to push ccp, or the boundaries, go for it, if thtas your thing, dont cry if it fails.

Abusing csm is also funny, no csm member agreed on the use, and all suported the ban or didnt care for it enough to be opposed. Or had opinion cause of lack of knowledge aboht it. **** is turned into data projected as truth when it isnt. Within the current csm you will see the same.

The broken record starts to make noise noone likes too hear or cares about. I wish you again the best of lives and hope you can find something positive to focus energy too get satisfaction out of the gäme you play as a hobby and love to play, versus a lost war on words and bitterness tryign to make something happen noone cares, the world moved on and agreed they should.

I got decced and got 5 billion bounty on my csm toon cause of my opinion on the subject, which is a sign of bitterness in itself sadly. As much as you are entitled to an opinion and not get decced over it, i was hoping that would work both ways, but he, a big bounty is fun, please double it, i do get shot alot these days cause of it

Again, hopefully enjoy eve, fly safe, or not

Hmm interesting, no available statistics but you fall in with "majority of players agree". How many players have you spoken to on the subject?

CCP banning players via unclear rules, is not OK. It is multi boxers now, it could be anyone they choose next, simply by interpreting the EULA in a different way, again.

Logins are down, I don't know what you are using for your information but i use EveOffline and for the last 12 months logins have steadily dropped. Twelve months ago daily average was 39k, it is now 36k. US prime time was at around 30k is now closer to 24k. Much of this can be explained away with unlimited training cues removing the need for players to login. Good for CCP (short term) but not good for those who want to actually play the game but can't find content.

So CSM members didn't take an interest - Good to know. For those who continue to play with multiple characters it will be handy to know, none of the current CSM support their play style come next elections. (curious, are you sure other members of the CSM are ok with you saying they don't have any interest in multiboxers? Judging by your post, I don't think it would matter to you either way)

Lack of pertinent information, your right, CCP are good at turning a whine into a statistic and using it as justification for nerfs.

Finding new goals and interests is all well and good, if there is a new goal or interest worth pursuing, sadly most of the interesting, challenging things to do in eve are slowly being nerfed out of existence or changed to hours of mind numbing grinding, orbiting buttons. This should last as an interest for about 3 to 6 months by which time it will be replaced with more of, nothing to do but wait.

At 55, I don't know i will be around long enough for sov 7.0 or 8.0, by which time they might introduce something new and interesting.


As for the broken record. Who forced you to read this thread or for that matter write your purely subjective post.

- - - - - - - -
I do wish you had posted this earlier, my CSM voting would have been very different.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3968 - 2015-04-07 15:36:07 UTC
Charadrass wrote:

I am using my keyboard with windows to control my 10 boxes nearly simultainously.
no third party software involved.

what should i stop doing?


You even admit to macroing, and then spend page after page of "I did nothing wrong!"

Do you wonder why no one feels sorry for you lot?

"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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3969 - 2015-04-07 15:39:40 UTC
Jason Xado wrote:

1.) Why did I wake up one morning a cheater, when I wasn't a cheater the day before?


You always were, CCP just finally woke up and decided to enforce it. They were even really nice about it and gave you a dropoff date, instead of just banning you all outright like I would have.


Quote:

2.) Why does CCP and the CSM not want solo players to be able to defend themselves against group players?


Strawman. CCP doesn't want hordes of farmers and quasi botters stripping the game of content from genuine solo players, whom your kind crowd out.

Quote:

3.) Why is CCP and the CSM wanting to force me to "group up" in a sand box game.


This is an MMO. "Multi. Player." Not "single player with twenty plus accounts". Why you ever thought this was okay is beyond me.

A few accounts? Sure, everyone has to scan or trade or haul, and those aren't viable for main accounts. But as many as some of the abusers have been? That is just obscene, a blight on the industry itself.

"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.
ashley Eoner
#3970 - 2015-04-07 16:08:01 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jason Xado wrote:

1.) Why did I wake up one morning a cheater, when I wasn't a cheater the day before?


You always were, CCP just finally woke up and decided to enforce it. They were even really nice about it and gave you a dropoff date, instead of just banning you all outright like I would have.


Quote:

2.) Why does CCP and the CSM not want solo players to be able to defend themselves against group players?


Strawman. CCP doesn't want hordes of farmers and quasi botters stripping the game of content from genuine solo players, whom your kind crowd out.

Quote:

3.) Why is CCP and the CSM wanting to force me to "group up" in a sand box game.


This is an MMO. "Multi. Player." Not "single player with twenty plus accounts". Why you ever thought this was okay is beyond me.

A few accounts? Sure, everyone has to scan or trade or haul, and those aren't viable for main accounts. But as many as some of the abusers have been? That is just obscene, a blight on the industry itself.
Massive multiplayer doesn't mean "can only be played when you find others to play with you" either..

In the older days the MM part just meant a lot of people could play the same game with you at the same time.
Jason Xado
Doomheim
#3971 - 2015-04-07 16:15:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Jason Xado
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

genuine solo players


Sure as long as those "genuine solo players" don't have the tools to defend themselves from the groups all is good, correct?

If they want to defend themselves from the groups they should "group up", correct?

We wouldn't want those solo players to be able to defend themselves from groups now would we. That would just be wrong.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3972 - 2015-04-07 16:40:51 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You always were, CCP just finally woke up and decided to enforce it. They were even really nice about it and gave you a dropoff date, instead of just banning you all outright like I would have.
Completely and utterly wrong. CCP didn't just allow it, for years they stated quite explicitly that it was fine to affect as many clients as you want with a single keypress as long as you were there to do the presses and it didn't do more than one action on any given client. That attitude changed. And I think we can quite safely say that what you would do is irrelevant, since you wouldn't be running a popular MMO.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Strawman. CCP doesn't want hordes of farmers and quasi botters stripping the game of content from genuine solo players, whom your kind crowd out.
And yet there still are players multiboxing like crazy without tools, and there's actual botters still trashing up the game. Get into any serious volumes on the market and behold the increase in market bots of late.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
This is an MMO. "Multi. Player." Not "single player with twenty plus accounts". Why you ever thought this was okay is beyond me.

A few accounts? Sure, everyone has to scan or trade or haul, and those aren't viable for main accounts. But as many as some of the abusers have been? That is just obscene, a blight on the industry itself.
Why is it not OK? What is a limit on number of accounts? Why if this is the problem have CCP not simply hard capped number of accounts allowed to be active at a given time. As with many things, you're very much of the opinion that you don't do it, therefore it's wrong, which is a terrible attitude to have.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3973 - 2015-04-07 17:19:51 UTC
Jason Xado wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

genuine solo players


Sure as long as those "genuine solo players" don't have the tools to defend themselves from the groups all is good, correct?

If they want to defend themselves from the groups they should "group up", correct?

We wouldn't want those solo players to be able to defend themselves from groups now would we. That would just be wrong.


ISBoxers are part of "the groups", so I really don't know what you're going on about.

"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.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3974 - 2015-04-07 23:31:11 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jason Xado wrote:

1.) Why did I wake up one morning a cheater, when I wasn't a cheater the day before?


You always were, CCP just finally woke up and decided to enforce it. They were even really nice about it and gave you a dropoff date, instead of just banning you all outright like I would have.


Quote:

2.) Why does CCP and the CSM not want solo players to be able to defend themselves against group players?


Strawman. CCP doesn't want hordes of farmers and quasi botters stripping the game of content from genuine solo players, whom your kind crowd out.

Quote:

3.) Why is CCP and the CSM wanting to force me to "group up" in a sand box game.


This is an MMO. "Multi. Player." Not "single player with twenty plus accounts". Why you ever thought this was okay is beyond me.

A few accounts? Sure, everyone has to scan or trade or haul, and those aren't viable for main accounts. But as many as some of the abusers have been? That is just obscene, a blight on the industry itself.

Kaarous you need practice, your trolling is slipping. I'm sorry but it is no where near as entertaining as it used to be.

Multiboxing with ISBoxer was never cheating, CCP allowed it until a minority took it that one step too far and generated a few complaints.
As complaining to CCP has become the easiest way to defeat your enemy, this has become a real game changer. The game touted to be a sandbox, was far more interesting when CCP had the attitude of - Find a way to beat him / them, people play the way they choose. (I do have a response to a ticket from years ago, before I knew there were no rules regarding player conduct.)

I wonder how many would complain if CCP were to start enforcing rules about manipulating game mechanics to ensure greater success in certain styles of game play? Doing this is essentially cheating, why do CCP let it continue?


CCP actively based advertising on multiboxing - Never fly alone (specifically aimed at players using multiple accounts to get the job done faster), plus numerous other advertising pitches to sell players multiple accounts.




A bucket with holes in is not going to hold water, the same as your pitiful argument will never hold any truth.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
War StalkeR
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3975 - 2015-04-08 02:17:28 UTC  |  Edited by: War StalkeR
Out of pure interest what exactly prohibited in ISBoxer? Or rather - is it's main feature "cloning mouse's position and actions" in all windows of the game (all instances of eve online) - is still permitted?
Charadrass
Angry Germans
#3976 - 2015-04-08 07:33:28 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Charadrass wrote:

I am using my keyboard with windows to control my 10 boxes nearly simultainously.
no third party software involved.

what should i stop doing?


You even admit to macroing, and then spend page after page of "I did nothing wrong!"

Do you wonder why no one feels sorry for you lot?


Please explain where i use macros?
Charadrass
Angry Germans
#3977 - 2015-04-08 07:34:30 UTC
War StalkeR wrote:
Out of pure interest what exactly prohibited in ISBoxer? Or rather - is it's main feature "cloning mouse's position and actions" in all windows of the game (all instances of eve online) - is still permitted?


The Broadcast function is now a banable offense.
means you hit one button that issues one buttonclick on each box
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#3978 - 2015-04-08 09:17:34 UTC
I'm only monitoring one large ISBoxer mining fleet atm comprised of about sixteen vessels. When they still all log on within two seconds of each other on my notifications list then either there is a timing mismatch on the notifications or they are using ISBoxer software to log on their accounts.

I believe it is still legal under the EULA to use ISBoxer type software to log on multiple accounts simultaneously. Other usage of that software such as to turn on all mining lasers on multiple accounts/vessels at the same time is illegal under the EULA. If I happen to be in their location when/if they turn on all their mining lasers simultaneously CCP will be notified of the fact.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3979 - 2015-04-08 09:24:01 UTC
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
I'm only monitoring one large ISBoxer mining fleet atm comprised of about sixteen vessels. When they still all log on within two seconds of each other on my notifications list then either there is a timing mismatch on the notifications or they are using ISBoxer software to log on their accounts.

I believe it is still legal under the EULA to use ISBoxer type software to log on multiple accounts simultaneously. Other usage of that software such as to turn on all mining lasers on multiple accounts/vessels at the same time is illegal under the EULA. If I happen to be in their location when/if they turn on all their mining lasers simultaneously CCP will be notified of the fact.
There's actually a script which can log on whole fleets too without having to use isboxer. Controlling even 20 miners manually is pretty trivial too, it's just the setup that is time consuming, so I imagine a lot of the time you guys see ISBoxers they are simply multiboxers. At fanfest CCP said the number of false reports at the moment is exceedingly high as you can imagine.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#3980 - 2015-04-08 09:28:26 UTC
Charadrass wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Charadrass wrote:

were doing this to get a clear statement from ccp about the eula conformable multiboxing.


It wasn't clear before? Here, I'll restate it.

Stop. Cheating.


I am using my keyboard with windows to control my 10 boxes nearly simultainously.
no third party software involved.

what should i stop doing?


What I see happening isn't physically possible to do manually in such a short time frame over ten or sixteen or many accounts. Therefore if I see it in the first person I will report it to CCP. If you are acting as you say you are without using third party software then you have nothing to worry about. In terms of resource management I and my contractors are not that that keen on large mining fleets controlled by one player. My activities are location specific though and control of multiple accounts keeps CCP going financially.