These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation

First post First post First post
Author
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#2241 - 2014-12-03 20:51:10 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
If by "allowed," you mean "tolerated because CCP sees that they fill a need that their tools don't yet satisfy," then, yeah, sure.
No, I mean allowed. CCPs old policy was that input broadcasting is allowed as long as one action created one action, regardless of how many accounts it happened on. As long as it wasn't automated, it was fine.


No, you mean tolerated. CCP's discomfort was obvious. The exception made and the rather tenuous terms under which it was made were explicit and obvious.

You have to get past this silly idea that everything is either 100% OK or 100% bad. CCP is in a position where they're trying to tighten things up after 10 years of laissez-faire, and so yeah there are going to be large grey areas and "OK for now" qualifications while they work up better solutions. The EULA allows them extremely broad discretion, not accidentally.

They're not going to insta-ban everyone who's using cache scraping software on a technicality, because they're not CONCORD. They're able to realize that the cache-scraping is a means to a useful end, and so they are tolerating it until they come up with something better. Similarly with third-party voice comms and overlays, etc.

Lucas Kell wrote:
But that's not going to happen, because this isn't about third party tools, it;s about whining carebears thinking "their" ice has been stolen away by isboxer. It will be spectacular when those same people realise that this change doesn't stop that happening, since even manual multiboxers can run a 20 man mining fleet with ease.


We can revisit this claim when CCP formally ban cache scraping after updating CREST with the relevant information, without a peep from these conveniently assumed carebears about anything.

And yes, of course, the root issue with vast multiboxed mining fleets is the relatively low number of rocks combined with the long cycle time of ice harvesters. If CCP was actually gunning to reduce those fleets, it could do so simply by dropping the cycle time to 30s, and the yield appropriately.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Josef Djugashvilis
#2242 - 2014-12-03 20:55:28 UTC
Lucas et al, the "fight" is over, you need to come to terms with it.

CCP have decided on the new rules regarding things like ISboxer, the only thing that might happen now is for some folk to see if they can 'circumvent' the new rules and risk a 30 day, then permanent ban.

Those who suffer a permanent ban can then join the likes of Erotica 1, wailing in the wind about how mean CCP are their (former) players.

This is not a signature.

Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#2243 - 2014-12-03 20:59:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Rosewalker
Lucas Kell wrote:
Rosewalker wrote:
I'm sorry, but that seemed to be your implication. People who want to buy ISK aren't going to just grind it out. They are going to buy it from a cheaper source. That would be the shady ISK sellers. Because if people didn't do that, we wouldn't have PLEX in EVE in the first place.
People will grind it out if the value of the isk is too low. Why would they pay $15 for what they can grind out in 3 hours. 8 hours they might, 3 not so much.

With RMT, very few people would just turn to RMT because plex suddenly wasn't as valuable. Most people value their accounts more than that.


You'd be surprised. The last time I checked this fall, just from the sites I visited I could see that people were buying over 1 trillion ISK from shady ISK sellers every month, which probably meant over 2-3 trillion ISK total per month for the entire industry. I'm in the middle of doing another survey now to see how much has changed.

On the bright side, there are a lot less sellers, so it looks like Team Security has upped their game Big smile

Edit: Yes, I know that ISD will probably delete this for rumor mongering. Oh well.

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2244 - 2014-12-03 21:14:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Lucas Kell wrote:
Well when you are complaining because someone else is playing the game more effectively than you, and you want a change not to improve the gamplay but to simply attack the other players playstyle because you don;t like it, that's a whine. In this case it's even more so, because the thing they are complaining about - outside tools improving efficiency - exists all over the place. EFT, jeveassests, eve-central, eve-market data for example. Hell, elinor automatically takes market exports and copies prices to your clipboard for you. Why is it that the only people being attacked are the ones looking to reduce RSI while multiboxing in a game where the UI and control system is terribly designed?
Because the RSI reducing functions provide an objectively different feature than other tools which interfaces with game clients for a direct in game advantage at the player level. Information gathering, even from the client, is a false equivalency to input broadcasting in much the same way input broadcasting is a false equivalency to botting.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Nobody is stating objectively why it *should* happen. Even with the change, multiboxers will still multibox and be better than a non-multiboxer (even without tools), so the thing they think is unfair will still exist. There will still be parts of the tools which still give them a massive advantage (round robin keybinds and VideoFX beign the biggest). The thing is, the complaint is made by people who don't understand how isboxer works and implemented by people who seemingly don't know how isboxer work, to solve a problem which exists because of bad gameplay design and the promotion of multiboxing in the first place. It's a pointless change implemented to stop the whiners whining, which it will fail to do once those whiners realise it doesn't mean that all mutliboxers quit. Arguably, the group of players who this change was finally triggered by, the bombers running bomb fleets, will be the least affected, since the only thing they have to replicate across clients is the "launch bomb" command. The rest of the run can be done by fleet warping.
There actually has been stated several times the reason of equating user inputs to in game actions with the exception of those actions which CCP has purposely and directly enabled single commands to have effects upon multiple entities.

You may feel this isn't important but it has been stated.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2245 - 2014-12-03 21:14:44 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
No, you mean tolerated. CCP's discomfort was obvious. The exception made and the rather tenuous terms under which it was made were explicit and obvious.
No, I mean allowed. When dev are stating explicitly that it's fine as long as only 1 command is executed, regardless of how many clients it affects, that's not just tolerating it.

Dersen Lowery wrote:
You have to get past this silly idea that everything is either 100% OK or 100% bad. CCP is in a position where they're trying to tighten things up after 10 years of laissez-faire, and so yeah there are going to be large grey areas and "OK for now" qualifications while they work up better solutions. The EULA allows them extremely broad discretion, not accidentally.
I'm not stating there is that, what I'm stating is that there was allowed behaviour, and now it;s not. that's fact. And the EULA means nothing at the end of the day. If they want to ban you for liking the colour blue, they can, regardless of what the EULA says. At the same time, things like cache scraping, and EVE-Radio running a business with premium subcriptions, both those things are not allowed by the EULA, yet both occur.

Dersen Lowery wrote:
They're not going to insta-ban everyone who's using cache scraping software on a technicality, because they're not CONCORD. They're able to realize that the cache-scraping is a means to a useful end, and so they are tolerating it until they come up with something better. Similarly with third-party voice comms and overlays, etc.
It's not a technicality, it's simply beacuse enough people do it they don't want to enforce it. Realistically they could demand that EVEMon and the like stop using that functionality without having the ban the playerbase, yet that won;t happen either because carebears aren't crying about that. Apparently that's an OK way to gain an advantage by breaking the rules.

Dersen Lowery wrote:
And yes, of course, the root issue with vast multiboxed mining fleets is the relatively low number of rocks combined with the long cycle time of ice harvesters. If CCP was actually gunning to reduce those fleets, it could do so simply by dropping the cycle time to 30s, and the yield appropriately.
Except that would also hit solo players and they would be no better off. the way the highsec carebear crowd see this, come January, the belts will be full of ice. That's not going to happen. So as usual when CCP make dumb changes without thinking about if they will actually solve the problems that have been raised, the exact people sitting around cheering over this change will be back here crying about how horrible the multiboxers are and how they need to be banned.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2246 - 2014-12-03 21:25:16 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Lucas et al, the "fight" is over, you need to come to terms with it.
CCP have decided on the new rules regarding things like ISboxer, the only thing that might happen now is for some folk to see if they can 'circumvent' the new rules and risk a 30 day, then permanent ban.
Those who suffer a permanent ban can then join the likes of Erotica 1, wailing in the wind about how mean CCP are their (former) players.


Jesus you sound like the journalists who keep spouting that "Gaming is Dead" crap. If CCP wanted to make this announcement with no room for discussion they could have made this thread locked on the first post and not allow for discussion.

I personally love how you attempt to dismiss the very idea that CCP listens to the userbase, especially after such things as the bombers thread where CCP backpedaled on the bombers decloaking each other nerf.

Your attempt to censor the userbase is silly. Please never post again unless you're willing to let the other side have a reasonable discussion.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2247 - 2014-12-03 21:28:21 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Lucas et al, the "fight" is over, you need to come to terms with it.

CCP have decided on the new rules regarding things like ISboxer, the only thing that might happen now is for some folk to see if they can 'circumvent' the new rules and risk a 30 day, then permanent ban.

Those who suffer a permanent ban can then join the likes of Erotica 1, wailing in the wind about how mean CCP are their (former) players.
It's never over buddy, changes get changed back you know. Not that this will really need to be changed back, but it will be interesting to see how many normal multiboxers get accidentally swept up in the bannings. The change is bad because it change virtually nothing and has no gameplay benefit, not because it stops a useful feature.

And no circumvention is needed. They aren't banning ISBoxer, just 1 feature.

And join the likes of Erotica 1? You mean by still playing EVE? Permabans are like a reroll.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2248 - 2014-12-03 21:30:08 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:
You'd be surprised. The last time I checked this fall, just from the sites I visited I could see that people were buying over 1 trillion ISK from shady ISK sellers every month, which probably meant over 2-3 trillion ISK total per month for the entire industry. I'm in the middle of doing another survey now to see how much has changed.

On the bright side, there are a lot less sellers, so it looks like Team Security has upped their game Big smile

Edit: Yes, I know that ISD will probably delete this for rumor mongering. Oh well.
Oh don;t get me wrong, I'm sure there are people who RMT all the time. I'm just not convinced that long term EULA abiding players jump over that line so easily.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Niskin
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
The Chicken Coop
#2249 - 2014-12-03 21:30:21 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sigh... The characters don't have the exact same circumstances, so saying "well this guy is 100% efficient so they all must be close" is wrong. Say for example you are mining, you can mine 100 units per cycle.

Solo character - Firing at a rock with 50 units, he waits a half cycle, stops and locks a new rock. This means he is able to get as close to 100 units for every full cycle as he can.

Multiboxer - Same thing as the solo character with a slightly reduced efficiency where he is unable to be as accurate with timing. He can however ensure each character is firing at 1 single rock. so some rocks you get 100 per cycle, some 90, 80, etc.

Isboxer - Either all lasers get stopped/started, or they don't. You can't see which rocks each individual character is on without switching to them manually (which defeats the point), so some share rocks, some are overdepleting a rock, and in the worst cases multiple lasers are overdepleting the same rock. So you get whatever is left in each rock, could even be 1 unit. Sometime multiple character will hit one rock, so you might only get 30 units between two characters for example.

The end result is that per character efficiency - as in actual yield : potential yield ratio is highest for single players, lower for multiboxers and the lowest for isboxers.


I think we might actually be getting somewhere now. I'm arguing the efficiency of commanding the characters, you're arguing the efficiency of the activity the characters are performing. You're right that with mining, a multiplexed click might not provide any increase in activity efficiency. If we're talking Incursions or Bombing though the case may be different. CCP seems to be focusing on the command efficiency rather than the activity efficiency. That may have to do with the realistic potential of policing it at those different points. Or maybe with the benefit of the still allowed features of isboxer, multiplexing could still provide per-character efficiency boosts. Like multiplexing the rock scanner activation, using vfx windows to lock the rocks and then multiplexing the lasers to turn on. This might be more efficient per-character than without those two multiplex clicks, I can't say for sure. I would imagine experienced users of those tools have lots of tricks I haven't imagined yet.

Lucas Kell wrote:
By this I mean desirable from a gameplay perspective. As in you should get considerably more value for your character if you are able to pay complete attention, and less as you divide your attention. For example in mining, if asteroids sometimes hit yield pockets which you had to react to to gain a short yield boost, that would be an example of a change which supported more attention. Ice belts moving systems would be one that supported people actively seeking it out rather than turning up exactly 4 hours after the last one died. That's the kind of change I would support to reduce effectiveness of multiboxers.


I don't have a problem with those suggestions at all, but they only address one activity that multiplexing affects. The problem is I think those changes would be great, but the suggestions out there to address multiplexing bombers are less attractive. And I'm not sure how one would go about instituting changes of this sort to affect Incursions or PvE in general.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Except it doesn't accomplish the goal. Multiboxers will be just as rife after January. The only thing that will have changed is that the line is closer to "normal" multiboxers, and a few ISBoxer user will have to hammer a single button 20 times instead of once when setting up. After setup it's back to VFX as usual.


The goal is to stop multiplexing, I think it's gonna do that just fine. The goal wasn't to hurt multiboxers or even isboxer users specifically. Considering the strong arguments you've made as to why multiplexing isn't that big of a deal, it seems like a change people shouldn't be so upset about. I do get that you are worried about people getting hit with false-positive bans. Only time will tell if that will happen or not.

Lucas Kell wrote:
They change the third party application policy wording, which happens often and made the legality of ISBoxer no more clear. When it was raised on the forums then then repeated that their policy on ISBoxer had not changed.

I'd argue that they've based their gameplay and character setups around the ability to broadcast their actions, and so it's a style of play. It might not be what you'd do or what other players would do, but it doesn't mean it's not a style.


This still goes back to the command versus activity perspective. I think playstyles involve activities. You're a miner, or a PvP'er, or a wormholer, or a market trader. You aren't a multiplexer, you're a multiplexing miner or a multiplexing whatever. Multiplexing is the way you enhance an activity. But to be fair I will admit that multiplexing to avoid RSI is a noble goal, even if I don't consider it a playstyle. I think CCP has accepted that this change hurts those using it for this purpose, and expects them to react accordingly, even if that means reducing accounts to minimize RSI.

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2250 - 2014-12-03 21:33:45 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Because the RSI reducing functions provide an objectively different feature than other tools which interfaces with game clients for a direct in game advantage at the player level. Information gathering, even from the client, is a false equivalency to input broadcasting in much the same way input broadcasting is a false equivalency to botting.
Those tools don;t just gather information. Elinor automatically calculates margins and pops prices into your clipboard without you even leaving the game for example.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
There actually has been stated several times the reason of equating user inputs to in game actions with the exception of those actions which CCP has purposely and directly enabled single commands to have effects upon multiple entities.

You may feel this isn't important but it has been stated.
I'm not sure what you mean by this sentence, but I'm getting the idea that you think round robin keybinds and VFX execute macro-like commands. They don't. they just mean you don't need to keep swapping windows to execute individual commands to them.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2251 - 2014-12-03 21:34:10 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
They're not going to insta-ban everyone who's using cache scraping software on a technicality, because they're not CONCORD. They're able to realize that the cache-scraping is a means to a useful end, and so they are tolerating it until they come up with something better. Similarly with third-party voice comms and overlays, etc.
It's not a technicality, it's simply beacuse enough people do it they don't want to enforce it. Realistically they could demand that EVEMon and the like stop using that functionality without having the ban the playerbase, yet that won;t happen either because carebears aren't crying about that. Apparently that's an OK way to gain an advantage by breaking the rules.
The difference between cache scraping and input broadcasting is that one is EVE specific and the other, broadcasting, not so specific. Even if cache scraping bans were enforced it would still have to be on the level of both players and tool makers as nothing prevents building ones own cache scraper should existing tools stop doing it.

On the other hand ISBoxer and other similar software isn't largely EVE specific and even with a BAN on input duplication in EVE has legitimate uses for those functions in other game spaces. As such it makes little sense to remove it based upon a single games policy change.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2252 - 2014-12-03 21:41:26 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Those tools don;t just gather information. Elinor automatically calculates margins and pops prices into your clipboard without you even leaving the game for example.
CCP hasn't banned the use of calculators or copy paste from outside programs. Also placing the resultant price in clipboard doesn't involve issuing commands to the client. Elinor seems like it does everything it can short of being classified as a market bot but doesn't cross certain vital lines, much in the way it was decided that broadcasting across clients for the purpose of UI arrangement is not across that line.

Lucas Kell wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by this sentence, but I'm getting the idea that you think round robin keybinds and VFX execute macro-like commands. They don't. they just mean you don't need to keep swapping windows to execute individual commands to them.
No, you would be incorrect in your assumption. Look to your last sentence for the correct interpretation. The goal of the change is to restore of some level needing to interface with each client executing a command..
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2253 - 2014-12-03 21:50:39 UTC
Niskin wrote:
I think we might actually be getting somewhere now. I'm arguing the efficiency of commanding the characters, you're arguing the efficiency of the activity the characters are performing. You're right that with mining, a multiplexed click might not provide any increase in activity efficiency. If we're talking Incursions or Bombing though the case may be different. CCP seems to be focusing on the command efficiency rather than the activity efficiency. That may have to do with the realistic potential of policing it at those different points. Or maybe with the benefit of the still allowed features of isboxer, multiplexing could still provide per-character efficiency boosts. Like multiplexing the rock scanner activation, using vfx windows to lock the rocks and then multiplexing the lasers to turn on. This might be more efficient per-character than without those two multiplex clicks, I can't say for sure. I would imagine experienced users of those tools have lots of tricks I haven't imagined yet.
Indeed. the actual effor a player puts in to controlling their characters is irrelevant. I'm a software developer, and so I work with computers all day. That means my ability to use a mouse and keyboard is (generally) superior to say a 50 year old builder or someone with artritis. So how much effort someone puts in to commanding their characters isn't simply a case of whether or not they use multiboxing software. I've played solo, multiboxed for a long time, and I used ISBoxer for about a year, and the per character efficiency is pretty much always the same regardless of activity. ISBoxer means sacrificing efficiency for easier use because you don't have the granular control you have when doing it manually. This change actually forces that granular control to a certain extent, so we should actually see individual multiboxed characters being more efficient.

Niskin wrote:
I don't have a problem with those suggestions at all, but they only address one activity that multiplexing affects. The problem is I think those changes would be great, but the suggestions out there to address multiplexing bombers are less attractive. And I'm not sure how one would go about instituting changes of this sort to affect Incursions or PvE in general.
Thought would have to be put in beyond my two minute quick examples, but from my point of view, if an activity is able to be multiboxed on a large scale, then that activity is too simple and needs to be reworked. Bombers are going to be a tough one. Even with this change they are least affected, since yo already control most of the run with the FC fleet warping and are restricted in how many bombers per wave so the bombs don't destroy each other. A round robin "fire bomb" key and a round robin "activate cloak" key are all that are needed.

Niskin wrote:
The goal is to stop multiplexing, I think it's gonna do that just fine. The goal wasn't to hurt multiboxers or even isboxer users specifically. Considering the strong arguments you've made as to why multiplexing isn't that big of a deal, it seems like a change people shouldn't be so upset about. I do get that you are worried about people getting hit with false-positive bans. Only time will tell if that will happen or not.
Well no, the goal is really to stop multibox bomber fleets. That's clear from he CSM minutes. The method they've chosen to go about doing that is removing multiplexing, and it won't work as intended. I've already got a ticket up requesting clarity on the other uses of ISBoxer like round robins and VFX. Perhaps they will decide to scrap those too, but again, I don't think it will have enough of an impact for the end goal they have.

Niskin wrote:
This still goes back to the command versus activity perspective. I think playstyles involve activities. You're a miner, or a PvP'er, or a wormholer, or a market trader. You aren't a multiplexer, you're a multiplexing miner or a multiplexing whatever. Multiplexing is the way you enhance an activity. But to be fair I will admit that multiplexing to avoid RSI is a noble goal, even if I don't consider it a playstyle. I think CCP has accepted that this change hurts those using it for this purpose, and expects them to react accordingly, even if that means reducing accounts to minimize RSI.
Well to me a playstyle is about how you play, not just what you do. Whatever you do to enjoy the game is your style. If multiplexing 100 accounts is what you enjoy, then that's your style and that's fair enough (and that's what creates spectacular videos of gankers [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlhlwuf4qjs]smartbombing 40 mackinaws[/quote]).

To me, characters are characters. I really don't care who's controlling them. If you want to plex 100 accounts and control them all, great, 100 plex more income for CCP to stick towards improving the game.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#2254 - 2014-12-03 21:50:46 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
No, you mean tolerated. CCP's discomfort was obvious. The exception made and the rather tenuous terms under which it was made were explicit and obvious.
No, I mean allowed. When dev are stating explicitly that it's fine as long as only 1 command is executed, regardless of how many clients it affects, that's not just tolerating it.


And that statement is couched in the context of, "we're looking to get rid of this behavior." Or have you forgotten the huge uproar that led to the Third Party Platform?

They've wanted to do this for months. If you can't see that, I really don't know what to tell you.

Lucas Kell wrote:
At the same time, things like cache scraping, and EVE-Radio running a business with premium subcriptions, both those things are not allowed by the EULA, yet both occur.


Because, again, the EULA is not the ruleset governing an unthinking enforcer. Cache scraping is technically a EULA violation, but its consequences are largely an improved gameplay experience, so CCP is seeking to get rid of it by obviating the need for it. The people who currently scrape caches know it's a dirty hack that they could technically get banned for (even though, by your standard, it's "allowed"), and they'll be glad to be rid of it and using a service that's completely legit. Premium subscriptions and the like are technically EULA violations, but CCP has always allowed sites to make enough money to cover costs, because that encourages people to invest time and effort into cool things.

You're getting hung up on technicalities. That's a trap from which there is no escape. It has never been difficult to figure out the intent behind CCP's enforcement, because they're not shy about offering it, and the intent is what matters--as 'boxers who think they've found some clever workaround that hews to the letter of the policy while violating the spirit will discover soon enough.

I honestly don't know why you're hung up on ice miners, or "carebears." I don't think it's a coincidence that the former CCP Stillman tweeted his enthusiastic support for this change. If you don't recall, he was the head of Team Security at CCP before he got headhunted. And he's excited enough to react publicly even though he doesn't work for CCP anymore.

Team Security. That should tell you something.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2255 - 2014-12-03 21:52:23 UTC
Looking forward to seeing how This pans out

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2256 - 2014-12-03 21:55:10 UTC
Good riddance.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2257 - 2014-12-03 21:57:32 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The difference between cache scraping and input broadcasting is that one is EVE specific and the other, broadcasting, not so specific. Even if cache scraping bans were enforced it would still have to be on the level of both players and tool makers as nothing prevents building ones own cache scraper should existing tools stop doing it.

On the other hand ISBoxer and other similar software isn't largely EVE specific and even with a BAN on input duplication in EVE has legitimate uses for those functions in other game spaces. As such it makes little sense to remove it based upon a single games policy change.
Uh... no. I don't think it has anything to do with it not being eve specific. If I made an eve specific input broadcaster, it would still be banned. Cache scraping could easily be banned alongside broadcasting. in exactly the same way, you can't stop people making something new and breaking the rule, so you would ban individual players if they did that.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
CCP hasn't banned the use of calculators or copy paste from outside programs. Also placing the resultant price in clipboard doesn't involve issuing commands to the client. Elinor seems like it does everything it can short of being classified as a market bot but doesn't cross certain vital lines,
Except you don't copy-paste. You click the "export" button in the EVE market, it picks up the order, automatically calculates margins and automatically puts the price in your clipboard ready to be pasted into a trade window. It's *more* automated than isboxer.

And hey, people keep saying that ISBoxer need to go because it's a third party tool which gives players and advantage. So are all of those other tools, so either that isn't really the reason, or all those tools should be banned too.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
No, you would be incorrect in your assumption. Look to your last sentence for the correct interpretation. The goal of the change is to restore of some level needing to interface with each client executing a command.
And that goal is not being accomplished, since they aren't banning the use of round robin keybinds or VideoFX

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2258 - 2014-12-03 22:03:02 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
And that statement is couched in the context of, "we're looking to get rid of this behavior." Or have you forgotten the huge uproar that led to the Third Party Platform?

They've wanted to do this for months. If you can't see that, I really don't know what to tell you.
OK, go ahead and get me that quote of them stating they are looking to get rid of that behaviour. Because I call bullshit on that.

Dersen Lowery wrote:
Because, again, the EULA is not the ruleset governing an unthinking enforcer. Cache scraping is technically a EULA violation, but its consequences are largely an improved gameplay experience, so CCP is seeking to get rid of it by obviating the need for it. The people who currently scrape caches know it's a dirty hack that they could technically get banned for (even though, by your standard, it's "allowed"), and they'll be glad to be rid of it and using a service that's completely legit. Premium subscriptions and the like are technically EULA violations, but CCP has always allowed sites to make enough money to cover costs, because that encourages people to invest time and effort into cool things.
No, cache scraping is an explicit EULA violation.

Third Party Plicies wrote:
Our EULA does not permit the scraping of the EVE Online cache, as per EULA Paragraph 9.C


And CCP allow only certain methods of making isk. Affiliates, donations or ads. You are not allowed to charge for premium access to content, which EVE-radio do.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Josef Djugashvilis
#2259 - 2014-12-03 22:11:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Lucas et al, the "fight" is over, you need to come to terms with it.
CCP have decided on the new rules regarding things like ISboxer, the only thing that might happen now is for some folk to see if they can 'circumvent' the new rules and risk a 30 day, then permanent ban.
Those who suffer a permanent ban can then join the likes of Erotica 1, wailing in the wind about how mean CCP are their (former) players.


Jesus you sound like the journalists who keep spouting that "Gaming is Dead" crap. If CCP wanted to make this announcement with no room for discussion they could have made this thread locked on the first post and not allow for discussion.

I personally love how you attempt to dismiss the very idea that CCP listens to the userbase, especially after such things as the bombers thread where CCP backpedaled on the bombers decloaking each other nerf.

Your attempt to censor the userbase is silly. Please never post again unless you're willing to let the other side have a reasonable discussion.


My, you sound hurt, has CCP kicked you in the ISboxer?

To take your point on though, I have said before that all that remains is for those opposed to the changes to moan (make their point loudly and often in the forums) in the hope that CCP will ameliorate the changes as they did with under pressure the Jump Nerf proposals.

Have you ever considered that CCP may have made these proposals due to concern from non ISboxer players?

Thought not Smile

This is not a signature.

Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2260 - 2014-12-03 22:29:33 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
To take your point on though, I have said before that all that remains is for those opposed to the changes to moan (make their point loudly and often in the forums) in the hope that CCP will ameliorate the changes as they did with under pressure the Jump Nerf proposals.

Have you ever considered that CCP may have made these proposals due to concern from non ISboxer players?


Your attempt at humor aside, I spent a day or so considering the possibility that CCP did make an attempt to talk to the userbase. However, judging from both this thread and the reddit threads, it's been a very small minority of people saying "good riddance" and shouting down the boxers claiming they don't deserve a voice.

And again, I point you to the unneeded change of making cloaked bombers decloak each other as proof that CCP is capable of changing their minds.