These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 to Ban Isobox/Vec, bots and other similar program

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
celebro
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP
Goonswarm Federation
#181 - 2014-01-01 15:35:23 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
AFK Hauler wrote:
automated (independent of a human)


here is your problem, you dont understand what automation is and think its some kind of AI or some sh*t - its not.



Interesting, so playing chords in a piano is automated because I have more than 1 finger?
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#182 - 2014-01-01 15:36:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Dave Stark wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
AFK Hauler wrote:
automated (independent of a human)


here is your problem, you dont understand what automation is and think its some kind of AI or some sh*t - its not.

no, he understands it perfectly; if there's no human input and independent of a human it's an automated process.


I linked wikipedia above on previous page. Its very simple go and read it.
What you're saying is that automatic transmission is not automated at all, because it doesnt do anything without driver pressing on gas?

Magna Mortem wrote:

Automation requires no continuous input. Automation requires only initial input, like a program, an algorithm or simply pressing the START button. Multiboxing requires continous input, which gets duplicated. Without this continuous input, multiboxing doesn't work.


no it doesnt.
I quote parts of wikipedia here on same topic:

Automation or automatic control, is the use of various control systems for operating equipment such as machinery, processes in factories, boilers and heat treating ovens, switching in telephone networks, steering and stabilization of ships, aircraft and other applications with minimal or reduced human intervention. Some processes have been completely automated.

isbox reduces the amount of work siginicantly by automating x copycats you dont need to control by yourself on each instance.
Obvious actually.
Inspiration
#183 - 2014-01-01 15:37:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Inspiration
Dave Stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
It is so easy to fix this issue, spawn many more smaller fields and make the big ones a little smaller. Also do not restrict them to specific systems. Makes it less attractive for a large group or a concentrated single player multi-boxing.


actually it makes it more attractive. the faster you wipe out a site the sooner you start it respawning; the more you can harvest from it in a given period.


That's all fine, but if they are in unknown systems all over eve, the idle time off moving the mining fleet and more compklex logistics chain will reduce the effectiveness of scaling up the the level of 50 accounts (a number which i highly doubt anyway)


if they are in unknown systems all over eve it makes no difference if you're multiboxing or not, it's a giant pain in the ass for everyone and nothing has been addressed other than "mining ice is now more of a pain in the ass for everyone"

moving a whole fleet takes the same time as moving 1 ship.


You are missing a very important detail here, moving a whole fleet for a spot of ice that is depleted by a large fleet in minutes means you are constantly moving. Single accounts have a much more favorable time mining versus time moving ratio!

The cost of moving a large fleet is higher, even if it takes exactly the same time when using multibox software. This puts a natural limit on the scale you can use. For larger sites it works and you can out compete competition, for smaller sites, the smaller group wins out!

I am serious!

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#184 - 2014-01-01 15:41:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Robert Caldera wrote:
what kind of ******** piece of response is this cr*p?
The kind you deserve.
For the purpose of this thread — the context being multiboxing vs. botting in EVE — the difference is that replication replicates input whereas automation generates input. It has nothing to do with AI and everything to do with the origin of the input. This is why your precious wiki is meaningless: because it talks in general terms about all kinds of control mechanisms that have zero bearing on the topic at hand.

All that matters here where the input originates from.

Quote:
not really true. Read below a relevant extract from EULA
…which says exactly what I said. Third-party software in general is allowed as long as it doesn't do a couple of specified things: modify the content or gameplay, read or modify the client-server data; access the game server.

Quote:
no, you dont need any software for multiboxing.
Irrelevant. I'm still talking about multiboxing software, which you're confusing with botting software. Multiboxing only replicates user input, and the user has to respond to any output the client provides; botting software generates input of its own without any user input and also processes any output the client creates in response.

Quote:
no, he does not.
Yes he does. The user says A; all clients receive A. Nothing more, nothing less. The software simply replicates the input across multiple clients — it does not automate anything. The user is in complete 1:1 control over what is being fed into the clients.

Quote:
this doesnt even make sense at all, what??
The user is in complete 1:1 control over what is being fed into the clients. Even if we were to consider “no output” as an output, it is only outputted because the user is outputting “no output”.
Maekchu
Doomheim
#185 - 2014-01-01 15:46:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Maekchu
Read the first pages and didn't bother to read the rest.

Basically the OP, doesn't know how ISBoxer works, therefore thinks it is breaching the EULA. However, this is not the case.

There has also been a devblog on the matter, and I can only suggest the OP to google it, since it will answer whatever questions he has on the matter.

Now can we please worry about more significant matters, like how we can make more ships explode?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#186 - 2014-01-01 15:46:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Robert Caldera wrote:
not wrong but very very true.
What input does it create that wasn't there already?

Quote:
noone argues about multiboxing here. Topic is isbox which is more than that.
In other words, the topic is multiboxing, which is what isboxer is used for.

Quote:
for what I read in EULA and what isbox in fact is, it is not wrong but very true.
a GM in german subforum even confirmed this stance of CCP toward isbox, however I wont do the work and dig there again.

This never happened. Instead, CCP have consistently said that multiboxing is ok — software-assisted or not.
ISBoxer is not a clear violation of the EULA, or CCP would have said so. Using it will not get you banned.

So you are 100% wrong here, as history and numerous official statements (from the people who actually decide these things) have shown.

Oh, and before you go and misquote that last statement, realise this: CCP cannot say that “software X is ok”, but they can say that “software Y is not ok”. In spite of many many many years of people stupidly complaining about this and wilfully misrepresenting what's being said in the EULA, isboxer has never fallen into the “not ok” category…
Dave Stark
#187 - 2014-01-01 15:46:52 UTC
Inspiration wrote:
You are missing a very important detail here, moving a whole fleet for a spot of ice that is depleted by a large fleet in minutes means you are constantly moving. Single accounts have a much more favorable time mining versus time moving ratio!

The cost of moving a large fleet is higher, even if it takes exactly the same time when using multibox software. This puts a natural limit on the scale you can use. For larger sites it works and you can out compete competition, for smaller sites, the smaller group wins out!


when you're making 20m/hour the fleet making 400m/hour doesn't give a **** if it's moving because it's making 20x as much as you, and it's still going to move, because it's still going to make 20x as much as you.
moving is irrelevant when they're still making as much isk as they are. not to mention if they empty out a spawn in 1 cycle it lets them control spawn timers so they can minimise the distance they have to travel.

not to mention when the solo player gets there and finds nothing; his cost is higher because he now has to move again and he has gained no isk for his first move thus enforcing that being a solo player in an mmo is ******* ********.

the smaller group never wins.
Dave Stark
#188 - 2014-01-01 15:48:21 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
What you're saying is that automatic transmission is not automated at all, because it doesnt do anything without driver pressing on gas?


no, i'm not talking about cars. i feel when you stopped talking about eve you admitted that you were wrong and have nothing more to contribute to our discussion. please feel free to stop posting now that you've run out of poorly constructed arguments.
Inspiration
#189 - 2014-01-01 15:51:45 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
You are missing a very important detail here, moving a whole fleet for a spot of ice that is depleted by a large fleet in minutes means you are constantly moving. Single accounts have a much more favorable time mining versus time moving ratio!

The cost of moving a large fleet is higher, even if it takes exactly the same time when using multibox software. This puts a natural limit on the scale you can use. For larger sites it works and you can out compete competition, for smaller sites, the smaller group wins out!


when you're making 20m/hour the fleet making 400m/hour doesn't give a **** if it's moving because it's making 20x as much as you, and it's still going to move, because it's still going to make 20x as much as you.
moving is irrelevant when they're still making as much isk as they are. not to mention if they empty out a spawn in 1 cycle it lets them control spawn timers so they can minimise the distance they have to travel.

not to mention when the solo player gets there and finds nothing; his cost is higher because he now has to move again and he has gained no isk for his first move thus enforcing that being a solo player in an mmo is ******* ********.

the smaller group never wins.


Your logic is so flawed, not sure where to begin, i will just accept you don't understand the basic economics behind this and stop arguing.

I am serious!

Magna Mortem
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#190 - 2014-01-01 15:55:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Magna Mortem
Can't educate somebody who quotes wikipedia without actually understanding it and believing it is an authority that doesn't require actual thinking.

Continuing this is pointless.

OP. After several attempts of people trying to educate you, you failed to see that you are not actually a genious amongst idiots. As all do, who can't see beyond their limited view of logic and reasoning. It's the other way round. You might know, though, that dumb people will always believe that they are right, no matter how much evidence of the opposite is thrown at them.

No offense. You are one of way too many and I have to accept this sad fact.

edit.

Feel free to respond. I won't read it. I refuse to lower myself down to your level.
Dave Stark
#191 - 2014-01-01 15:56:58 UTC
Inspiration wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
You are missing a very important detail here, moving a whole fleet for a spot of ice that is depleted by a large fleet in minutes means you are constantly moving. Single accounts have a much more favorable time mining versus time moving ratio!

The cost of moving a large fleet is higher, even if it takes exactly the same time when using multibox software. This puts a natural limit on the scale you can use. For larger sites it works and you can out compete competition, for smaller sites, the smaller group wins out!


when you're making 20m/hour the fleet making 400m/hour doesn't give a **** if it's moving because it's making 20x as much as you, and it's still going to move, because it's still going to make 20x as much as you.
moving is irrelevant when they're still making as much isk as they are. not to mention if they empty out a spawn in 1 cycle it lets them control spawn timers so they can minimise the distance they have to travel.

not to mention when the solo player gets there and finds nothing; his cost is higher because he now has to move again and he has gained no isk for his first move thus enforcing that being a solo player in an mmo is ******* ********.

the smaller group never wins.


Your logic is so flawed, not sure where to begin, i will just accept you don't understand the basic economics behind this and stop arguing.


what's flawed about it? the big fleet still makes more isk/hour, and the little guy is ****** when he logs in and there's nothing for him to mine because the big fleet has already mined it.

your idea doesn't help the solo player vs the fleets at all, just because you don't want to accept that doesn't stop it being true. ice belts were moved in to smaller ice anomalies and here's a thread crying about it... what you want has already happened and it didn't help the little guy; doing it again still isn't going to help the little guy.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#192 - 2014-01-01 15:58:15 UTC
For those of you who haven't the time or inclination to find evidence contrary to your stances, here is CCP's responses this year about multiboxing, the EULA and you.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/client-modification-the-eula-and-you/?_ga=1.51020457.1425169091.1352311456

And here's a GM's post about it:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3069125#post3069125

Go read what CCP has to say about their own rules, then come back and **** into the wind some more if you want.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#193 - 2014-01-01 16:01:23 UTC
Odithia wrote:
Please ban all botters including the isboxer.

I realise they makes ships more affordable but in my opinion they are more a nuisance than an asset to CCP and us players as they are terrible for player retention.
Realizing they can't compete at all and will never be able to turn a lot of guys out of the game.

Otherwise we might as well allow macro and all kind of cheats, hey the cheater are paying their sub after all.



Also please keep banning the jita spammers, they bring nothing to the game.


I actually tried mining ore and ice for 2 months either side of the ice changes.
ore in high sec remains plentiful in the vast majority of systems 23/7.
ice is harder to get now but the locust swarm isn't that big an issue.
getting ganked requires moving to busy systems.

Most of what miners post in these forums is wrong is what i learned and also mining is dull and i will never do it again. It was never my main activity anyway i just made an alt to test the claims made on forums.

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85
Inspiration
#194 - 2014-01-01 16:06:51 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
You are missing a very important detail here, moving a whole fleet for a spot of ice that is depleted by a large fleet in minutes means you are constantly moving. Single accounts have a much more favorable time mining versus time moving ratio!

The cost of moving a large fleet is higher, even if it takes exactly the same time when using multibox software. This puts a natural limit on the scale you can use. For larger sites it works and you can out compete competition, for smaller sites, the smaller group wins out!


when you're making 20m/hour the fleet making 400m/hour doesn't give a **** if it's moving because it's making 20x as much as you, and it's still going to move, because it's still going to make 20x as much as you.
moving is irrelevant when they're still making as much isk as they are. not to mention if they empty out a spawn in 1 cycle it lets them control spawn timers so they can minimise the distance they have to travel.

not to mention when the solo player gets there and finds nothing; his cost is higher because he now has to move again and he has gained no isk for his first move thus enforcing that being a solo player in an mmo is ******* ********.

the smaller group never wins.


Your logic is so flawed, not sure where to begin, i will just accept you don't understand the basic economics behind this and stop arguing.


what's flawed about it? the big fleet still makes more isk/hour, and the little guy is ****** when he logs in and there's nothing for him to mine because the big fleet has already mined it.

your idea doesn't help the solo player vs the fleets at all, just because you don't want to accept that doesn't stop it being true. ice belts were moved in to smaller ice anomalies and here's a thread crying about it... what you want has already happened and it didn't help the little guy; doing it again still isn't going to help the little guy.


The flaw is that you neglect ISK made per account. If that efficiency drops, it becomes unattractive! A large predator goes after large prey, and will ignore the small rodens for a reason. It simply costs too much effort. What is currently missing in ICE mining content is variation and unpredictability. It is now so static and predictable (location/respawn) that you can scale high without loss of isk/hour per account. In some instances up to a point, even increase it due to knocking out competition and controlling spawns.

Take this away and the game changes, everyone will adapt en there becomes room for the smaller predators :)

I am serious!

Dave Stark
#195 - 2014-01-01 16:10:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Inspiration wrote:
The flaw is that you neglect ISK made per account. If that efficiency drops, it becomes unattractive! A large predator goes after large prey, and will ignore the small rodens for a reason. It simply costs too much effort. What is currently missing in ICE mining content is variation and unpredictability. It is now so static and predictable (location/respawn) that you can scale high without loss of isk/hour per account. In some instances up to a point, even increase it due to knocking out competition and controlling spawns.

Take this away and the game changes, everyone will adapt en there becomes room for the smaller predators :)


i didn't neglect it at all; it's still irrelevant because the isk/account is still better than the solo miner. the solo miner doesn't have boosts which are a more substantial gain than loss in travel times. point in case; we're still here in a thread crying about large fleets eating ice anoms. not to mention when the solo miner has nothing left to mine because the big fleets still strip the anoms as soon as they spawn (even more so now) their isk/hour is 0 there's no way bigger fleets can be worse off. it's an impossibility as they've got an easier time crowding out the solo player.

smaller players are hurt more by this change because by the time they get to an ice anomaly it will be gone quicker than it already is. your idea doesn't solve anything and makes it worse for everyone.
Inspiration
#196 - 2014-01-01 16:18:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Inspiration
Dave Stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
The flaw is that you neglect ISK made per account. If that efficiency drops, it becomes unattractive! A large predator goes after large prey, and will ignore the small rodens for a reason. It simply costs too much effort. What is currently missing in ICE mining content is variation and unpredictability. It is now so static and predictable (location/respawn) that you can scale high without loss of isk/hour per account. In some instances up to a point, even increase it due to knocking out competition and controlling spawns.

Take this away and the game changes, everyone will adapt en there becomes room for the smaller predators :)


i didn't neglect it at all; it's still irrelevant because the isk/account is still better than the solo miner. the solo miner doesn't have boosts which are a more substantial gain than loss in travel times. point in case; we're still here in a thread crying about large fleets eating ice anoms. not to mention when the solo miner has nothing left to mine because the big fleets still strip the anoms as soon as they spawn (even more so now) their isk/hour is 0 there's no way bigger fleets can be worse off. it's an impossibility as they've got an easier time crowding out the solo player.

smaller players are hurt more by this change because by the time they get to an ice anomaly it will be gone quicker than it already is. your idea doesn't solve anything and makes it worse for everyone.


A large fleet will NOT go after 3 ice asteroids that only last a minute before moving to another system. A solo player will be quite a time busy with the same amount! And random spawns means there will be often opportunity for fresh rocks, while a big fleet is munching some big field somewhere 5 jumps out. You do understand the concept of random i hope as so far i get the feel that you think everything happens in one system!

Oh, and i know because i use multiple accounts (no extra software tho).

I am serious!

Dave Stark
#197 - 2014-01-01 16:20:07 UTC
Inspiration wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
The flaw is that you neglect ISK made per account. If that efficiency drops, it becomes unattractive! A large predator goes after large prey, and will ignore the small rodens for a reason. It simply costs too much effort. What is currently missing in ICE mining content is variation and unpredictability. It is now so static and predictable (location/respawn) that you can scale high without loss of isk/hour per account. In some instances up to a point, even increase it due to knocking out competition and controlling spawns.

Take this away and the game changes, everyone will adapt en there becomes room for the smaller predators :)


i didn't neglect it at all; it's still irrelevant because the isk/account is still better than the solo miner. the solo miner doesn't have boosts which are a more substantial gain than loss in travel times. point in case; we're still here in a thread crying about large fleets eating ice anoms. not to mention when the solo miner has nothing left to mine because the big fleets still strip the anoms as soon as they spawn (even more so now) their isk/hour is 0 there's no way bigger fleets can be worse off. it's an impossibility as they've got an easier time crowding out the solo player.

smaller players are hurt more by this change because by the time they get to an ice anomaly it will be gone quicker than it already is. your idea doesn't solve anything and makes it worse for everyone.


A large fleet will NOT go after 3 ice asteroids that only last a minute before moving to another system. A solo player will be quite a time busy with the same amount! And random spawns means there will be often opportunity for fresh rocks, while a big fleet is munching some big field somewhere 5 jumps out. You do understand the concept of random i hope as so far i get the feel that you think everything happens in one system!



yes they will.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#198 - 2014-01-01 16:24:24 UTC
Tippia wrote:
The kind you deserve.
For the purpose of this thread — the context being multiboxing vs. botting in EVE — the difference is that replication replicates input whereas automation generates input. It has nothing to do with AI and everything to do with the origin of the input. This is why your precious wiki is meaningless: because it talks in general terms about all kinds of control mechanisms that have zero bearing on the topic at hand.

how do you think automation has something to do with data creation/duplication? It has no bearing on the topic itself, just a minor detail of matter.
Did you ever use copy&paste? Why? Because its an automated manner for creating same sequences of letters multiple times by copying them. Isnt it a sort of automation? You will deny that ofc, very likely without giving any reasoning.


Tippia wrote:

All that matters here where the input originates from.

no its not.

Tippia wrote:
…which says exactly what I said. Third-party software in general is allowed as long as it doesn't do a couple of specified things: modify the content or gameplay, read or modify the client-server data; access the game server.

no, you need to read all parts of quoted text.


Tippia wrote:
Irrelevant. I'm still talking about multiboxing software, which you're confusing with botting software. Multiboxing only replicates user input, and the user has to respond to any output the client provides; botting software generates input of its own without any user input and also processes any output the client creates in response.

why is it irrelevant? Because you say so? Noone sais a bot is acting on its own, a copycat bot imitating someone isnt a bot you tell?

Tippia wrote:
Yes he does. The user says A; all clients receive A. Nothing more, nothing less.

its a minor technical detail pretty irrelevant in context of the whole idea about dragging bunch of copycat bots with you without precisely controlling them each but in automated manner with aid of a 3rd party tool for input broadcasting.
Inspiration
#199 - 2014-01-01 16:24:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Inspiration
Dave Stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
The flaw is that you neglect ISK made per account. If that efficiency drops, it becomes unattractive! A large predator goes after large prey, and will ignore the small rodens for a reason. It simply costs too much effort. What is currently missing in ICE mining content is variation and unpredictability. It is now so static and predictable (location/respawn) that you can scale high without loss of isk/hour per account. In some instances up to a point, even increase it due to knocking out competition and controlling spawns.

Take this away and the game changes, everyone will adapt en there becomes room for the smaller predators :)


i didn't neglect it at all; it's still irrelevant because the isk/account is still better than the solo miner. the solo miner doesn't have boosts which are a more substantial gain than loss in travel times. point in case; we're still here in a thread crying about large fleets eating ice anoms. not to mention when the solo miner has nothing left to mine because the big fleets still strip the anoms as soon as they spawn (even more so now) their isk/hour is 0 there's no way bigger fleets can be worse off. it's an impossibility as they've got an easier time crowding out the solo player.

smaller players are hurt more by this change because by the time they get to an ice anomaly it will be gone quicker than it already is. your idea doesn't solve anything and makes it worse for everyone.


A large fleet will NOT go after 3 ice asteroids that only last a minute before moving to another system. A solo player will be quite a time busy with the same amount! And random spawns means there will be often opportunity for fresh rocks, while a big fleet is munching some big field somewhere 5 jumps out. You do understand the concept of random i hope as so far i get the feel that you think everything happens in one system!



yes they will.


That is quite some assumption there, based on what? There is no natural precedent, evolutionary speaking, and economically it doesn't make sense either. It is not as it can help achieve a monopoly for extra gains here. So what is the reason you think this way...or are you just lashing out to get what you want, or simply not to loose face?

I am serious!

Necromendes
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#200 - 2014-01-01 16:25:09 UTC
Sid Crash wrote:
If gathering stuff requires less effort or activity that means people will be willing to sell it for less, prices go down. This affects all miners but hurts the "normal" miners the most because their effort vs income is going down. Whether or not it's allowed is arbitrary and obviously CCP's choice. Doesn't change the fact that it does hurt "normal" miners.



Price will not go down because each day there is only X amount of ore in high sec. It will however falls to only a few ore sellers rather than the wealth being spread across to Eve players. This situation for general miners are worst off with the ice anomaly.