These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dave Stark
#201 - 2014-01-01 16:25:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Inspiration wrote:
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 or not loose face.


based on ice anomalies are the only source of ice in the game.

either miners want ice; or they don't. if they don't then there's no issue that needs fixing, if they do then your idea still doesn't solve anything.
Snagletooth Johnson
Snagle Material Services
CAStabouts
#202 - 2014-01-01 16:29:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Snagletooth Johnson
War Kitten wrote:
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.

Basically what they said was not alot. They muddied the waters in a bad attempt to clear it up. Instead of making clearly defined testaments, they made vague references to rather to widely generic terms while painstainkely avoiding any attempt to define them in terms of their use in the EULA They, in effect, intentionally created a loophole from which they can jump through as needed. In the end it amounts to "If CCP is losing money, we will ban it. If CCP is making money, we not ban it."
Inspiration
#203 - 2014-01-01 16:33:23 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
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 or not loose face.


based on ice anomalies are the only source of ice in the game.


Oh and null sec alliances aren't mining ice? High sec is only part of the whole ICE story!

And you really think that people will do everything to get the last bit of ICE in high sec, no matter the increase in effort and time? That simply would show you don't grasp people nor economics.

And you forget, ICE is NOT what people are after...ISK is. There are other activities one can do in EVE too you know, if ICE is harder, others become more attractive proportionally.

I am serious!

Necromendes
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#204 - 2014-01-01 16:33:38 UTC
Magna Mortem wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
Magna Mortem wrote:
You need to understand that your logic is sound, but built on the wrong assumptions. You lack basic understanding of how to analyse a problem properly.


which you are of course capable of, right?
Then explain why people who drag a horde of copycat bots with them using said 3rd party tools are not automating anything?

Magna Mortem wrote:
Use google and learn what the difference between duplication and creation of information is, which has nothing to do with software at all.


its not about creation or duplication of anything at all, the core issue is the purpose why its done and what the result is.

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.



Spending time setting your bots/automation does not make it manual. So your argument would be turning on ur digital TV manually makes it a analog TV?
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#205 - 2014-01-01 16:33:48 UTC
Tippia wrote:
What input does it create that wasn't there already?

input on all isboxed clients. It wasnt performed by user but just copies of that transmitted by some piece of 3rd party software.

Tippia wrote:
In other words, the topic is multiboxing, which is what isboxer is used for.

no, its not what isboxer is used for. You dont need any tools for multiboxing, just for automating. This is what this topic is about.

Tippia wrote:

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.

it happened.


Tippia wrote:

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

its probably the reason they dont do anything about it, nonetheless its why topics like this exist and will keep popping up,
because people consider hordes of copycats controlled by 1 dude with no work involved shouldnt be legal in game.

Tippia wrote:

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…


not yet, this is why we post here
Necromendes
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#206 - 2014-01-01 16:38:00 UTC
Tippia wrote:

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”.



No point arguing with you when you choose to misinterpret the EULA. You can interpret it how ever you like to hear it. What's important here is how CCP interpret it for players. They have to make a clear stand ban it or allow all form of 3rd party replicator/bots/ automate programs.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#207 - 2014-01-01 16:38:25 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
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.
Automation (or rather the lack thereof) of input generation is the very core of the topic.

Quote:
no its not.
Yes it is. If the input originates with the user, it's all fine by CCP standards; if it originates from some automated piece of software it is considered automation and will get you a stern talking-to by your friendly local GM.

Quote:
no, you need to read all parts of quoted text.
…which still say exactly what I said.

Quote:
why is it irrelevant?
Because the ability to multibox without software has no bearing on whether or not multiboxing software is allowed (which is its).

Quote:
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.
It's not a minor detail. It's the crucial difference between mere multiboxing software that only replicates input (which is allowed) and botting software that generates its own input (which is not).
Dave Stark
#208 - 2014-01-01 16:39:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Inspiration wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
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 or not loose face.


based on ice anomalies are the only source of ice in the game.


Oh and null sec alliances aren't mining ice? High sec is only part of the whole ICE story!

And you really think that people will do everything to get the last bit of ICE in high sec, no matter the increase in effort and time? That simply would show you don't grasp people nor economics.

And you forget, ICE is NOT what people are after...ISK is. There are other activities one can do in EVE too you know, if ICE is harder, others become more attractive proportionally.


if isk is what people are after and if ice isn't worth mining then i go back to what i already said; there's no problem that needs fixing.
then if ice is what people are after, well i've already told you how bad your idea is.

if ice isn't what people want, isk is; then nobody would be mining to begin with so that's an argument more flawed than anything else presented in this thread.

your idea is still bad and doesn't solve anything for solo miners.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#209 - 2014-01-01 16:41:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Robert Caldera wrote:
input on all isboxed clients.
That input was there already and was performed by the user. Otherwise, there would be nothing to transmit to the clients.

Quote:
no, its not what isboxer is used for. You dont need any tools for multiboxing, just for automating.
Yes, that's what isboxer is used for. Just because you don't need tools to multibox doesn't mean you can't use tools to do so. As it happens, multiboxing — with or without tools — is allowed.

Quote:
it happened.
Prove it.

Quote:
its probably the reason they dont do anything about it
Yes, the fact that it's allowed is indeed the reason they don't do anything about it: because there is nothing to do anything about.

Necromendes wrote:
No point arguing with you when you choose to misinterpret the EULA. You can interpret it how ever you like to hear it. What's important here is how CCP interpret it for players. They have to make a clear stand ban it or allow all form of 3rd party replicator/bots/ automate programs.
How am I misinterpreting the EULA? All I'm doing is repeating how CCP interprets it. They have made a clear stand: replication and multiboxing is allowed; automation and botting is not.

Since they are vastly different entities, it would be pretty stupid to treat them as if they were the same. As such, they've chosen to ban one and allow the other. Why should they change that policy and suddenly treat them as if they were the same thing?
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#210 - 2014-01-01 16:47:55 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Automation (or rather the lack thereof) of input generation is the very core of the topic.

not at all, automation is not about generation of anything, its basically everything what relieves someone from
efforts doing some work which can be done by some kind of device/program, regardless of how exactly it is
implemented, by copying data or generating some data or whatever.

Tippia wrote:
Yes it is. If the input originates with the user, it's all fine by CCP standards; if it originates from some automated piece of software it is considered automation and will get you a stern talking-to by your friendly local GM.

yes, this is why we post here. CCP doesnt do anything about isbox but some of us see the matter in a different light.
Technically its automation by all means, for said reasons.

Tippia wrote:
…which still say exactly what I said.

you missed the part saying about "accelerated manner", the main reason people use isbox for orchestratign whole fleets of ships using 1 client.

Tippia wrote:
Because the ability to multibox without software has no bearing on whether or not multiboxing software is allowed (which is its).

but we're talking about multiboxing software in a certain context here, namely automating fleets of ships with 1 single client, not multiboxing as such where a dude alt-tabs between clients to perform tasks, which is totally fine.

Tippia wrote:
It's not a minor detail. It's the crucial difference between mere multiboxing software that only replicates input (which is allowed) and botting software that generates its own input (which is not).

no, replication or creating is totally irrelevant technical detail of the idea in background of the topic, controlling whole fleets with 1 single client and bunch of bots following you on each single step your main ship does.
Inspiration
#211 - 2014-01-01 16:53:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Inspiration
Dave Stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
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 or not loose face.


based on ice anomalies are the only source of ice in the game.


Oh and null sec alliances aren't mining ice? High sec is only part of the whole ICE story!

And you really think that people will do everything to get the last bit of ICE in high sec, no matter the increase in effort and time? That simply would show you don't grasp people nor economics.

And you forget, ICE is NOT what people are after...ISK is. There are other activities one can do in EVE too you know, if ICE is harder, others become more attractive proportionally.


if isk is what people are after and if ice isn't worth mining then i go back to what i already said; there's no problem that needs fixing.
then if ice is what people are after, well i've already told you how bad your idea is.

if ice isn't what people want, isk is; then nobody would be mining to begin with so that's an argument more flawed than anything else presented in this thread.

your idea is still bad and doesn't solve anything for solo miners.


The miners aren't after the ICE, they just sell isotopes for profit to those who need those isotopes. No 50 man multiboxer is going to need all the isotopes he mines. I think that you will be able to agree with!

My argument is simply that you can with reasonable changes affect the efficiency of the current large static fleets with a lower 'makes sense to do' point, then is currently the case. Lower efficiency simple means less ISK income, meaning they will adjust/break up in smaller groups controlled by more players and compete against each other, lowering efficiency again. Add some small sites and everyone can pick a slice if they beat the competition in their own fleet size class!

"if ice isn't what people want, isk is; then nobody would be mining to begin with so that's an argument more flawed than anything else presented in this thread."

You are assuming again (which is the mother of all.....). Ice mining with 50 accounts to fund a lush lifestyle on a few PVP accounts is what makes it work contrary to your thinking. No 50 man multiboxer will do anything more then ice mining with those accounts as nothing scales so well. This makes it fact...they are used to fund other activities that use far less accounts. Which in turn makes your whole reasoning way out of line of that of the person multiboxing!

Feel good that this is the dumbest thing you read in this thread.....fact is that you lack any cranial activity to speak off yourself. End of discussion!

I am serious!

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#212 - 2014-01-01 16:54:17 UTC
Tippia wrote:
That input was there already and was performed by the user. Otherwise, there would be nothing to transmit to the clients.

yes it was done in 1 client, then copied/broadcasted to other clients with the sole purpose of automation.

Tippia wrote:
Yes, that's what isboxer is used for. Just because you don't need tools to multibox doesn't mean you can't use tools to do so. As it happens, multiboxing — with or without tools — is allowed.

you might use it if you want but if you use it for automating clients, you're on thin ice according to GM statement someone linked few posts above. And this is what this thread is about.

Tippia wrote:
Prove it.

holy ****, do I really need to dig in that dumb board again? OK

Tippia wrote:
Yes, the fact that it's allowed is indeed the reason they don't do anything about it: because there is nothing to do anything about.

things change sometimes, like stance on isboxer will at some point hopefully. This is why we post here.

Tippia wrote:
How am I misinterpreting the EULA? All I'm doing is repeating how CCP interprets it. They have made a clear stand: replication and multiboxing is allowed; automation and botting is not.

isboxer for fleet orchestration and copycats IS automation and even CCP says said tools contain parts which would induce EULA violation, which in fact are.
Dave Stark
#213 - 2014-01-01 17:00:01 UTC
Inspiration wrote:
The miners aren't after the ICE, they just sell isotopes for profit to those who need those isotopes. No 50 man multiboxer is going to need all the isotopes he mines. I think that you will be able to agree with!

My argument is simply that you can with reasonable changes affect the efficiency of the current large static fleets with a lower 'makes sense to do' point, then is currently the case. Lower efficiency simple means less ISK income, meaning they will adjust/break up in smaller groups controlled by more players and compete against each other, lowering efficiency again. Add some small sites and everyone can pick a slice if they beat the competition in their own fleet size class!

"if ice isn't what people want, isk is; then nobody would be mining to begin with so that's an argument more flawed than anything else presented in this thread."

You are assuming again (which is the mother of all.....). Ice mining with 50 accounts to fund a lush lifestyle on a few PVP accounts is what makes it work contrary to your thinking. No 50 man multiboxer will do anything more then ice mining with those accounts as nothing scales so well. This makes it fact...they are used to fund other activities that use far less accounts. Which in turn makes your whole reasoning way out of line of that of the person multiboxing!

Feel good that this is the dumbest thing you read in this thread.....fact is that you lack any cranial activity to speak off yourself. End of discussion!


so big fleets send half of their miners while the other half do something else, solo miners are still screwed and your idea is still bad.

you've suggested an idea that simply doesn't help smaller miners and are now resulting to insults when i simply point it out every time you fail to justify your bad idea.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#214 - 2014-01-01 17:03:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
here you go if you can read german:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3592753#post3592753

GM stating clearly that input broadcasts across clients is considered as automation, which makes perfectly sense.
Further, he correctly refers to the "accelerated rate" part in EULA part I quoted earlier in this thread.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#215 - 2014-01-01 17:03:13 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
not at all
Since it's the distinction CCP makes between what is and what isn't allowed, it most certainly is at the very core of the topic. Automation of input isn't allowed; replication is. You can stomp your feet and try to redefine one as the other as much as you like, but that doesn't change the rules or the way CCP interprets them.

Quote:
CCP doesnt do anything about isbox but some of us see the matter in a different light.
Technically its automation by all means, for said reasons.
…and as mentioned, your technicalities don't matter because the distinction CCP makes depends on where the input originates — not how it is delivered.

Quote:
you missed the part saying about "accelerated manner"
No, I didn't. You're just not grasping what the rule entails. Also, isboxer does not allow you to acquire anything at an accelerated manner (yet another reason why it's allowed): you have to do it as the same speed and intensity as everyone else, since there is no automation or server-tricking going on that either lets your client play more than you do or faster than your actual abilities allow.

Quote:
but we're talking about multiboxing software in a certain context here, namely automating fleets of ships with 1 single client, not multiboxing as such where a dude alt-tabs between clients to perform tasks, which is totally fine.
Actually, no, we're talking about the legality of multiboxing software in the context of just using it as mutiboxing software: as a way to replicate input without automation. I've never talking about alt-tabiing between clients. As it happens, multiboxing software is allowed. Botting — which is a completely different thing — is not.

Quote:
no, replication or creating is totally irrelevant technical detail
Incorrect. Replication vs. automation is the core distinction that makes multiboxing software legal and botting software illegal in face of the EULA.
Dave Stark
#216 - 2014-01-01 17:04:37 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
here you go if you can read german:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3592753#post3592753

GM stating clearly that input broadcasts across clients is considered as automation, which makes perfectly sense.

it isn't clear at all, it's in german.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#217 - 2014-01-01 17:06:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Tippia wrote:
Since it's the distinction CCP makes between what is and what isn't allowed, it most certainly is at the very core of the topic. Automation of input isn't allowed; replication is. You can stomp your feet and try to redefine one as the other as much as you like, but that doesn't change the rules or the way CCP interprets them.

I dont need to stomp with my feets, I linked a GM response on this matter.


dropped the wall of remaining bulls***

Dave Stark wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
here you go if you can read german:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3592753#post3592753

GM stating clearly that input broadcasts across clients is considered as automation, which makes perfectly sense.

it isn't clear at all, it's in german.


well they always said using 3rd party tools is your own risk, they can ban you at will and dont need any further reasoning at all. But for you their stance might be of some interest, assuming you can read it - otherwise bad for you.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#218 - 2014-01-01 17:11:28 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
yes it was done in 1 client, then copied/broadcasted to other clients with the sole purpose of automation.
No automation took place as far as the EULA is concerned.

Quote:
you might use it if you want but if you use it for automating clients
…then the problem is in the botting software, not the multiboxing software. They are completely separate considerations.

Quote:
holy ****, do I really need to dig in that dumb board again? OK
It never happened. I know the incident you're talking about and the thread it spawned. Guess where it ended up? Pointing to the official Lead GM statement that multiboxing software is not against the EULA.

Quote:
isboxer for fleet orchestration and copycats IS automation
Incorrect. It is just replication, which is allowed. Your attempts to redefine one as the other does not change how the terms are used as far as the EULA is concerned.
Dave Stark
#219 - 2014-01-01 17:13:36 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
well they always said using 3rd party tools is your own risk, they can ban you at will and dont need any further reasoning at all. But for you their stance might be of some interest, assuming you can read it - otherwise bad for you.

so it says the same as the devblog says?

you know, the devblog that says multiboxing software, used to mutlibox, is fine.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#220 - 2014-01-01 17:13:46 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
I dont need to stomp with my feets, I linked a GM response on this matter.
So why are you? The Lead GM response on the matter is still — and always has been — that multiboxing software is allowed. Every time people have asked, the answer has been that the policy has not changed.

Quote:
But for you their stance might be of some interest, assuming you can read it - otherwise bad for you.
For me, their stance doesn't matter in the slightest. What matters for multiboxers is that the official policy is that the EULA does not prohibit the use of multiboxing software.