EVE General Discussion

What exactly is clarified? That you shouldn't be able to click mutliple buttons at once, but other clients mods which make multiboxing just as easy are fine? They haven't explained whether things like VideoFX or round robin keybinds are allowed. Let's be honest here, they aren't doing this for clarification, they are doing it because the loudest minority are whining about this now. How long will they buckle to whiners before enough is enough?

And let's face it, this time round it's because bomber fleets are massively overpowered, but when they tried to nerf those the whining began about how it's isboxers fault, not bombers. Now isboxer will still be able to be used for bombers (fleet warp + round robin keybind), and they are *more* overpowered than they were before because they are getting the buff that was to go along with their nerf.

Of course I don't. There's absolutely no gameplay benefit to attacking a playstyle like this, and if even a single person gets banned unfairly and trapped in the never ending cycle of CCPs non-existent support system, then that's one too many.

That would be because once someone is banned, fairly or not, they aren't in game. CCP often refuse to respond to tickets about it, some people have even been banned without being told why and tickets asking for clarification have been ignored. If they come back and try to talk about it here, they get banned again for talking about bans.

Going Forward

As of 15th of March 2013 we have been policing input automation based on a two-strike policy

• 1st strike for input automation is a 30 day ban
• 2nd strike for input automation is a permanent ban

Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy.

Based on the discussion in this area and our will to be more clear and concise with the community regarding this part of our rules, we have decided to also apply this two-strike policy to prohibited forms of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing as of January 1st 2015.

We would like to add, however, that we will not be taking action retroactively and will only be policing this policy as of January 1st, 2015.

Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.

This includes, but isn’t limited to:

• Activation and control of ships and modules
• Navigation and movement within the EVE universe
• Movement of assets and items within the EVE universe
• Interaction with other characters

Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:

• EVE Online client settings
• Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating system’s desktop environment)
• The login process

NOTE: Please keep in mind that using the same password for multiple accounts as well as storing your password in a third party tool or script which helps you to automate the login process can increase the risk of account theft and hacking drastically. It is strongly recommended that you do not engage in this type of activity.

We are closely monitoring all game events for suspicious activity suggesting illicit behaviors, including Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing.

We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe.

You seem like a smart enough guy to read this and understand it. If you still think VideoFX is a problem after reading that I can't help you. Round robin is a grey area, if it is too efficient then it might get flagged. Again, this is why the change is ideal, it is based on how it looks on their end. Anything that is too much like multicasting might as well be multicasting, the means by which it was achieved is irrelevant.



I'm being honest, they are doing it because it's affecting the game in negative ways for actual players. They have to draw the line so they have a basis to police it on. And they drew it in a pretty fair place considering that isboxer will still see widespread use for it's various other features going forward.



They took away one aspect of a playstyle with this change, multiboxing is still valid, isboxer is still useful. I don't think they will just pull the trigger on any old ban, they are going to have a case built with data. Only time will tell though.



Is there a collection of blogs made by the hordes of unfairly banned players out there somewhere detailing this injustice? I'm just not seeing it. It's not like CCP has a global mafia that silences the banned. If this were rampant it would be on gaming news sites or something somewhere.

The more i read your posts, the more i'm hoping 3rd party tools like ISBoxer will get banned completely.

May the EVE client detect them running in the same address space, using ressources on the graphics card, whatever.

It's people like you, using those external tools and pushing them to the edge, gaining advantages over regular players which only use what the client allows.

The user interface as provided by CCP is optimized by ISBoxer in a way i call cheating.

Good night.

How much sense does this make after the recent jump fatigue changes?

Logistics pilots aren't hurt as logging accounts in at the same time isn't banned anyways. That said taking 5 hours to do so either way means they're probably not the best person to trust with logistics as they are horribly slow and/or inefficient.

Are people still claiming the CCP has no good reason for coming up with the policy interpretations contained in CCP Falcon's opening post? If so, I jotted down a few things that CCP may have considered when coming up with their new rulings. Or at least these are things that the new rulings will possibly accomplish.

1. A clear, unequivical statement that multiboxing is allowed. However, I realize that some people think that software is required to multibox. A lot of those people are posting in this thread. This is not true.

2. Overall, a move away from players needing to understand how a program works (a requirement in Section 9C) to avoid receiving a ban. With this new way of thinking, they just need to understand what the software does. A real positive shift in thinking from CCP.

3. Clarification of Section 6 paragraph A, sub-section 2 stating that windows management software whether the software is ISBoxer's Windows FX or the windows management software currently listed on these forums, does not violate the EULA. This part of the EULA actually refers to the types of UI modifications that are popular in games like World of Warcraft.

4. The terms "input broadcasting" and "input multiplexing" giving greater clarity to Section 6, paragraph 2, sub-section 3 of the EULA. How many fights have occurred over this sentence from the EULA?

"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."

Now, we will just need to say, don't do input broadcasting and input multiplexing. However, I'd really like a clarification of exactly what "input multiplexing" is.

5. If certain activities are no longer performed at an unnaturally accelerated rate, then we will see three positive affects on the in-game economy.

a. A reduction in the resource faucet in EVE. This basically refers to ore and ice mining. For those people who will continue to software box, their efficiency will degrade, according to the claims of those in this forum thread, by a small degree. But the bigger effects will be felt as accounts that can no longer be efficiently used are either repurposed to do other tasks or are just unsubbed. This should make resource gathering more profitable on an ISK/hour basis and thus, a more attractive activity.

b. A reduction in the ISK faucet in EVE. In the hands of a skilled multiboxer, software that performs input broadcasting and input multiplexing can outperform PvE fleets consisting of individual players on a consistent basis. These activities range from high sec incursions to null sec anomalies to wormhole sleeper sites. The big decline in the ISK faucet won't come from those skilled enough to continue to run the content with perhaps only a 10-20% decline in dps. No, just like the slowdown in the resource faucet, the big decline in the ISK faucet will come from those accounts that will be either repurposed toward another activity or just outright unsubscribed.

c. The decline in the ISK faucet will have a trickle down effect on the price of PLEX. If, as many players claim, thousands of accounts will unsubscribe over the banning of input broadcasting/multiplexing, then the price of PLEX should decline based on the lower demand. As long as the price does not fall to far down, I do not believe that people will flock to shady ISK sellers instead of purchasing nice clean PLEX from CCP and the authorized PLEX resellers.

6. A reduction of the effectiveness of multiboxed bomber and suicide ganking gangs. Players will accept losing to other players. Players hate losing to software. Okay, victims of suicide ganks in high sec for the most part will always complain. But I don't think CCP sees the ability of one player to destroy 100 ships in a few seconds or a minute as a good thing. If CCP found the titan's AoE doomsday overpowered, does anyone think that the devs might find the AoE bombs of a couple of bomber gangs under the control of one player any more acceptable? After all, what's the difference between an AoE titan and a couple of squads of bombers? Oh yeah, several billion ISK less risk for the multiboxer over the titan pilot.

7. A reduction in the amount of accounts will lead to more interaction between players. CCP believes that the more social interaction between players, the better. I'm not sure how successful making players shrink the number of accounts will be as an incentive to work with others, but I believe CCP believes that it's a possible positive side-effect of the changes.

I have a few more effects for the changes that CCP might find positive, but as you can tell from point 7, the reasons are getting weaker.

I still haven't read a good explanation of why input broadcasting/multiplexing is good for EVE.

1. Again, this argument is not against multiboxing in general. CCP has always encouraged the usage of multiple accounts, and it is silly to think that people are using the argument that multiple accounts is cheating as an excuse to get rid of something they have an irrational hatred of.

2. This is strange considering how much time and effort people have put into understanding EVE's code in general, to the point of constructing 3rd party programs and websites to both assist their understanding, and to do further research. Banning a subset of EVE with the argument "because they spend more time theorycrafting" is silly to say the least.

3. No argument here. EVE does not allow that sort of modification via mods.

4. Again, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a per toon basis, and there is nothing that an ISBoxed fleet can do that a non-boxed fleet can't do as well if not better.

5. Please watch the Fanfest videos regarding faucets and sinks in EVE. Incursion "faucets" have a massive sink as well in the LP store's ISK requirements. I can't comment much on blue loot, but nanoribbons are sold to other players, not NPC buy orders, and are thus not an isk faucet but a closed system. And "trickle down" economics was debunked ages ago as a complete failure. Ore and minerals are sold to player buy orders and are not an infinite stream of ISK without a corresponding sink. You also make the claim that ISBoxer fleets are somehow advantaged over non-ISBoxed fleets when this is simply not true. Humans can react to the ever-changing realities of grid warfare. ISBoxers are limited by the amount of clients they use and by the software itself. ISBoxer is not something you plug into your brain Matrix style and can instantly respond on each separate client.

6. CCP has steadfastly refused to acknowledge the myriad of threads dedicated to reducing the effectiveness of bombers. As for suicide ganks, believing that they'll magically disappear when ISBoxer is gone is childish. Suicide ganks will be around forever. If ISboxers are using bombers at a disproportional ratio to the exclusion of all other ships, CCP should take a look at bombers, not ISBoxers. You're asking why there are more PCs than Macs as gaming rigs while ignoring the fact that most new games are coded for the PC, and that PC hardware is interchangeable.

7. A lot of ISBoxers are members of corps and alliances, and as such, interact a great deal with the playerbase, including new players. I personally used to hand out ships and ISK to new players I ran across.

And for your final sentence, I've yet to hear an argument as to why ISBoxing should be banned other than "my feelings got hurt" and "I don't wanna put effort into EVE so he shouldn't box."

How does it give them an advantage over even numbers of real people? An ISboxer, be they ever so good and use whatever method to maximize their chances of information getting to them, is at serious risk of information overload in any rapidly changing situation.

Co-ordinated alpha? Use a countdown or actually get people to train all the way to rapid firing 5 across the whole fleet.
Locking the targets called? get people to listen. Should be fairly easy.
Able to make decisions quickly? What else is an FC for?

Tool assured perfect coordination is not a possibility with any number of real people. It eliminates the need for target calling and countdowns. It assures that even if mistakes are made in target selection by a single individual, fire is still focused. Also, an ISBoxer guilty of the banned activities, which are limited to broadcasting commands, often doesn't have an issue with information overload as that would require the ships controlled by the clients to be in significantly different positions, marginalizing the usefulness of command broadcasting if not making it a hindrance.

Only being able to do broadcasting is a hindrance in almost all cases. Being able to broadcast some commands and not others (current) means that you can do some things very very effectively, as you can shoot your target as a broadcast, broadcast the toon which got primaried (if you notice before it dies), anchor up your characters on your broadcaster or the official anchor, manage some of your ewar, etc. Not being able to broadcast, but allowing the sort of management that is still allowed just widens the gap between the best and worst boxers, while leaving <10 client boxers almost untouched if they are willing to expend the effort.

But to see how it gets to be a problem for one of the very best boxers in a pvp situation that isn't a blob fight, and wasn't entirely one sided, go take a look at the NEO video of team cube. He's one of the people who has done alot of things in eve as a boxer, and second and third string teams of real people anhilated him in a small gang fight.