These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

Petition - Full ban of multi boxing programs which duplicate clicks.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#101 - 2013-02-13 18:23:06 UTC
GreenWithEnvy wrote:
Does this mean that we have to go back to taped-together mice and keyboard with dowels over them? Because that convinced CCP pretty well last time to allow multiboxing SOFTWARE, because if they don't allow SOFTWARE people will just use HARDWARE.



Yes show us how you're going to make 30 or 100 toons repeat exactly the same task with a single command with your ubber rack of 100mices and keyboards/screens Lol

Make those 10+ to 100 multiboxing alt guys unhappy and if they leaves you know what happens?
-not a dozen unhappy accounts leaving but hundreds if not thousands, weird business model indeed when you know a single bad expansion cost about 16/20% loss in company employees.

Putting all your eggs in the same basket is looking for trouble and sooner or later it happens.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#102 - 2013-02-13 18:26:46 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
I do have to find amusement in all the people arguing semantics and morals in this thread.

Here's the long and short of it:

Money.

CCP exists to turn a profit; not to cater to you, or to entertain you, or to give you something to do in order to waste time. This may indeed be the method they use to part you from your money, but the money is the reason they exist. They are a business. Their EULA exists solely to maximize their income through protection of intellectual property, and customer retention.

Imagine for a moment that some of you got your way, and CCP disallowed any form of multi-client gameplay, and then suffered a subsequent loss of revenue due to multiboxers allowing their alt accounts to expire.

Can you honestly believe that CCP would suck it up and 'stay the course' based on some sort of principle? You truly expect that they would lose income, month after month, because the multiboxers took their money elsewhere, either directly or by no longer fueling the PLEX market? Or do you think they would roll back the decision, perhaps even reinforcing the legality of multiboxing software?

You might not like multiboxers, but I bet that CCP's bottom line does. Ten, or 20, or 100 accounts owned by the same person still have to be paid for somehow, and however that is, CCP turns profit, and we reap the benefits of an active Dev team. How many of you would have to quit the game entirely before you equal the subscription cost of even one of these hardcore multiboxers?

That is exactly the same argument used by botters to justify botting. When CCP was asked "why kill bots when they pay you?" this was the reply:

CCP Sreegs wrote:
The first question is one I haven't FULLY researched but the general consensus is that removing bots actually increases CCP's income because we have more happy customers. The idea that we would want people to bot for $15 is a false one, though I could see why some people would leap to that conclusion.


So would killing multiboxed fleets controlled by key duplicators result in more happy non-key duplicating customers, and hence more money for CCP? Maybe...

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Ohishi
Apocalypse Reign
#103 - 2013-02-13 18:27:28 UTC
Even if everyone who multiboxed only had 1 extra account, imagine how much revenue you lose by people, we'll say 25% of the total account holders multibox, canceling their 2 accounts over not being able to multibox. That would be over 100k accounts gone. I would bet that the percent of multiple account holders is higher and I know that most have more than just 1 extra account.

Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought.

Kathern Aurilen
#104 - 2013-02-13 18:31:22 UTC
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
While I know a lot of miners use multi-boxing (Orca + Hulk fleets), I still have to agree with this. Because all sentiments aside, considering that other thread on how CCP security wiped out several billion ISK from EvE Uni accounts because they supected someone of macro use (market profiteering)... it looks to me like a double-standard is happening here.

Either CCP needs to just give up & allow multi-boxing & the macros that make it possible, or enforce their rules on them all equally.

I know that, as a miner, this may be betraying my own "side" but I feel that integrity must rate higher. That some people would get banned and others overlooked when both are essentially doing the exact same thing - this is patently unfair.
I'm a miner and don't ISBoxer or multi-box to my own detriment(apparently).

No cuts, no butts, no coconuts!

Forum alt, unskilled in the ways of pewpew!
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#105 - 2013-02-13 18:34:52 UTC
Ohishi wrote:
Even if everyone who multiboxed only had 1 extra account, imagine how much revenue you lose by people, we'll say 25% of the total account holders multibox, canceling their 2 accounts over not being able to multibox. That would be over 100k accounts gone. I would bet that the percent of multiple account holders is higher and I know that most have more than just 1 extra account.

They can still multibox, they just have to control each client individually, not via a key duplicator. So a fleet of an Orca and two Hulks is fine.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#106 - 2013-02-13 18:37:10 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
I do have to find amusement in all the people arguing semantics and morals in this thread.

Here's the long and short of it:

Money.

CCP exists to turn a profit; not to cater to you, or to entertain you, or to give you something to do in order to waste time. This may indeed be the method they use to part you from your money, but the money is the reason they exist. They are a business. Their EULA exists solely to maximize their income through protection of intellectual property, and customer retention.

Imagine for a moment that some of you got your way, and CCP disallowed any form of multi-client gameplay, and then suffered a subsequent loss of revenue due to multiboxers allowing their alt accounts to expire.

Can you honestly believe that CCP would suck it up and 'stay the course' based on some sort of principle? You truly expect that they would lose income, month after month, because the multiboxers took their money elsewhere, either directly or by no longer fueling the PLEX market? Or do you think they would roll back the decision, perhaps even reinforcing the legality of multiboxing software?

You might not like multiboxers, but I bet that CCP's bottom line does. Ten, or 20, or 100 accounts owned by the same person still have to be paid for somehow, and however that is, CCP turns profit, and we reap the benefits of an active Dev team. How many of you would have to quit the game entirely before you equal the subscription cost of even one of these hardcore multiboxers?

That is exactly the same argument used by botters to justify botting. When CCP was asked "why kill bots when they pay you?" this was the reply:

CCP Sreegs wrote:
The first question is one I haven't FULLY researched but the general consensus is that removing bots actually increases CCP's income because we have more happy customers. The idea that we would want people to bot for $15 is a false one, though I could see why some people would leap to that conclusion.


So would killing multiboxed fleets controlled by key duplicators result in more happy non-key duplicating customers, and hence more money for CCP? Maybe...


The entire section of the EULA governing this is semantics; it's designed to foremost discourage revenue loss to RMT in the form of farming, and secondarily to promote customer retention by providing assurances of fair gameplay. Does botting in current iterations hurt the community? Yes, it does. Does it hurt CCP's bottom line? Yes, it does. Therefore it's disallowed.

If CCP believed they could make mad money from letting some people bot, while not also alienating that portion of their customer base that don't bot, and/or losing income to RMT 'gold farmers,' then you can bet botting would be allowed, too. CCP has to strike a fine line between disallowing all forms of multi-client play and thereby losing any potential income from it, and flying off the handle in the opposite direction, which discourages regular players altogether, also losing income.

Multiboxing software/alt-tab play is the fine line between those two things. I tab between two accounts regularly, because I usually have my trading/hauling account going in the background so that I don't have to keep logging in and out to do things with it. If I couldn't run them concurrently, then I wouldn't be paying for two accounts at all, since it would necessitate using twice the amount of playtime, which I do not have. I'd simply consolidate them onto the same account and save myself money. I pay for the convenience of two accounts that can do and train two different things at one time; remove that convenience, and you remove my personal incentive to pay for it.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#107 - 2013-02-13 18:47:29 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
...

The entire section of the EULA governing this is semantics; it's designed to foremost discourage revenue loss to RMT in the form of farming, and secondarily to promote customer retention by providing assurances of fair gameplay. Does botting in current iterations hurt the community? Yes, it does. Does it hurt CCP's bottom line? Yes, it does. Therefore it's disallowed.

If CCP believed they could make mad money from letting some people bot, while not also alienating that portion of their customer base that don't bot, and/or losing income to RMT 'gold farmers,' then you can bet botting would be allowed, too. CCP has to strike a fine line between disallowing all forms of multi-client play and thereby losing any potential income from it, and flying off the handle in the opposite direction, which discourages regular players altogether, also losing income.

Multiboxing software/alt-tab play is the fine line between those two things. I tab between two accounts regularly, because I usually have my trading/hauling account going in the background so that I don't have to keep logging in and out to do things with it. If I couldn't run them concurrently, then I wouldn't be paying for two accounts at all, since it would necessitate using twice the amount of playtime, which I do not have. I'd simply consolidate them onto the same account and save myself money. I pay for the convenience of two accounts that can do and train two different things at one time; remove that convenience, and you remove my personal incentive to pay for it.

You are not using key duplication as your clients are doing vastly different activities. Its not like "press one key, 30 ships undock. Fleet warp to belt. Press one key, 30 ships lock the nearest roid. Press one key, 30 ships turn on ice miners" and so on. The OP was talking about key duplication being something that should be defined to not be "Ordinary Game Play" and hence banned.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Dessau
The Scope
#108 - 2013-02-13 18:50:19 UTC
Multiboxers deserve our pity, not our scorn.
Kathern Aurilen
#109 - 2013-02-13 18:56:44 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
I do have to find amusement in all the people arguing semantics and morals in this thread.

Here's the long and short of it:

Money.

CCP exists to turn a profit; not to cater to you, or to entertain you, or to give you something to do in order to waste time. This may indeed be the method they use to part you from your money, but the money is the reason they exist. They are a business. Their EULA exists solely to maximize their income through protection of intellectual property, and customer retention.

Imagine for a moment that some of you got your way, and CCP disallowed any form of multi-client gameplay, and then suffered a subsequent loss of revenue due to multiboxers allowing their alt accounts to expire.

Can you honestly believe that CCP would suck it up and 'stay the course' based on some sort of principle? You truly expect that they would lose income, month after month, because the multiboxers took their money elsewhere, either directly or by no longer fueling the PLEX market? Or do you think they would roll back the decision, perhaps even reinforcing the legality of multiboxing software?

You might not like multiboxers, but I bet that CCP's bottom line does. Ten, or 20, or 100 accounts owned by the same person still have to be paid for somehow, and however that is, CCP turns profit, and we reap the benefits of an active Dev team. How many of you would have to quit the game entirely before you equal the subscription cost of even one of these hardcore multiboxers?
That sounds like botting should be allowed as long as its not out in the open and they just spread out the impact ang just not destroy one areas market.

I bet botters use the H-E-L-L outta some PLEX thus raising the isk price, encouraging more people to buy game time and sell them on the market

No cuts, no butts, no coconuts!

Forum alt, unskilled in the ways of pewpew!
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#110 - 2013-02-13 19:02:11 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:

You are not using key duplication as your clients are doing vastly different activities. Its not like "press one key, 30 ships undock. Fleet warp to belt. Press one key, 30 ships lock the nearest roid. Press one key, 30 ships turn on ice miners" and so on. The OP was talking about key duplication being something that should be defined to not be "Ordinary Game Play" and hence banned.


It wouldn't matter to me if I was. And it doesn't matter to me that someone else does. I don't think I could care any less that Old McMiner has 30 or 100 tricked out barges under ISBoxer command chewing through asteroids in hisec while I'm getting shot up in lowsec FW play. In fact, I'm glad that he's gaining all that subscription revenue for CCP, since it buys a lot of bandwidth and server maintenance. It also keeps the price of all the ships I lose low, so that I can lose more of them.

I appreciate that you don't like Old McMiner and his fleet of ISBoxer doppelgangers. But the fact is, he very likely pays more of the bills than either of us.

Ultimately, it doesn't even matter what we think. It matters what CCP's accountants and business managers think, based on data and metrics. If data shows them that botting costs them revenue, as it apparently does, there will be no botting. If it shows them that mutiboxing costs them revenue, then there will be no multiboxing. If, however, it shows that either would gain them a significant additional income over the long term, with minimal customer retention issues?

Well, guess what happens to that EULA.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#111 - 2013-02-13 19:07:29 UTC
Kathern Aurilen wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
SNIP
That sounds like botting should be allowed as long as its not out in the open and they just spread out the impact ang just not destroy one areas market.

I bet botters use the H-E-L-L outta some PLEX thus raising the isk price, encouraging more people to buy game time and sell them on the market


Whether it's allowed or not is, as always, up to CCP. I can totally understand why they don't allow true, automated, AFK botting, because it does hurt customer satisfaction and retention in its current iterations. In many cases it's not used by some in-game tycoon to PLEX and fund his in-game empire, but by RMT scams that remove income from CCP's pockets. And there's still likely plenty of it that goes undetected for long periods of time before CCP's internal reviewers can lock it down. I won't argue that there's a reason for the ban on botting; I won't even argue that things like ISBoxer can lead to technical (or non) abuse of the rules. But some of the suggestions in this thread that any form of multiclient play whatsoever be banned are borderline ridiculous.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#112 - 2013-02-13 19:08:13 UTC
Ohishi wrote:
Even if everyone who multiboxed only had 1 extra account, imagine how much revenue you lose by people, we'll say 25% of the total account holders multibox, canceling their 2 accounts over not being able to multibox. That would be over 100k accounts gone. I would bet that the percent of multiple account holders is higher and I know that most have more than just 1 extra account.


You know those extra accounts and thx to isboxer, increase exponentially your IG income. This is a fact.
Less demand for plex drives prices down at an acceptable level the 'normal" player would actually buy it, plex price being driven down you need to sell +plex to get the same isk, how's this bad for CCP?

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Kate stark
#113 - 2013-02-13 19:49:52 UTC
Google Voices wrote:
"3.You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play."

Isboxer clearly breaks the EULA by facilitating the ability of a single person to use an army to facilitate the acquisition of items at an accelerated rate. You could not run 20 clients yourself at anywhere near the efficiency that Isboxer allows.



I guess the rules only apply when CCP says they apply. Lol




except you're not gaining anything at an "accelerated rate when compared to ordinary game play" therefore it's no breaking the eula.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.
Degren
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2013-02-13 19:57:35 UTC
A "whine thread" I actually feel like posting in? What is this?

My kneejerk reaction is "Yes, I agree with you" - I think you get to a point where multiboxing is no longer playing the game and kind of kills the "spirit" inherent in it.

That said, I find it very easy to ignore them or kill them. If people want to play the game like a job and try to squeeze every bit of isk/hour out of an asteroid or anom...fine. I don't care. Let them toil away.

And if they actually get enjoyment out of it, well, then yeah. Let them do so.

TL;DR: Multiboxing is pretty dumb, worrying about it is slightly dumber. Unless you're CCP.

Hello, hello again.
Jason Xado
Doomheim
#115 - 2013-02-13 19:58:04 UTC
What if I hired 100 minimum wage workers to click 100 mice at my command. Isn't that the same thing? IsBoxer just levels the playing field for the people who can't afford 100 workers.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#116 - 2013-02-13 19:59:14 UTC
Just because it's not 'botting' does not make it right.

/signed

I fully support this initiative.

Not to sound like Donna Summer, but I work hard for the money. Nobody should have EVE-as-EZ.




"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Hammer Borne
Doomheim
#117 - 2013-02-13 20:06:56 UTC
I would prefer CCP just simply change the mechanics of the activities such that automated commands and command duplication are so ineffective that they are not worth doing for creating a mindless isk faucet.

Example: Ice mining is a bore fest of waiting for a cycle. So, make it a mini-game that relies on responses to screen stimuli. No more bots, and no command duplication. Give rewards (more ice) to those who perform it well and less to those who are not paying attention (down to zero).

Other idea:

Make the ice nodes move at high speeds and erratic velocities, and require ice mining ships to be manually piloted.

Surely there are better ideas than mine above, but you get my drift.
Kate stark
#118 - 2013-02-13 20:07:29 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Just because it's not 'botting' does not make it right.

/signed

I fully support this initiative.

Not to sound like Donna Summer, but I work hard for the money. Nobody should have EVE-as-EZ.






weakest argument ever.

why should i be penalised just because i can afford more accounts than you?

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#119 - 2013-02-13 20:11:38 UTC
You'd think this thinly veiled "EvE Uni botter banned and we're pissed off" thread would have died when CCP spelled out exactly what their stance was on the matter and fully detailed the reasons why.

Must be a slow day on the net for some folks. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
#120 - 2013-02-13 20:15:36 UTC
multiboxers got you down? 100 barge mining fleets stealin your 'roids. Try really old barge remover, works 99.5%* of the time.

*this ad is in no way responsible for any damages, or sec status lost in the products use.

wumbo