These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Multi Boxing for Unfair game play is bannable. Close Thread please

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
O2 jayjay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2014-08-07 18:18:49 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
O2 jayjay wrote:

Report this post all you want but you also broken several Forum rules. Dont worry i am a nice person and instead of reporting you for rude insulting comments ..


Jump, if you're feeling froggy. Go on, click that "Report" button. CLICK IT!!!

At least have the courage of your convictions.

But trust me, you have not yet seen me be rude or insulting. Thus far, all I have been is honest.


LOL lets go troll ive play frogger and beat the game my first try. o wait youre a young buck and dont even know what i am talking about. go play COD and GTFO
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#102 - 2014-08-07 18:19:47 UTC
O2 jayjay wrote:
its in the OP post bro. click the link and look for yourself

You mean the link that does not contain the restrictions you're lying about? Yes I've seen it. That's why I'm accusing you of lying when you say that GM comments contain restrictions that are not there: because you so very kindly provide the evidence that you're lying.

So, again the idea that you are not allowed to use a single computer is something you made up. You are misrepresenting a CCP official when you take your invention and falsely claiming that they said it, and that is a very very very very bad thing to do.
Paranoid Loyd
#103 - 2014-08-07 18:21:24 UTC
For the OP

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
O2 jayjay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#104 - 2014-08-07 18:21:33 UTC
If you dont like the fact that i am pushing to stop you multi boxing incursions then unsub and leave. Ill wait until i get a more appropriate answer that isnt from trolls.
Toshiro Hasegawa
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#105 - 2014-08-07 18:21:53 UTC
"Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA."

doesnt get more clear than that.

a) I dont beleive for a second it is a friend who got banned for bottin, i like my friends alot but i wouldnt spend hours on the forum arguering with strangers who dont have power to change anything about the situation.
b) botting and multiboxing are two unrelated issues - linking them is pointless and we are spending all our time discussing not why you got banned but why other people should get banned for doing something that is allowed.
c) you must be trolling . Nothing else makes logical sense.

History is the study of change.

O2 jayjay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2014-08-07 18:22:21 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
For the OP



made me chuckle
xalongskam
Star Holdings
#107 - 2014-08-07 18:22:32 UTC
O2 jayjay wrote:
xalongskam wrote:
O2 jayjay wrote:


It seems you dont understand the part where you have to use different computers. I got the fact that Multi boxing is allowed on different computer but as many other are posting you can log in on the same computer and multi box is acceptable. which in all actuality isnt. As posted earlier, A GM said as long as different computer were used, CCP didnt have a problem with Multi boxers. I will update the OP to clearly explain this.




Dude, use some common sense.
1. The post we are discussing was said to be OUTDATED.
2. Why would CCP care how many computers you use? It does not affect their game in any way. You are paying them to be able to play. They don't care how much you pay for your electricity or how often you go to your local computer store to buy a new machine.

You are obviously just trying to find a point that you can make, since the original point of your thread was already disproven.

On the other hand, if your friend was banned for using botting software, that's a whole different thing. Just compare it to what I said above:
1. The rule that botting is forbidden is NOT OUTDATED.
2. Botting affects the game very much by injecting ISK and items into the economy that otherwise wouldn't be there.




In the end your call that "every rule breaker should be banned" is nonsense. This is because
1. Multiboxing on 1 computer is no break of a rule, once more, this post is said to be OUTDATED.
2. Botting with let's say 5 accounts is as bad as for example breaking rule 18 (by copy-pasting a petition for example) and therefore you should be permabanned in both cases right? I believe that's also why theft and murder are punished the same way in rl, because in both cases you are "breaking the rules", OH WAIT ...

Also rule 26: We reserve the right to ban any user from the game without refund or compensation.

Deal with it.


Yes i saw the part where it said that it was out dated. I have stated that that part confused me but deleted it from the OP.

Nice that you saw it.

Also I didnt copy and paste a pention and this isnt a pention. this is a post in the General discussion

I know the difference between a forum post and a petition, thank you. Look at my post: Do you see the FOR EXAMPLE in my post? If you don't know what this means: I took it as an EXAMPLE, I did not accuse you of doing it

which I am making very valid points.

Points is plural, I see the point that you say multiboxing on 1 pc is not allowed, but not punished which is inconsistent. Did I miss another point? This point however is not valid at all, since it is based on an OUTDATED post.

Another thing if your post about CCP not caring about Multi boxing because they make isk

Correct

(which isnt the case since players will multi box incursions by themselves and plex all accounts

NOT correct. Do we need to have an in-depth discussion on economics now as well? To put it simple: The ONLY way that a plex appears on the market is that another player bought it for REAL money from CCP before. When you plex your account, that item that was generated by the payment goes away, so CCP got money, but did not generate Items or ISK ingame (which is exactly the same as when you pay a normal subscription)

. then why the perma ban for a player botting?

Because it is against the rules, as for the length see my next comment

wouldnt a 30 day ban get the point across?

NO! I do not know a SINGLE MMO where botting is allowed. So if you use botting software then you are most likely doing so while knowing that it is forbidden. If you are doing something although you know its wrong, then there is no point that CCP bring across anymore.

and if he was mining then take away all the ore that player mined with the 30 day ban.

You can't simply take away the ore, because it was already sold to another player; that guy built ships from it etc. As soon as a botter interacts with another player it is nearly impossible to reverse the damage that the botter has done to the game.

perma ban = no more $$ for CCP from that sucriber which makes less profit.

1. Its CCP's call to do so, if they don't want money from a botter then you have to live with that. 2. If CCP allowed botting lots of normal players would quit = less profit (and if you don't ban for botting, but still say its forbidden the same thing will happen after some time)

If that is outdated then that means the EUAL is still in effect which you cannot use a program that will manipulate currency/ game play/ ect.

And multiboxing on 1 computer manipulates currency/game play in what way?
Paranoid Loyd
#108 - 2014-08-07 18:23:29 UTC
Toshiro Hasegawa wrote:
Nothing else makes logical sense.


You are making the assumption, the OP knows how to use logic. All of the evidence contradicts that.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#109 - 2014-08-07 18:23:31 UTC
O2 jayjay wrote:

LOL lets go troll ive play frogger and beat the game my first try. o wait youre a young buck and dont even know what i am talking about. go play COD and GTFO

Evidently that young buck knows this game better than you do, bringing the toons age into it makes you look a lot sillier than you already did.

you may keep your femur, i have no need for a silly cane.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
O2 jayjay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2014-08-07 18:24:00 UTC
Toshiro Hasegawa wrote:
"Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA."

doesnt get more clear than that.

a) I dont beleive for a second it is a friend who got banned for bottin, i like my friends alot but i wouldnt spend hours on the forum arguering with strangers who dont have power to change anything about the situation.
b) botting and multiboxing are two unrelated issues - linking them is pointless and we are spending all our time discussing not why you got banned but why other people should get banned for doing something that is allowed.
c) you must be trolling . Nothing else makes logical sense.



Forgot another important KEYWORD. I got cha dont worry.

just incasw you missed it

In the same vein as what has been stated above

Also i dont really know if this rule is still in effect since the GM said it was old and outdated
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#111 - 2014-08-07 18:24:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
So, without the lies an sheer hypocrisy-induced idiocy of the OP, let's see what the actual stance is:

According to GM Lelouch “Multiboxing is not inherently in violation of our EULA, a player is not breaking the EVE game rules by virtue of simultaneously operating multiple accounts alone.” No mention of any kind of computer restriction, only that using multiboxing (be it software, hardware, or manual means) to control multiple accounts/clients is ok.

Also according to GM Lelouch, “Synergy allows you to move your mouse cursor to multiple different monitors which are hooked up to different computers and we do not have any qualms with players using the program for this purpose.” This is the part the OP so desperate wishes it would mean that you are only allowed to use multiple computers that he has to break the EULA and start lying about the GMs. Of course, as anyone gifted with the talent of reading can tell, it does nothing of the kind. It merely says that you may use Synergy for the purpose of controlling multiple computers.

There is no restriction implied in that statement. Especially not since it s/he goes on to clarify what a rule-breaking offence would look like: “If Synergy was used in some way to control your accounts for you without a need for you to be at your keyboard, then that would not be allowed”. She even specifies the general case — not just Synergy + multiple computers — as: “Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed.” Note the end: multiple game clients. No restriction on number of computers where those clients must reside.

Some time later, a new piece of software is on the market, and the official statement from GM Lelouch is: “I've watched the video in the original post in this thread (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU46QY8lMqI) and I can confirm that nothing done in this particular video is considered to be against the rules as operations within the game are being manually input and not automated.” The software and circumstances of the video? ISBoxer and multiple clients on a single desktop.

Some of these statements are quite old, but the cover the full gamut of issues and they never say what the OP wishes they'd say. Instead, there is a single line relentlessly drummed home: multiboxing is allowed; there is no restriction on the number of computers. And as luck would have it recent statements show that the old statements are still in effect — you are still allowed to multibox, even using multiple clients on the same computer.


So: you are lying OP. You are lying about something that the GMs will not look favourably upon: you're lying about what they say. You should stop it before something bad happens to you and the positions are reversed so that your botting friend will have to come to the forums and try to invent some story about how your ban was unfair…



…oh, and…
O2 jayjay wrote:
If you dont like the fact that i am pushing to stop you multi boxing incursions then unsub and leave.
Why should they stop when they're playing the game 100% legitimately? Just because “your friend” broke the rules does not mean that everyone else is doing the same, nor does his being rightfully punished mean they should stop playing.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#112 - 2014-08-07 18:27:35 UTC
Here is a script written and distributed by CCP Games: the EVE Clonemaker for the Mac. You point it at one installation of EVE and it copies the installation to create a second one on the same machine. (Note the heading above, "Running multiple EVE clients on same computer.")

If CCP didn't want you to have multiple installations on the same machine, they wouldn't distribute this. Furthermore, if they didn't want you to run multiple clients at once on the same machine, they wouldn't distribute this, because that's exactly what it's for.

The question CCP asks is, is there a person issuing commands to the game client? If yes, then it doesn't matter if those commands are replicated along the way. As long as ISBoxer doesn't issue any commands itself, CCP is just fine with it. It's also OK with simple keyboard macros. This is well documented in various developer comments on these forums.

If your friend was botting, then by definition he wasn't issuing commands to the game client. The bot was. That's why he got banned. The sooner you realize that the distinction you're insisting on is irrelevant, and that the relevant distinction is that anything that automates or accelerates gameplay (for an example of the latter, look for the "autopilot to zero" or "ap0" hack) is right out, the sooner this will all make sense to you.

Unless, of course, you're here to say that if your friend got banned for doing something that CCP hasn't tolerated in years, then a significant chuck of the EVE playerbase should abruptly be banned as well out of spite? In that case, go ahead and throw your snit fit if it makes you feel better, but don't expect any sympathy.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Thatt Guy
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#113 - 2014-08-07 18:28:47 UTC
To OP:
While I'm not allowed to post the actual response I got when petitioning ISBoxer to a senior GM, here's the short version:

Me: Is ISBoxer allowed?

Senior GM: While CCP does NOT endorse 3rd party software by name, any program that does not violate the EULA or TOS is fine.
On the matter of key or mouse broadcasting, it is allowed as long as you are actually giving the commands, and not relying on stored keystrokes or macros.


To everyone else: haters gonna hate, trolls gonna troll.

If you have a question about the legality of something in-game, file a support ticket and find out for yourself, and be sure!

Haters gonna hate, Trolls gonna troll.
O2 jayjay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2014-08-07 18:28:53 UTC
Tippia wrote:
So, without the lies an sheer hypocrisy-induced idiocy of the OP, let's see what the actual stance is:

According to GM Lelouch “Multiboxing is not inherently in violation of our EULA, a player is not breaking the EVE game rules by virtue of simultaneously operating multiple accounts alone.” No mention of any kind of computer restriction, only that using multiboxing (be it software, hardware, or manual means) to control multiple accounts/clients is ok.

Also according to GM Lelouch, “Synergy allows you to move your mouse cursor to multiple different monitors which are hooked up to different computers and we do not have any qualms with players using the program for this purpose.” This is the part the OP so desperate wishes it would mean that you are only allowed to use multiple computers that he has to break the EULA and start lying about the GMs. Of course, as anyone gifted with the talent of reading can tell, it does nothing of the kind. It merely says that you may use Synergy for the purpose of controlling multiple computers.

There is no restriction implied in that statement. Especially not since it s/he goes on to clarify what a rule-breaking offence would look like: “If Synergy was used in some way to control your accounts for you without a need for you to be at your keyboard, then that would not be allowed”. She even specifies the general case — not just Synergy + multiple computers — as: “Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed.” Note the end: multiple game clients. No restriction on number of computers where those clients must reside.

Some time later, a new piece of software is on the market, and the official statement from GM Lelouch is: “I've watched the video in the original post in this thread (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU46QY8lMqI) and I can confirm that nothing done in this particular video is considered to be against the rules as operations within the game are being manually input and not automated.” The software and circumstances of the video? ISBoxer and multiple clients on a single desktop.



You are lying OP. You are lying about something that the GMs will not look favourably upon: you're lying about what they say. You should stop it before something bad happens to you and the positions are reversed so that your botting friend will have to come to the forums and try to invent some story about how your ban was unfair…

…oh, and…
O2 jayjay wrote:
If you dont like the fact that i am pushing to stop you multi boxing incursions then unsub and leave.
Why should they stop when they're playing the game 100% legitimately?



LMFAO. I like how you cut off the part that says different computers but its in the OP. Also look up the word VEIN. then go back to that GM post. read what way above that statement and you will find out that you need to use separate computer. you are enforcing the fact that no one uses separate computer BTW. and that is if that rule is still in affect. But the GM did say that the rules are still in affect and haven't changed FYI

In the same vein as what has been stated above
Toshiro Hasegawa
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#115 - 2014-08-07 18:28:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Toshiro Hasegawa
ok - to heck with the debate about what GMs have said

lets move from theory onto reality ..

CCP bans botters for life
CCP does not ban multiboxers at all

thats empirical truth you can take the bank.

History is the study of change.

De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#116 - 2014-08-07 18:29:09 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
O2 jayjay wrote:

LOL lets go troll ive play frogger and beat the game my first try. o wait youre a young buck and dont even know what i am talking about. go play COD and GTFO

Evidently that young buck knows this game better than you do, bringing the toons age into it makes you look a lot sillier than you already did.

you may keep your femur, i have no need for a silly cane.


I'm familiar with Frogger. I also remember Colecovision, and being able to play Atari 2600 cartridges on my 5200 with the adapter. Oh! And my C64. Man those were the days.

None of which matters given that you are still an unmitigated git.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#117 - 2014-08-07 18:30:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
O2 jayjay wrote:
LMFAO. I like how you cut off the part that says different computers
You mean the part that is included in the quote? The part that specifically does not include the restriction you are desperately begging on your bare knees will suddenly appear there even though it never existed? Yeah, you really are quite a miserable liar, aren't you.

The facts remain: multiboxing, even using multiple clients on the same computer, is allowed and you are lying when you claim the GMs have ever said otherwise.

Quote:
In the same vein as what has been stated above
…you may use multiboxing software to control multiple clients (yes, even on the same computer) as long as there is no automation.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#118 - 2014-08-07 18:32:45 UTC
O2 jayjay wrote:
If you dont like the fact that i am pushing to stop you multi boxing incursions then unsub and leave. Ill wait until i get a more appropriate answer that isnt from trolls.


And there's the reason behind the mad. Finally, I think we may have finally had a break through.

Unfortauntely for you, CCP doesn't see this as a problem, so...keep tilting at those windmills Don.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
O2 jayjay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2014-08-07 18:33:43 UTC
Toshiro Hasegawa wrote:
ok - to heck with the debate about what GMs have said

lets move from theory onto reality ..

CCP bans botters for life
CCP does not ban multiboxers at all

thats empirical truth you can take the bank.


Consistency
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#120 - 2014-08-07 18:35:26 UTC
O2 jayjay wrote:
Consistency

Yup. Those who break the rules are consistently being banned. Those who don't are consistently not. Shocking, isn't it?