These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#3981 - 2015-04-08 09:33:55 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
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.


Regarding false positives I imagine there are a lot reported. I would only make a report if I genuinely felt the EULA had been broken. I wouldn't use it to harass people or cause a nuisance.
Charadrass
Angry Germans
#3982 - 2015-04-08 09:52:46 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.


Legal and Illegal.
CCP is not a country who enforces law.
it is within the rules of the eula or breaching it.


to your question:
I am boxing 10 boxes using 1 key on my keyboard for each box to send 1 command.
hence i can box 10 eve clients pretty simultaniously. not exact at the same time, but nearly.
Darkblad
Doomheim
#3983 - 2015-04-08 19:07:01 UTC
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
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.
As shown here (green = allowed as per EULA rules)

NPEISDRIP

Nolak Ataru
Unsanitary Landfill
#3984 - 2015-04-08 22:53:48 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:

(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.

You did not directly say "isboxer = cheating" but your attitude regarding anyone using ISBoxer certainly painted that picture.
No, you didn't mention the botting policy, but you did talk about bots, which are decidedly different from boxers. I said that your statement regarding what would be interpreted as a bot was strange given that CCP has always banned bots.

Quote:
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.

Very hard to post proof here when CCP deletes such posts. Come over to the dual-boxing forums and ask there and you'll get your proof. You still have no proof yourself of anything you've claimed, so every time you harp on ME not providing proof you merely underscore your lack of proof when I present mine.

Quote:
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 was not the one who set up the meeting between the ISBoxers and Falcon; that was a CSM member and another multiboxer. They have not deigned to show me a picture as that could be construed to be "sharing private correspondences" so the screenshots were not distributed. But please, continue to chase straws.
Nolak Ataru
Unsanitary Landfill
#3985 - 2015-04-08 23:17:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Nolak Ataru
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.


You don't broadcast for mining fleets...... any miner knows that. Same reason you don't stack lasers.
It's legal to use ISBoxer broadcasting to log in. After that, there's this cute little thing called a "fleet warp" that you can use to move multiple characters around a system without too much hassle.
e:

Quote:
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.

Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it isn't possible. I can't slam-dunk a basketball, doesn't mean Michael Jordan was cheating. I'm a half-decent PVPer, but watching Garmon's videos leaves me in wonder. I'm not on his level, but that doesn't mean he was hacking.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3986 - 2015-04-09 02:54:39 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.

Are you sure they are using ISBoxer or any other software?
When all my accounts were active I could log them all in within seconds simply by getting all to the login screen and clicking the appropriate characters 1 after the other. 11 characters spread across 4 monitors is really easy to login fast. I could also activate all weapons / lasers quickly by pre locking the target/s and activating modules pretty much all at once, again by simply clicking on each individual window.

NB; This is why I no longer multibox. CCP's new rules concerning multiboxing rights and wrongs are unclear enough, I fear I could be banned simply by my server tics being too fast.
When i sent a support ticket asking for information, I was referred to this thread, which of course is no help at all.
I wanted to know what CCP consider as too many server clicks in a given time. By knowing how many times I can click each character in a set period of time I could avoid being banned for simply being too fast with key presses.

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.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3987 - 2015-04-09 03:21:20 UTC
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
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.

Not physically possible for you or me is not physically impossible for everyone else.
If you see what in 1st person? Are you able to see ISBoxer in use by being in the same system as the multiboxer? How can you be sure what you think you are seeing is not affected by lag?

You are presuming guilt based in nothing more then - He can do something I consider "impossible".
Not too long ago sending things into space was considered impossible. Not too many years before that, people flying was considered impossible, 2 bicycle builders many considered mad were told they would never fly.
I was born before the internet, had you told me, within a few years I would be able to talk to and see people from all over the world with a telephone i could put in my pocket i would have told you - NEVER, it is just not possible.

Today there is one thing in this world I am absolutely sure of - Nothing is impossible.

If an individual is able to interact with characters "too quickly" CCP have no way of knowing whether or not that person is using 3rd party software to speed things up or if they just have a very highend machine with little server latency. They too are only guessing, based on server tics.

Someone who is not using 3rd party software could indeed be banned, if the are too efficient at multiboxing.

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.

Charadrass
Angry Germans
#3988 - 2015-04-09 07:02:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Charadrass
if ccp is naming their game a sandbox game, they shouldnt interfere too much with it, cause forcing pilots into playing with others if they dont want to is not a sandbox.


as i was saying... i can send 10 commands to 10 different boxes at once using 10 fingers hitting 10 different keys.
no macros involved.
and surely no broadcasting.
Jason Xado
Doomheim
#3989 - 2015-04-10 13:03:26 UTC
Charadrass wrote:
if ccp is naming their game a sandbox game, they shouldnt interfere too much with it, cause forcing pilots into playing with others if they dont want to is not a sandbox.


This is what it all boils down to. CCP and the CSM are saying that if you want to do anything beyond just the basic gameplay you have to group up. They are gating end-game content for only people who are interested in the "group up" game play.

Before this change went into effect I could solo practically every aspect of Eve (eventually). Now I can only solo very basic content.

I still don't understand why the desire to force people to "group up" who are just simply not that interested in grouping up.


Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3990 - 2015-04-10 13:51:56 UTC
Charadrass wrote:
if ccp is naming their game a sandbox game, they shouldnt interfere too much with it, cause forcing pilots into playing with others if they dont want to is not a sandbox.


And being told that you can't automate twenty plus accounts simultaneously with the precision of a machine is not "forcing" you to play with others.

It's simply taking a grossly unfair advantage out of your hands, finally.

Your exact same argument can be made about botting, by the way.

"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.

Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#3991 - 2015-04-10 14:26:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Archibald Thistlewaite III
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?



Input Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing as mentioned in this thread's first post will cause you to break Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies.

Also using videofx and dxnothing to set up dashboard type setups where you have the UI of other clients seperated from the rest of the clients also break Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies.

Using round robin type keyboard controls. eg:

F1 = F1 client 1
F1 = F1 client 2
F1 = F1 client 3

This also breaks Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies.

Using set up that allow you to do:

F1 = F1 client 1
F2 = F1 client 2
F3 = F1 client 3

Also breaks Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies.

Now a few people are going to post below saying I don't know what I'm talking about. The interesting thing is, those people will have all posted in this thread claiming CCP are banning people either unfairly or for no reason. To put it simply they do not understand Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies and how they relate to the use of third party programs to play Eve.

This guy (3861) doesn't understand Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies.
wrote:
I set up a few xml files to multibox in eve without using broadcast or multiplex.
and i gave them to a few pilots plus ccp so they can see how we multibox.
one pilot of those got banned using this setup.
the others dont got a ban.

now tell me on what basis is ccp banning?

note: the xml files save the setup isboxer uses. so you can copy that setup from one to another pc.
there are no macros or else.

He gave someone else some files to use in a multi-boxing set up and someone got banned for it. Notice he is not banned himself. He shouldn't be listened to when it comes to decideing what is or is not allowed by Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies.

Ultimately its is down to you to ensure you don't break Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies. If you are using a third party program and you are unsure if you will be breaking Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies, then you need to decide if its worth the risk of your accounts being banned.

I do understand Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies, so I will continue to use third party programs as I see fit. This player (4032)
Nolak Ataru wrote:
I stopped my usage of ISBoxer and de-subbed my accounts in protest after Jan 1.
doesn't understand Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies and has stopped using ISBoxer. Interestingly Nolak has been quite vocal in saying what is allowed by Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies but he stopped using ISBoxer on Jan 1st. I dread to think how many players have been banned because they believed what he said.

These people do not understand Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies and should not be listened to. They see CCP banning people and because they think those people are doing nothing wrong, they come to the forums and claim CCP is banning them unfairly. Instead of realising they are wrong about what is allowed or not allowed by Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies.

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'

Nolak Ataru
Unsanitary Landfill
#3992 - 2015-04-10 14:31:51 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And being told that you can't automate twenty plus accounts simultaneously with the precision of a machine is not "forcing" you to play with others.
It's simply taking a grossly unfair advantage out of your hands, finally.
Your exact same argument can be made about botting, by the way.

You're conflating ISBoxing and botting. Stop it. You're only underlining your own ignorance of both.

I shall attempt to give an ELI5 shortened explanation:
Botting is when you automate gameplay using a program, where "automate" means "without human input". The program is not subjected to what is called "human error" in science and statistics, and does not have "reaction times", i.e. "time to react to a change or situation". These programs have what is known colloquially in coding language as "modules". These modules dictate to the program what it does in a situation without waiting on human input. These programs are very complex and flexible. One of the most clear examples is the D2NT program for Diablo 2 botting.

ISBoxer is a program that does not allow a player to bot. It is impacted by "human error" and the GIGO Theory (bad inputs give bad outputs). It requires constant human input to function, which increases the chance and impact of "human error". ISBoxer also relies on a player's "reaction times" as it cannot perform it's own actions without input from the player. The player must still PLEX or pay for each account, he must have the hardware to run however many accounts he wants, and must interact with these accounts. The only people who think ISBoxer is botting are those who are uninformed or those who cry at anyone who is perceived to have an "unfair advantage", including boosters, implants, and OGBs, using the most nebulous definition of "advantage" in the world.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3993 - 2015-04-10 14:34:40 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:

You're conflating ISBoxing and botting. Stop it. You're only underlining your own ignorance of both.


They're extremely similar, that's why you want to avoid the comparison.

"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.

Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#3994 - 2015-04-10 14:38:35 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:

(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.

You did not directly say "isboxer = cheating" but your attitude regarding anyone using ISBoxer certainly painted that picture.
No, you didn't mention the botting policy, but you did talk about bots, which are decidedly different from boxers. I said that your statement regarding what would be interpreted as a bot was strange given that CCP has always banned bots.

Quote:
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.

Very hard to post proof here when CCP deletes such posts. Come over to the dual-boxing forums and ask there and you'll get your proof. You still have no proof yourself of anything you've claimed, so every time you harp on ME not providing proof you merely underscore your lack of proof when I present mine.

Quote:
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 was not the one who set up the meeting between the ISBoxers and Falcon; that was a CSM member and another multiboxer. They have not deigned to show me a picture as that could be construed to be "sharing private correspondences" so the screenshots were not distributed. But please, continue to chase straws.


Thank you for admitting you have been lying and that you are unwilling or unable to provide any proof as to your claims, especially about your claim CCP Falcon has lied to you.

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'

Nolak Ataru
Unsanitary Landfill
#3995 - 2015-04-10 14:39:19 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
You're conflating ISBoxing and botting. Stop it. You're only underlining your own ignorance of both.

They're extremely similar, that's why you want to avoid the comparison.

A Corvette is similar to a F150, but it don't mean the F150 can out-run a Corvette, or that a Corvette can pull as much as a F150.
My netbook is similar to my gaming desktop, but my netbook can barely run Minecraft at it's lowest settings.
There are many creatures in nature that seem similar but aren't.

Just because something looks similar does not mean they are identical.
Nolak Ataru
Unsanitary Landfill
#3996 - 2015-04-10 14:42:06 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Thank you for admitting you have been lying and that you are unwilling or unable to provide any proof as to your claims, especially about your claim CCP Falcon has lied to you.

Bzzt, wrong. But good job attempting to move the goalposts, and admitting you yourself have no proof that ISBoxing is bad, or violates the EULA in ways that other programs do not.
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#3997 - 2015-04-10 14:47:12 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Thank you for admitting you have been lying and that you are unwilling or unable to provide any proof as to your claims, especially about your claim CCP Falcon has lied to you.

Bzzt, wrong. But good job attempting to move the goalposts, and admitting you yourself have no proof that ISBoxing is bad, or violates the EULA in ways that other programs do not.


You just said ISBoxer violates the EULA.

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#3998 - 2015-04-10 14:47:50 UTC
Charadrass wrote:
if ccp is naming their game a sandbox game, they shouldnt interfere too much with it, cause forcing pilots into playing with others if they dont want to is not a sandbox.


as i was saying... i can send 10 commands to 10 different boxes at once using 10 fingers hitting 10 different keys.
no macros involved.
and surely no broadcasting.


Tell me more about how CCP forced you to play with others. I really want to hear it because I am of course forced to follow the exact same rules as you do and I can do whatever I want in the game alone all by myself without interaction with other player if I see fit.
Nolak Ataru
Unsanitary Landfill
#3999 - 2015-04-10 14:57:45 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Thank you for admitting you have been lying and that you are unwilling or unable to provide any proof as to your claims, especially about your claim CCP Falcon has lied to you.

Bzzt, wrong. But good job attempting to move the goalposts, and admitting you yourself have no proof that ISBoxing is bad, or violates the EULA in ways that other programs do not.

You just said ISBoxer violates the EULA.

Alright, if you want to nitpick, I shall acquiesce:
ISBoxer violates 6A2, but not in the way you think.
TS3 violates 6A2.
Mumble violates 6A2
Overwolf violates 6A2
Steam Overlay violates 6A2.
EVE-Online Preview violates 6A2.
Windows Aero violates 6A2.
PYFA violates 6A3.
EFT violates 6A3.
Fuzzworks violates 6A3.
That new market program violates 6A3.

I'm probably missing a bit, but this was what just came to me off the top of my head.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#4000 - 2015-04-10 14:58:04 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Charadrass wrote:
if ccp is naming their game a sandbox game, they shouldnt interfere too much with it, cause forcing pilots into playing with others if they dont want to is not a sandbox.
And being told that you can't automate twenty plus accounts simultaneously with the precision of a machine is not "forcing" you to play with others.

It's simply taking a grossly unfair advantage out of your hands, finally.

Your exact same argument can be made about botting, by the way.
Out of curiosity, what makes it "grossly unfair"? I have a very powerful machine, could quite easily run 40 accounts without any additional software, and am fairly confident that with mining mechanics being the way they are I could control them manually in 4 blocks of 10 (I've done 20 manually without issues). Is that not grossly unfair? In both cases everyone has access to the software and hardware to do it. What seems to be your issue is that you think it's that you don't want to to do what others are doing, therefore it's unfair that they are allowed.

Amusingly the main effects that people thought they were going to get - more ice for the little guys, lower PLEX prices - haven't happened and aren't likely to happen. I even chucked out a mining fleet yesterday to see how much can still be done manually. Took ~92% of a complete ice anomaly and buckets of tears in the process. The worry I have is players playing manually like that are still likely to get banned for being too efficient - we'll see if that occurs.

Botting is significantly more straining on both the game balance and the servers, and is more often than not used to fund RMT, so no, it's a vastly different argument.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.