These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2741 - 2014-12-22 12:43:20 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
...snip...
I'm not saying they will chase down every macro user. I'm saying that they *could* use their rules to ban anyone using them.

In the case of using macros to sidestep a new ruling prohibiting a certain playstyle - I'd guess their sympathy would be fairly sparse.

Also I don't actually think the false positives of someone using round robin against legitimate 120APM multiboxers will actually be that high - UNLESS the round robin is able to fake the kinda of small mistakes that a 120APM multiboxer will make over extended periods of time - a misclick here, a misclick there, a doubleclick on that module - being human in other words.

But if you're so certain that people won't get bans for it, then sure, recommend they just go full-steam ahead without petitioning their specifics.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Miomeifeng Alduin
Lithonauts Inc.
#2742 - 2014-12-22 13:12:43 UTC
The main problem is that petitions dont matter. GM's direct people who file a petition to the forum, and here the persons in charge say that you need to file a petition to learn specifics. In the meantime nothing gets answered which is a serious problem in CCP's communication.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2743 - 2014-12-22 14:13:14 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
I'm not saying they will chase down every macro user. I'm saying that they *could* use their rules to ban anyone using them.
They don't need to use their rules. They can ban you for whatever reason they want without having to change anything.

Eli Apol wrote:
In the case of using macros to sidestep a new ruling prohibiting a certain playstyle - I'd guess their sympathy would be fairly sparse.
Indeed and I would hope this is the case.

Eli Apol wrote:
Also I don't actually think the false positives of someone using round robin against legitimate 120APM multiboxers will actually be that high - UNLESS the round robin is able to fake the kinda of small mistakes that a 120APM multiboxer will make over extended periods of time - a misclick here, a misclick there, a doubleclick on that module - being human in other words.
You underestimate how much manual control is used when using ISBoxer. Just as many mistakes would be made by an ISBoxer as a manual multiboxer. Not everything is broadcast controlled, only the most simple elements of control. That's why you can toggle broadcast with a keypress.

Eli Apol wrote:
But if you're so certain that people won't get bans for it, then sure, recommend they just go full-steam ahead without petitioning their specifics.
People have petitioned, and as is usual for CCP they've completely ignored it. Multiboxers would like nothing more than to know where they stand regardless of what that outcome is, but the subject appears to be closed. So the options are unsub and stop playing the game the way they enjoy, or risk playing in a way which appears to be within the rules but is unconfirmed. Honestly, between bad financials, employees jumping ship, awesome games like Elite:Dangerous coming out and CCPs complete inability to respond to legitimate concerns, I doubt it really matters long term.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2744 - 2014-12-22 14:35:40 UTC
I guess the reasons people aren't hearing more from their petitions is probably because they're saying "Can you clarify the exact boundaries (so that I can cosy up as close as possible to the edge)" instead of saying "This is my setup, is it legit?"

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2745 - 2014-12-22 14:41:48 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
I guess the reasons people aren't hearing more from their petitions is probably because they're saying "Can you clarify the exact boundaries (so that I can cosy up as close as possible to the edge)" instead of saying "This is my setup, is it legit?"
Those are the exact same question if you just make up a setup which is close to the perceived boundaries.

All of this "oh they'll rules lawyer!" is beyond stupid. CCP can ban you for no reason if they want to, there is no such thing as rules lawyering and their word is final. So what's the problem with being straight with people and telling them where those boundaries lie? No other MMO seems to have such a huge issue with clarifying their rules. Blurring rules doesn't make push less boundaries, it simply guarantee that more people will quit because they can't be bothered with the hassle of maybe getting banned for something nobody will clarify while other people able to do basically the same thing aren't, because it depends which GM you happen to get hit by.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2746 - 2014-12-22 16:22:29 UTC
Because Eve isn't like any other MMOs and Eve players aren't like those from other MMOs...

If they made a clear distinction, there'd be people immediately trying to wriggle around those distinctions to beat the system. Mentioning no-names.

Use your common sense.

If you think it's taking the ****, it probably is.
If you think you're being clever and finding a loophole, you're taking the ****.
If you're taking the ****, you'll get a ban...


...is how I read their ruling

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2747 - 2014-12-22 17:04:21 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Because Eve isn't like any other MMOs and Eve players aren't like those from other MMOs...
It's exactly like other MMOs, and aside from being considerably more arrogant, the players are the same.

Eli Apol wrote:
If they made a clear distinction, there'd be people immediately trying to wriggle around those distinctions to beat the system. Mentioning no-names.
As there are even without a clear distinction. Having no clear distinction doesn't stop people pushing the boundaries, it simply means those players who want to conform to the rules don't know how to.

Eli Apol wrote:
Use your common sense.

If you think it's taking the ****, it probably is.
If you think you're being clever and finding a loophole, you're taking the ****.
If you're taking the ****, you'll get a ban...


...is how I read their ruling
Except as this thread proves, opinions differ. Some don't think broadcasting was taking the ****, some don't think round robin is, some think round robin is but VFX isn't and some think both are. Then you have some who think that 20 characters is taking the **** but 10 is fine, some think 10 is too much, and some think playing more than one character at all is taking the ****.

All of it is irrelevant though, because the only people who's opinion matters is CCP, and they actively refuse to let people know what that is, so you're left in a position of having to guess what is OK, and hope that when a crying idiot reports you because you had 5 miners, the GM you get stuck with isn't as in the dark on the rules as you are.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2748 - 2014-12-22 17:59:15 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Because Eve isn't like any other MMOs and Eve players aren't like those from other MMOs...
If they made a clear distinction, there'd be people immediately trying to wriggle around those distinctions to beat the system. Mentioning no-names.
Use your common sense.
If you think it's taking the ****, it probably is.
If you think you're being clever and finding a loophole, you're taking the ****.
If you're taking the ****, you'll get a ban...
...is how I read their ruling


As much as I hate to agree with the bugger, James 315 was right when he decried CCP's unwillingness to draw a visible line in the sand. CCP doesn't want us to cross a line, but is unwilling to draw said line in the sand. That's why CCP makes said line. Unfortunately, if the line's invisible (and is known to have moved on several occasions), then people's trust in the company will be, justifiably, shaken or non-existent, and it makes 100% sense that people want stuff clarified so the line doesn't move when we turn our backs and do what we were planning on doing to stay in the current margin of what is kosher and what is not.
Lady Areola Fappington
#2749 - 2014-12-22 19:26:58 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Because Eve isn't like any other MMOs and Eve players aren't like those from other MMOs...
If they made a clear distinction, there'd be people immediately trying to wriggle around those distinctions to beat the system. Mentioning no-names.
Use your common sense.
If you think it's taking the ****, it probably is.
If you think you're being clever and finding a loophole, you're taking the ****.
If you're taking the ****, you'll get a ban...
...is how I read their ruling


As much as I hate to agree with the bugger, James 315 was right when he decried CCP's unwillingness to draw a visible line in the sand. CCP doesn't want us to cross a line, but is unwilling to draw said line in the sand. That's why CCP makes said line. Unfortunately, if the line's invisible (and is known to have moved on several occasions), then people's trust in the company will be, justifiably, shaken or non-existent, and it makes 100% sense that people want stuff clarified so the line doesn't move when we turn our backs and do what we were planning on doing to stay in the current margin of what is kosher and what is not.



A big part of that is CCPs reliance on technical means to discover stuff like input duplication. They don't want to tell people what is or isn't kosher, because at that point EVE players will dance right up to the line. Define input duplication as X commands within 2 seconds, the typical Eve player will just set it up as X commands in 2.2 seconds.

That, combined with a penchant for doublespeak, causes CCP trouble. They say "multiboxing hasn't changed", and technically they're right. Nothing has changed about multiplexing. It's input duplication that's changed.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2750 - 2014-12-22 20:15:41 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
A big part of that is CCPs reliance on technical means to discover stuff like input duplication. They don't want to tell people what is or isn't kosher, because at that point EVE players will dance right up to the line. Define input duplication as X commands within 2 seconds, the typical Eve player will just set it up as X commands in 2.2 seconds.

That, combined with a penchant for doublespeak, causes CCP trouble. They say "multiboxing hasn't changed", and technically they're right. Nothing has changed about multiplexing. It's input duplication that's changed.


Input Duplication is a strange way to phrase "macro"... I assume you mean Input Broadcasting, which was clearly defined in the OP. Input Duplication is a very broad term that can mean anything from sitting a heavy weight on your spacebar (for whatever reason), to Input Broadcasting (which is now banned), to Round Robin, which is allowed.

As James said, when anyone paints a big grey line, people start to get worried as it leaves stuff open to GM interpretation and removes any accountability the GMs and the Devs have because they can ban player X for following the new rules and say "But it's always been that way" when in a previous petition, the GM stated that he was fine.

It would be silly for them to name each and every piece of software and hardware that does the same thing (as stated in the OP), so people assumed they included ISBoxers and similar when they said 'multiboxers'. This is further supported by the fact they haven't outright banned ISBoxer (or it's other modules) and similar software in the OP.

But let's assume they only meant people with multiple clients and no software. Even assuming for a moment that they didn't mean ISBoxers, CCP's own lack of clarity and transparency has brought them trouble in the past with the C6 Magnetar EWAR issue and the POS bumping, to name a few. It isn't too much to ask for a little bit of clarification on these points, especially when the ENTIRE ISBoxer community sees this change as a direct attack on a legitimate way of playing by people who don't understand the program.
Machinn Shinn
Selinir
#2751 - 2014-12-22 21:42:35 UTC
Oh no!

Sounds like some of these "Amazing" Capsuleers will have to learn how to play all over again.

+1
Lady Areola Fappington
#2752 - 2014-12-22 22:00:49 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
[

Input Duplication is a strange way to phrase "macro"... I assume you mean Input Broadcasting, which was clearly defined in the OP. Input Duplication is a very broad term that can mean anything from sitting a heavy weight on your spacebar (for whatever reason), to Input Broadcasting (which is now banned), to Round Robin, which is allowed.

As James said, when anyone paints a big grey line, people start to get worried as it leaves stuff open to GM interpretation and removes any accountability the GMs and the Devs have because they can ban player X for following the new rules and say "But it's always been that way" when in a previous petition, the GM stated that he was fine.

It would be silly for them to name each and every piece of software and hardware that does the same thing (as stated in the OP), so people assumed they included ISBoxers and similar when they said 'multiboxers'. This is further supported by the fact they haven't outright banned ISBoxer (or it's other modules) and similar software in the OP.

But let's assume they only meant people with multiple clients and no software. Even assuming for a moment that they didn't mean ISBoxers, CCP's own lack of clarity and transparency has brought them trouble in the past with the C6 Magnetar EWAR issue and the POS bumping, to name a few. It isn't too much to ask for a little bit of clarification on these points, especially when the ENTIRE ISBoxer community sees this change as a direct attack on a legitimate way of playing by people who don't understand the program.



Yes, I meant broadcasting. It's been a very, very long day and night. My caffeine system is getting too full of blood.

And I agree totally, CCP has real issues with ambiguity when it comes to rules. Part of it stems from them trying to avoid people dancing up to the line, and part of it comes from them wanting to keep detection processes secret.

We end up with this "letter vs. spirit" of the law issue. They're trying to write the spirit of what they want into the letter of the law itself, and failing.

The spirit of it, at least to me, is that CCP is fine with multiboxing, so long as you do it "by hand" with all the inherent risks involved. Regardless of how it's pulled off, they don't like seeing 30+ accounts controlled by one person all perfectly mining, ganking, bombing, etc. If you can manage it by hand more power to you.

That's also the reason why I think some of these work-arounds like round robin might come back to bite people in the backside. If the intent is to prevent people from using external "assistance" to manage multiboxing inputs, just changing the way you push the buttons may not fly. If it looks too much like broadcasting, they may just say "Welp, it's broadcasting."

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2753 - 2014-12-22 22:26:40 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
And I agree totally, CCP has real issues with ambiguity when it comes to rules. Part of it stems from them trying to avoid people dancing up to the line, and part of it comes from them wanting to keep detection processes secret.
We end up with this "letter vs. spirit" of the law issue. They're trying to write the spirit of what they want into the letter of the law itself, and failing.
The spirit of it, at least to me, is that CCP is fine with multiboxing, so long as you do it "by hand" with all the inherent risks involved. Regardless of how it's pulled off, they don't like seeing 30+ accounts controlled by one person all perfectly mining, ganking, bombing, etc. If you can manage it by hand more power to you.
That's also the reason why I think some of these work-arounds like round robin might come back to bite people in the backside. If the intent is to prevent people from using external "assistance" to manage multiboxing inputs, just changing the way you push the buttons may not fly. If it looks too much like broadcasting, they may just say "Welp, it's broadcasting."


Listen, I agree that bots and autominers are bad. I even agree that it's silly for a fleet to get wiped out by a bomber boxer (though we'll disagree as to why; if you don't have defensive bubbles and anti-bomber support in your fleet, you deserve to get bombed). But we're going to have to agree to disagree here that input broadcasting is the same level of evil as bots doing the same thing over and over without a human. We're also going to have to disagree that boxing is magically risk free (as I can attest when I tried to gank someone on Jita 4-4 and lost a handful of expensive pods), or that multibox mining is easy if a player wants to minimize waste to overlapping lasers and cargoholds filling up. Even multiboxing incursion fleets waste a lot of time and wasted shots unless a player is willing to ungroup all his guns and fire them one by one.

Do I support this change? No. Do I support the lack of communication by CCP? No. But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the game, or that my lack of support somehow prohibits me from playing. Nor does my playing this game and liking CCP preclude me from pointing out valid criticisms and requesting more information from them on a recent announcement that is murky at best.
FunGu Arsten
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#2754 - 2014-12-22 22:31:37 UTC  |  Edited by: FunGu Arsten
Mister Holder wrote:
Mierin Arthie wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
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.

How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard?

for those that dont know what a kvm switch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch



I think CCP is specifically targeting the use of ISBox and people who run 20 accounts to do various tasks. I.e. the guy who uses 20 ishtar accounts to run WH sites, people who run a ton of mining accounts with it, etc, etc.

Seems like it boils down to if you have one computer you shouldn't be running an excessive amount of client at the same time to do mind numbing tasks.



I cant believe people are still this dumb... 20 clients mining... 20 ishtars in wh... you have no idea how they are setup ,clearly

for you I will do this after 1jan
- i will put 40 mining barges in any belt in highsec - i will invite code ontop of it
- i will run 40 vexors with drones on jita 4-4 and kill all suspects...
Added: i hope ccp bans all the false ticket report incidents against my legit setup - no roundrobin, no macros, no multiplexing nothing but alttabbing + mouse + fleet warps + maybe ashitton of fireworks


Get a clue, this change doesn't change any of the things you are crying about - it's just more tedious and maybe "some" will stop, as it stops them enjoying the game.

in the end - the ones who do it to make you cry/isk will stay and continue, the ones that love this game but dont want to get flipped in the a-hole by ccp, will stop.. do other things, play other games. Because at this point most people are not sure what is allowed and what is not. Aslong as ccp doesn't reply on the specific situations brought up by experienced multiboxers, we can keep rambling on about eula and rules and this and that.

Most things are not clear, because frankly most people haven't done the research to give a clear statement about what can and can't be done after 1jan - What we can say is that isboxers are willing to help, give the info and talk with ccp as they have over the passed years.
> ccp signed off on the things brought forward and isboxers did what they got told was ok (until 1jan).
> ccp changed their mind, and thats fine. But that also means the borderline setup possibilities should be looked at...

I know the raging from both sides will continue for a thousand pages but heck, there are dumbfucks at both sides of the fence.... the guys sitting on the highchairs are just watching and laughing i guess

edit: cuz grammaar
Trakow
Beta Switch
#2755 - 2014-12-22 23:52:59 UTC
Everyone can argue until January 1st, but really, we won't see what happens until then. One thing is for certain, there will be a crackdown and some enforcement carried out.

As for workarounds, go for it. It will like just end up in CCP getting sick and tired of dealing with workarounds and complaints that they'll just end up banning the use of ISBoxer and similar software altogether... There, job done, much easier to deal with than splitting hairs.
ashley Eoner
#2756 - 2014-12-23 01:47:33 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Trakow wrote:
Everyone can argue until January 1st, but really, we won't see what happens until then. One thing is for certain, there will be a crackdown and some enforcement carried out.

As for workarounds, go for it. It will like just end up in CCP getting sick and tired of dealing with workarounds and complaints that they'll just end up banning the use of ISBoxer and similar software altogether... There, job done, much easier to deal with than splitting hairs.

Won't come close to stopping the complaints. Anyone with more then one account or even groupings of friends will still be reported. Actually an outright ban would result in even more reports as anyone with more then one account becomes an isboxer in their eyes. I've seen people complain about an isboxer when in reality it was just a group of people working together.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#2757 - 2014-12-23 03:45:09 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Trakow wrote:
Everyone can argue until January 1st, but really, we won't see what happens until then. One thing is for certain, there will be a crackdown and some enforcement carried out.

As for workarounds, go for it. It will like just end up in CCP getting sick and tired of dealing with workarounds and complaints that they'll just end up banning the use of ISBoxer and similar software altogether... There, job done, much easier to deal with than splitting hairs.

Won't come close to stopping the complaints. Anyone with more then one account or even groupings of friends will still be reported. Actually an outright ban would result in even more reports as anyone with more then one account becomes an isboxer in their eyes. I've seen people complain about an isboxer when in reality it was just a group of people working together.

This is great.

So will look out for: Update 2 on Multiboxing and (insert currently accepted other use of isboxer)

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
ashley Eoner
#2758 - 2014-12-23 04:38:18 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Trakow wrote:
Everyone can argue until January 1st, but really, we won't see what happens until then. One thing is for certain, there will be a crackdown and some enforcement carried out.

As for workarounds, go for it. It will like just end up in CCP getting sick and tired of dealing with workarounds and complaints that they'll just end up banning the use of ISBoxer and similar software altogether... There, job done, much easier to deal with than splitting hairs.

Won't come close to stopping the complaints. Anyone with more then one account or even groupings of friends will still be reported. Actually an outright ban would result in even more reports as anyone with more then one account becomes an isboxer in their eyes. I've seen people complain about an isboxer when in reality it was just a group of people working together.

This is great.

So will look out for: Update 2 on Multiboxing and (insert currently accepted other use of isboxer)

Many hours ago I was running my new setup in some VGs (no isboxer involved) and I still had a dude in local crying about how I was cheating and needed banned cause CCP banned isboxer....

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#2759 - 2014-12-23 06:29:42 UTC
Trakow wrote:
Everyone can argue until January 1st, but really, we won't see what happens until then. One thing is for certain, there will be a crackdown and some enforcement carried out.

As for workarounds, go for it. It will like just end up in CCP getting sick and tired of dealing with workarounds and complaints that they'll just end up banning the use of ISBoxer and similar software altogether... There, job done, much easier to deal with than splitting hairs.


So for the "job done" to be, done right and avoid "splitting hairs" CCP would need to ban every product (hardware and software) that was capable of being used as a work around for the upcoming, multiplexing/broadcasting ban.

Interesting concept; I wonder how many people still use a 3 button mouse, let alone own one?
I wonder how long the list of banned items would be ?

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Anke Eyrou
Hades Sisters
#2760 - 2014-12-23 06:41:31 UTC
What did I miss, whats the TL,DR? Thanks

I expect to get this post deleted or locked. So much for freedom of expression.