These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#2781 - 2014-12-23 17:11:46 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Rosewalker wrote:
Now, my understanding of the EULA is that all commands must be entered using the EVE client. So what you are telling me is that round robin bypasses the EVE client and injects the commands directly into the EVE client's memory space? Isn't that type of injection a violation of the EULA? I know that people who use injection bots get a permanent ban for client modification instead of a 30 day ban for botting if caught botting using such a bot on a first offense.

Not trying to be a smart aleck here; just trying to understand how this works.
That's a misunderstanding of the technology. When you press a key all it does is fire an even to the active window saying "Hey man, this key got pressed". There are a multitude of ways to do the same thing to an inactive window (global keybinds for example). The windows key is a prime example of this. While the program that intercepts that command is just a program running on the machine, you can have any window active and explorer will receive that command.

A round robin does exactly that, it simply fires the command to the inactive EVE client next on it's list. No memory interactions with the client occur, it simply sends off the command as if you've pressed that key and the EVE client responds as it normally would.

Another example of interacting with EVE from a third party controller is VoiceAttack. You can turn speech into commands, so you say "Fire lasers!" and it can fire your lasers, or "damage control" and it toggles your damage control. It does this in exactly the same way, by firing off the set keybind to the client.

Botting is a completely different thing. Botting uses various methods from DLL injection or memory reads to screen scrapes and OCR to automate gameplay. It has the ability to not just control a client but make it's own decisions based on circumstance. In contrast, a multiboxed character can only do exactly what a player tells it to. If you decide to go off for an hour, it will just sit there idly waiting for your return just like if you left a single client sitting there.


Okay, that makes a lot of sense. I also like the idea we just have to worry about what the software does and not how it does its magic in order to comply with the EULA.

One more question I got, and it comes from reading the security dev blog on Friday. The way you describe how the round robin works is what I took from the video. That is, think of the WoW spell as F1 and it just cycles through the clients. Before the dev blog, I would have thought it was okay. The round robin performs 2 actions: one action (pressing F1) in the EVE client and one action (selecting and storing the next EVE client to interact with) in ISBoxer. But in the dev blog, CCP Grimmi wrote:
CCP Grimmi wrote:

Any use of macros to interact with the game world is prohibited by EULA now, and has always been.

Is that going to mean that because the round robin performs multiple actions, thus qualifying as a macro, that just because one of those actions interacts with the EVE game world, that the entire round robin is a EULA-violating macro?

Okay, that's kind of a rhetorical question, because I don't think we really know. Being really cautious, that's how I'd read it, anyway. At least for the first few days until I saw if other people were getting banned or not.

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2782 - 2014-12-23 17:27:40 UTC
Vala Ancalagon wrote:
I agree, they've pushed multiboxing and it will have to stay because of it. I just personally think that was a mistake gameplay-wise, but probably a good one for them financially.
Indeed. It's a bit late to stop it now, so IMHO they should embrace it. Make gameplay benefit a solo player more (which is relatively easy as multiboxers, even broadcast ones have divided attention) than a multiboxer and encourage people to choose to play with less character rather than banning them from doing so.

Vala Ancalagon wrote:
I don't agree that TS violates the rules, it's talking about changing the way the game is played THROUGH the client. TS doesn't have anything to do with the client or how buttons are pushed in it. The IGB itself can't alter or input anything to the client for gameplay so that isn't relevant either. And it's functionality CCP provides themselves.
This has been covered before. TS, vent and mumble have overlay features so you can have you game window display info from them. This is technically a EULA violation (and I believe CCP state the themselves in their third party policy).

As for IGB, you certainly can interact with the game. Eve-market data for example allows you to automatically open up the market window to a new product every 3 seconds so a cache scraper can get new data. Several sites also offer the ability to open fittings. Route calculation sites allow you to click on system and it adds them to your autopilot, etc.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2783 - 2014-12-23 17:34:53 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:
One more question I got, and it comes from reading the security dev blog on Friday. The way you describe how the round robin works is what I took from the video. That is, think of the WoW spell as F1 and it just cycles through the clients. Before the dev blog, I would have thought it was okay. The round robin performs 2 actions: one action (pressing F1) in the EVE client and one action (selecting and storing the next EVE client to interact with) in ISBoxer. But in the dev blog, CCP Grimmi wrote:
CCP Grimmi wrote:
Any use of macros to interact with the game world is prohibited by EULA now, and has always been.
Is that going to mean that because the round robin performs multiple actions, thus qualifying as a macro, that just because one of those actions interacts with the EVE game world, that the entire round robin is a EULA-violating macro?

Okay, that's kind of a rhetorical question, because I don't think we really know. Being really cautious, that's how I'd read it, anyway. At least for the first few days until I saw if other people were getting banned or not.
Round robin doesn't really send a command to ISBoxer like that. ISBoxer can see that you've pressed a key, but it's still just one action that key is producing.

If it were a violation, it would also mean other things are too. Think about if you have Teamspeak in the background, and you have CTRL set to the talk key. You press CTRL, and Teamspeak in the background opens up the mic, but whatever CTRL is bound to in EVE also happens. 1 key, 2 actions. What Grimmi means by macros is using more complex keybinds which allow you to automate gameplay. Where it's a really thin line is for people doing things like binding all smartbombs to one key, or all defensive modules to one key. Historically that's always been allowed, and supposedly nothing in that regard has changed. But is it really still allowed now?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Opertone
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2784 - 2014-12-23 18:27:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Opertone
RMT, automation, isboxer...

it is so near to milking the cash of the CCP games, where some pan asian bad guys try to manipulate in game assets of a hard cash subscription game.

Tons of other games have been violated before, player base gouged of their money, with the game world becoming a rotting bot, macro, rmt reality. This process of violating online experience has grown into an industry.

Eve is a temptation for them. The long going universe can be farmed a lot longer. Loyal player base can not run off to a generic ELF-DRESSING game. Lots of stolen gameplay to be had.

This post sums up why the 'best' work with DCM inc.

WARP DRIVE makes eve boring

really - add warping align time 300% on gun aggression and eve becomes great again
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2785 - 2014-12-23 18:55:50 UTC
Opertone wrote:
RMT, automation, isboxer...

it is so near to milking the cash of the CCP games, where some pan asian bad guys try to manipulate in game assets of a hard cash subscription game.

Tons of other games have been violated before, player base gouged of their money, with the game world becoming a rotting bot, macro, rmt reality. This process of violating online experience has grown into an industry.

Eve is a temptation for them. The long going universe can be farmed a lot longer. Loyal player base can not run off to a generic ELF-DRESSING game. Lots of stolen gameplay to be had.
This thread has nothing to do with automation or RMT. As for "milking the cash of CCP games", CCP benefits cash wise from players who multibox. A consumed PLEX is great for them. If the fact that a multiboxeing player can make a moderate amount of isk is such a problem, then how come you aren't having a whine about traders, scammers and gambling site operatros (subset of scammers) who use significantly less accounts (and thus consume less PLEX netting CCP less money) and yet have trillions of isk.

tl;dr, you're an idiot.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Ki-Tarn Zilkia
Zilkia Intersystem Industries
#2786 - 2014-12-23 19:23:09 UTC
Pandora Myuki wrote:
Okay it's pretty simple, if you have 2 or more accounts logged INTO EVE and you PRESS ONE KEY OR MAKE ONE CLICK to make all the accounts do the same thing such as warping all your accounts to a station at the same time or launching 20 bombs at a target you will be banned.t IT IS A VERY SIMPLE RULE.


Um you can already do that in game with the command warp fleet weither it's multiple accounts or multiple players, won't launch weapons at once but can move multiple ships at the same time if they are aligned.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#2787 - 2014-12-23 19:34:24 UTC
Ki-Tarn Zilkia wrote:
Pandora Myuki wrote:
Okay it's pretty simple, if you have 2 or more accounts logged INTO EVE and you PRESS ONE KEY OR MAKE ONE CLICK to make all the accounts do the same thing such as warping all your accounts to a station at the same time or launching 20 bombs at a target you will be banned.t IT IS A VERY SIMPLE RULE.


Um you can already do that in game with the command warp fleet weither it's multiple accounts or multiple players, won't launch weapons at once but can move multiple ships at the same time if they are aligned.



If you can't see the difference between fleet warp, and using third party software to make multiple accounts do something, then I think you don't have anything useful to contribute to the discussion.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#2788 - 2014-12-23 19:46:38 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Rosewalker wrote:
One more question I got, and it comes from reading the security dev blog on Friday. The way you describe how the round robin works is what I took from the video. That is, think of the WoW spell as F1 and it just cycles through the clients. Before the dev blog, I would have thought it was okay. The round robin performs 2 actions: one action (pressing F1) in the EVE client and one action (selecting and storing the next EVE client to interact with) in ISBoxer. But in the dev blog, CCP Grimmi wrote:
CCP Grimmi wrote:
Any use of macros to interact with the game world is prohibited by EULA now, and has always been.
Is that going to mean that because the round robin performs multiple actions, thus qualifying as a macro, that just because one of those actions interacts with the EVE game world, that the entire round robin is a EULA-violating macro?

Okay, that's kind of a rhetorical question, because I don't think we really know. Being really cautious, that's how I'd read it, anyway. At least for the first few days until I saw if other people were getting banned or not.
Round robin doesn't really send a command to ISBoxer like that. ISBoxer can see that you've pressed a key, but it's still just one action that key is producing.

If it were a violation, it would also mean other things are too. Think about if you have Teamspeak in the background, and you have CTRL set to the talk key. You press CTRL, and Teamspeak in the background opens up the mic, but whatever CTRL is bound to in EVE also happens. 1 key, 2 actions. What Grimmi means by macros is using more complex keybinds which allow you to automate gameplay. Where it's a really thin line is for people doing things like binding all smartbombs to one key, or all defensive modules to one key. Historically that's always been allowed, and supposedly nothing in that regard has changed. But is it really still allowed now?


Your using Teamspeak as the example is interesting. If you look in the Third Party Policies, Teamspeak is specifically mentioned as an app that technically violates the EULA, but CCP doesn't really care about. Or at least they won't enforce the EULA against its use.

Also, you might want to look at what CCP is saying about the more complex keybinds. CCP Random of Team Security was asked on Twitter by CSM member Steve Ronuken about turning all your hardeners with one hotkey on a mouse. He said that was the definition of a macro. And on Sunday, Mike Azariah said on EVE Radio that he was going to have to stop using his macro that turns on all his hardeners at the same time. So I don't think it's allowed anymore. I personally think that means we have to look at the wording in the EULA, ToS, etc, and forget about any rulings that are currently posted on the forums. CCP Random on Twitter basically stated that, and I think CCP Grimmi said it clearer than you can in a tweet that limits you to 140 characters max.

This actually isn't just a multiboxing question. I originally started asking around about this because someone asked me about a market application called Evernus. I've asked around and the fast copy option really looks sketchy and does just about the same as the ISBoxer round robin feature. I think the only difference is that Evernus performs multiple actions in the EVE client, while the ISBoxer round robin only does one, with all the other magic happening in ISBoxer. I don't know the final answer because CCP Foxfour is on vacation.

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
ashley Eoner
#2789 - 2014-12-23 20:37:07 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Nolak Ataru wrote:
handige harrie wrote:
So what you are saying is that you're planning to use isboxer not to manage windows/logins but use it for imput, which stated in the OP is not allowed and binding a series of action to one mouse button (click and select next client)? Using ISBoxer to broadcast your keystrokes to 1 client is still broadcasting, i've bolded the fun part.


Jesus christ, way to cherrypick and completely ignore everything I typed. The thing expressly banned in the OP is straight broadcasting to any number of clients greater than 1. Using the software equivalent of a KVM switch was not banned, and given the fact that just about EVERYONE knows what the heck a KVM switch is, it would be rather silly to ban it without mentioning it.

By your reading of the policy, VideoFX would be banned as well as it allows players to activate multiple modules on different clients without hitting Alt-Tab (or the ISBoxer "bring x client forward" hotkey). However, VideoFX uses Direct X / Aero (in a way that I don't understand as I didn't write it myself) to simulate focus on each little box so a player can interact with them.

Please do research on whatever you're screaming your head off against, or else you'll wind up sounding like the people on the GTA V petition; whiny, immature, and ignorant at best, and downright deceitful at worst.

Even worse this fellow wants to ban mice and keyboards..

Every click of the mouse or keyboard is a broadcast according to his definition.

Vala Ancalagon wrote:
I honestly don't think it goes far enough. They should have banned multi-boxing clients outright, for the ultimate good of the game experience. You can argue there are many activities that "need" alts to be viable, but that's just a symptom of other issues CCP should fix also. If you need an alt to scout for you, that means that someone else playing the scout is boring/undesirable, and that mechanic should be fixed. Scouts, cynos, boosters, etc should all be viable jobs to do in-game. The premise of EvE is that you are a capsuleer, not that you are x number of capsuleers. The intention is that you play through the client, while looking at it in it's standard client configuration, and with a normal keyboard/mouse (not doing special macros, robins, etc). If multi-boxing weren't possible everyone would have a more individual, and interactive experience playing with other people.

Also, this portion of the EULA:

6. CONDUCT

A. Specifically Restricted Conduct
2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.

This is pretty clear that you have to have focus on the client to issue a command, and that you should be clicking it yourself. Otherwise you have just changed the way it is played.
So now according to you my OS is illegal to use with EVE. Fantastic...



God I saw this miles away. People were going to scramble to make arguments for making every aspect of multiboxing illegal while in the process making non multiboxer gameplay also illegal. lol



CCP this is where this is heading. You try to appease the ignorant masses and they just keep pushing for more ridiculousness. They won't be happy ever because they're too busy obsessing over the possibility of someone somewhere possibly having a slight advantage over them.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2790 - 2014-12-23 20:44:08 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:
Your using Teamspeak as the example is interesting. If you look in the Third Party Policies, Teamspeak is specifically mentioned as an app that technically violates the EULA, but CCP doesn't really care about. Or at least they won't enforce the EULA against its use.

Also, you might want to look at what CCP is saying about the more complex keybinds. CCP Random of Team Security was asked on Twitter by CSM member Steve Ronuken about turning all your hardeners with one hotkey on a mouse. He said that was the definition of a macro. And on Sunday, Mike Azariah said on EVE Radio that he was going to have to stop using his macro that turns on all his hardeners at the same time. So I don't think it's allowed anymore. I personally think that means we have to look at the wording in the EULA, ToS, etc, and forget about any rulings that are currently posted on the forums. CCP Random on Twitter basically stated that, and I think CCP Grimmi said it clearer than you can in a tweet that limits you to 140 characters max.

This actually isn't just a multiboxing question. I originally started asking around about this because someone asked me about a market application called Evernus. I've asked around and the fast copy option really looks sketchy and does just about the same as the ISBoxer round robin feature. I think the only difference is that Evernus performs multiple actions in the EVE client, while the ISBoxer round robin only does one, with all the other magic happening in ISBoxer. I don't know the final answer because CCP Foxfour is on vacation.


Yes, Teamspeak and other programs violate the EULA. This has been known for some time. Speaking of history repeating itself, CCP ran into the same language issue / clarity issue when they said "Cache scraping is bannable, but we don't ban you, but if you bot and scrape, we will ban you" leaving many to wonder why mention cache scraping to begin with, and caused a lot of players who were trying to play by the rules (same as multiboxers) to wonder what CCP was doing, and wonder at the MASSIVE grey line they created. As before, any grey line is bad for CCP and the players. It's bad for players trying to stick in the line as they now don't dare get anywhere near the Russia-sized line, and it's bad for CCP as players will either get banned for trying to follow the new rules but inadvertently cross over, and by people who don't want to go through the massive effort it now takes to stay Kosher, so they'll leave and tell their friends to not play.

As we've (and you too) have mentioned before, Twitter is not an official platform and any announcement on Twitter is "meh" until they post it on a dev blog or the forum. Steve used specifically vague language that could have been interpreted as not sending straight F1-F8, but using the same mechanics that bots use as Lucas mentioned via DLL scripting and screen scrapes. Until CCP comes out and says "Yeah, no F1-F8" I'd take anything Twitter says with a grain of salt, especially since Seagull and Fozzie lied to us on Twitter. Macros can mean anything from "F1-F8" to "when I get damaged, turn on stuff". I think we're going to have to have CCP split the definition of "macro" here into "straight input macro", i.e. "F1-F8", and "non-straight input macro", i.e. "Turn on stuff when I get damaged" or "When player presses MJD, also turn on ECM". I know that wasn't the best examples, but they were the best I could come up with in a short amount of time.
FunGu Arsten
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#2791 - 2014-12-23 20:55:08 UTC

ashley Eoner wrote:

God I saw this miles away. People were going to scramble to make arguments for making every aspect of multiboxing illegal while in the process making non multiboxer gameplay also illegal. lol


CCP this is where this is heading. You try to appease the ignorant masses and they just keep pushing for more ridiculousness. They won't be happy ever because they're too busy obsessing over the possibility of someone somewhere possibly having a slight advantage over them.


the truth....
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2792 - 2014-12-23 20:55:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Nolak Ataru
ashley Eoner wrote:
Even worse this fellow wants to ban mice and keyboards..
Every click of the mouse or keyboard is a broadcast according to his definition.


Even more cherry-picking but with a side of straw-man. Using a simple keyboard and mouse with no other program attached is not broadcasting. I don't want to ban mice and keyboards, but I want CCP to expand on G510s and G600's macro keys that cannot automate gameplay and simply send a single string of keys. A single click that does a single action is an "input". Nothing more.

ashley Eoner wrote:
So now according to you my OS is illegal to use with EVE. Fantastic...
God I saw this miles away. People were going to scramble to make arguments for making every aspect of multiboxing illegal while in the process making non multiboxer gameplay also illegal. lol
CCP this is where this is heading. You try to appease the ignorant masses and they just keep pushing for more ridiculousness. They won't be happy ever because they're too busy obsessing over the possibility of someone somewhere possibly having a slight advantage over them.


Even though you used a straw-man fallacy, I don't have any arguments with this. We saw the same exact thing happen in the Cloak change thread for bombers, where people called for outright removal of the Stealth Bomber class. People will not be happy until everyone has 500m SP toons, is limited to T1 battleships max, no implants, no ABC BCs, and every system is a 1.0 system with no aggression allowed. Thankfully, those wingnuts are a very, very, small minority, and need to be told to HTFU. I just wish CCP told the idiots who cry "waah he ganked my 20b freighter", "waah I don't know what ECM is", "waah i don't understand how complicated ISBoxer is", and "waah my AFK fleet in nullsec got bombed" to HTFU as well.

edit: When CCP tries to pacify the lowest common denominator, the lowest common denominator gets lower.
ashley Eoner
#2793 - 2014-12-23 21:08:50 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Nolak Ataru wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Even worse this fellow wants to ban mice and keyboards..
Every click of the mouse or keyboard is a broadcast according to his definition.


Even more cherry-picking but with a side of straw-man. Using a simple keyboard and mouse with no other program attached is not broadcasting. I don't want to ban mice and keyboards, but I want CCP to expand on G510s and G600's macro keys that cannot automate gameplay and simply send a single string of keys. A single click that does a single action is an "input". Nothing more.

ashley Eoner wrote:
So now according to you my OS is illegal to use with EVE. Fantastic...
God I saw this miles away. People were going to scramble to make arguments for making every aspect of multiboxing illegal while in the process making non multiboxer gameplay also illegal. lol
CCP this is where this is heading. You try to appease the ignorant masses and they just keep pushing for more ridiculousness. They won't be happy ever because they're too busy obsessing over the possibility of someone somewhere possibly having a slight advantage over them.


Even though you used a straw-man fallacy, I don't have any arguments with this. We saw the same exact thing happen in the Cloak change thread for bombers, where people called for outright removal of the Stealth Bomber class. People will not be happy until everyone has 500m SP toons, is limited to T1 battleships max, no implants, no ABC BCs, and every system is a 1.0 system with no aggression allowed. Thankfully, those wingnuts are a very, very, small minority, and need to be told to HTFU. I just wish CCP told the idiots who cry "waah he ganked my 20b freighter", "waah I don't know what ECM is", "waah i don't understand how complicated ISBoxer is", and "waah my AFK fleet in nullsec got bombed" to HTFU as well.

I'm not even talking to you. I'm responding to the ridiculousness you're quoting. So either delete or try again because you're only further pointing out my point.

There's no strawman the people are in this very thread. Just read it.
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#2794 - 2014-12-23 21:09:23 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
As we've (and you too) have mentioned before, Twitter is not an official platform and any announcement on Twitter is "meh" until they post it on a dev blog or the forum. Steve used specifically vague language that could have been interpreted as not sending straight F1-F8, but using the same mechanics that bots use as Lucas mentioned via DLL scripting and screen scrapes. Until CCP comes out and says "Yeah, no F1-F8" I'd take anything Twitter says with a grain of salt, especially since Seagull and Fozzie lied to us on Twitter. Macros can mean anything from "F1-F8" to "when I get damaged, turn on stuff". I think we're going to have to have CCP split the definition of "macro" here into "straight input macro", i.e. "F1-F8", and "non-straight input macro", i.e. "Turn on stuff when I get damaged" or "When player presses MJD, also turn on ECM". I know that wasn't the best examples, but they were the best I could come up with in a short amount of time.


That's right, it's not official. That means you can't paste a link to Twitter into a petition to protest a ban and have it count for anything. If you are looking at a ban defense, this won't help. But the objective should be to avoid getting banned in the first place. That means trying to figure out where the line that will get you banned is, not playing CYA if you cross the line. The tweets from CCP Random and the dev blog from CCP Grimmi help do that.

To my way of thinking, not getting banned is much preferable to having to file a petition. You may disagree.

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#2795 - 2014-12-23 21:09:33 UTC  |  Edited by: James Baboli
Nolak Ataru wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Even worse this fellow wants to ban mice and keyboards..
Every click of the mouse or keyboard is a broadcast according to his definition.


Even more cherry-picking but with a side of straw-man. Using a simple keyboard and mouse with no other program attached is not broadcasting. I don't want to ban mice and keyboards, but I want CCP to expand on G510s and G600's macro keys that cannot automate gameplay and simply send a single string of keys. A single click that does a single action is an "input". Nothing more.


This is a big one.

CCP really needs to lay out a very firm line on the sort of thing allowed or banned, and add the definitions they use to determine bannable behavior to the EULA.

Ex:
Merrian-Webster: wrote:

macro noun
computers : a set of instructions that causes a computer to perform a series of tasks


This means that to be a macro, it would require timers or other series instructions from a single input. On the other hand, you have the common definition of macro in gaming, which includes simple combination keybinds, like f1-f8 all going from the same keypress or mouse button. And then you have things like f1 on depression and alt tab on release, which is technically a single action per input, but physically related inputs. Then you have the straight up "this button automagically activates reps at 1s intervals". CCP really needs to make it clear which of those three is bannable, because the common meaning is the most innocuous, while the technical definition is the most insidious.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Vala Ancalagon
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#2796 - 2014-12-23 21:34:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Vala Ancalagon
ashley Eoner wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
handige harrie wrote:
So what you are saying is that you're planning to use isboxer not to manage windows/logins but use it for imput, which stated in the OP is not allowed and binding a series of action to one mouse button (click and select next client)? Using ISBoxer to broadcast your keystrokes to 1 client is still broadcasting, i've bolded the fun part.


Jesus christ, way to cherrypick and completely ignore everything I typed. The thing expressly banned in the OP is straight broadcasting to any number of clients greater than 1. Using the software equivalent of a KVM switch was not banned, and given the fact that just about EVERYONE knows what the heck a KVM switch is, it would be rather silly to ban it without mentioning it.

By your reading of the policy, VideoFX would be banned as well as it allows players to activate multiple modules on different clients without hitting Alt-Tab (or the ISBoxer "bring x client forward" hotkey). However, VideoFX uses Direct X / Aero (in a way that I don't understand as I didn't write it myself) to simulate focus on each little box so a player can interact with them.

Please do research on whatever you're screaming your head off against, or else you'll wind up sounding like the people on the GTA V petition; whiny, immature, and ignorant at best, and downright deceitful at worst.

Even worse this fellow wants to ban mice and keyboards..

Every click of the mouse or keyboard is a broadcast according to his definition.

Vala Ancalagon wrote:
I honestly don't think it goes far enough. They should have banned multi-boxing clients outright, for the ultimate good of the game experience. You can argue there are many activities that "need" alts to be viable, but that's just a symptom of other issues CCP should fix also. If you need an alt to scout for you, that means that someone else playing the scout is boring/undesirable, and that mechanic should be fixed. Scouts, cynos, boosters, etc should all be viable jobs to do in-game. The premise of EvE is that you are a capsuleer, not that you are x number of capsuleers. The intention is that you play through the client, while looking at it in it's standard client configuration, and with a normal keyboard/mouse (not doing special macros, robins, etc). If multi-boxing weren't possible everyone would have a more individual, and interactive experience playing with other people.

Also, this portion of the EULA:

6. CONDUCT

A. Specifically Restricted Conduct
2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.

This is pretty clear that you have to have focus on the client to issue a command, and that you should be clicking it yourself. Otherwise you have just changed the way it is played.
So now according to you my OS is illegal to use with EVE. Fantastic...



God I saw this miles away. People were going to scramble to make arguments for making every aspect of multiboxing illegal while in the process making non multiboxer gameplay also illegal. lol



CCP this is where this is heading. You try to appease the ignorant masses and they just keep pushing for more ridiculousness. They won't be happy ever because they're too busy obsessing over the possibility of someone somewhere possibly having a slight advantage over them.


Not really, I'm simply saying that CCP's rules are pretty much self-explanatory. You obviously have to use an OS, because it is designed to run on one. Kind of a disingenuous argument there. What CCP wants is obvious: use the client as intended, don't use things that allow you to do in the client what you can't do with the basic mouse/keyboard setup. Some common sense goes a long way here, and people pushing the "limits" know they are doing so. Those claiming that they don't know are also disingenuous for the most part. For those that truly don't have a clue, the multi-strike rules will have to suffice.

As for my dislike of multi-boxing, it has nothing to do with disadvantage or whatever you believe it is. I just think it would make the game better overall from a social and teamwork perspective. I'd like to see boosters be an interesting and interactive part of fleets. I'd like there to be an interesting reason to be the cyno character for your fleet. The fact there it isn't is a mechanic problem that drives people to rely on multi-boxing. And I stated that getting rid of multi-box would never happen, it was simply a personal view. CCP is heavily invested in multi-boxing financially at this point.
ashley Eoner
#2797 - 2014-12-23 21:36:15 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Vala Ancalagon wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
handige harrie wrote:
So what you are saying is that you're planning to use isboxer not to manage windows/logins but use it for imput, which stated in the OP is not allowed and binding a series of action to one mouse button (click and select next client)? Using ISBoxer to broadcast your keystrokes to 1 client is still broadcasting, i've bolded the fun part.


Jesus christ, way to cherrypick and completely ignore everything I typed. The thing expressly banned in the OP is straight broadcasting to any number of clients greater than 1. Using the software equivalent of a KVM switch was not banned, and given the fact that just about EVERYONE knows what the heck a KVM switch is, it would be rather silly to ban it without mentioning it.

By your reading of the policy, VideoFX would be banned as well as it allows players to activate multiple modules on different clients without hitting Alt-Tab (or the ISBoxer "bring x client forward" hotkey). However, VideoFX uses Direct X / Aero (in a way that I don't understand as I didn't write it myself) to simulate focus on each little box so a player can interact with them.

Please do research on whatever you're screaming your head off against, or else you'll wind up sounding like the people on the GTA V petition; whiny, immature, and ignorant at best, and downright deceitful at worst.

Even worse this fellow wants to ban mice and keyboards..

Every click of the mouse or keyboard is a broadcast according to his definition.

Vala Ancalagon wrote:
I honestly don't think it goes far enough. They should have banned multi-boxing clients outright, for the ultimate good of the game experience. You can argue there are many activities that "need" alts to be viable, but that's just a symptom of other issues CCP should fix also. If you need an alt to scout for you, that means that someone else playing the scout is boring/undesirable, and that mechanic should be fixed. Scouts, cynos, boosters, etc should all be viable jobs to do in-game. The premise of EvE is that you are a capsuleer, not that you are x number of capsuleers. The intention is that you play through the client, while looking at it in it's standard client configuration, and with a normal keyboard/mouse (not doing special macros, robins, etc). If multi-boxing weren't possible everyone would have a more individual, and interactive experience playing with other people.

Also, this portion of the EULA:

6. CONDUCT

A. Specifically Restricted Conduct
2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.

This is pretty clear that you have to have focus on the client to issue a command, and that you should be clicking it yourself. Otherwise you have just changed the way it is played.
So now according to you my OS is illegal to use with EVE. Fantastic...



God I saw this miles away. People were going to scramble to make arguments for making every aspect of multiboxing illegal while in the process making non multiboxer gameplay also illegal. lol



CCP this is where this is heading. You try to appease the ignorant masses and they just keep pushing for more ridiculousness. They won't be happy ever because they're too busy obsessing over the possibility of someone somewhere possibly having a slight advantage over them.


Not really, I'm simply saying that CCP's rules are pretty much self-explanatory. You obviously have to use an OS, because it is designed to run on one. Kind of a disingenuous argument there. What CCP wants is obvious: use the client as intended, don't use things that allow you to do in the client what you can't do with the basic mouse/keyboard setup. Some common sense goes a lot way here, and people pushing the "limits" know they are doing so. Them claiming that they don't know is also disingenuous. For those that truly don't have a clue, the multi-strike rules will have to suffice.

As for my dislike of multi-boxing, it has nothing to do with disadvantage or whatever you believe it is. I just think it would make the game better overall from a social and teamwork perspective. I'd like to see boosters be an interesting and interactive part of fleets. I'd like there to be an interesting reason to be the cyno character for your fleet. The fact there it isn't is a mechanic problem that drives people to rely on multi-boxing. And I stated that getting rid of multi-box would never happen, it was simply a personal view. CCP is heavily invested in multi-boxing financially at this point.
My OS allows for me to send commands to the non highlighted windows.. That's illegal according to some here.

That one chap tried to argue that mouse or keyboard input is broadcasting thus illegal... It's just getting silly here


Isboxer doesn't do anything you couldn't do with the client on it's own. Well aside from the ability to broadcast the same key to multiple clients at the same time. Your own definition means round robin and such are perfectly fine.


I'd like to see unicorns.. Talk is cheap trying to figure out how to do it is hard work . Try coming up with a way to make boosters interesting and I guarantee I'll show you an exploit that you didn't intend. We didn't get here because CCP just made the game last year and randomly decided stuff. WE got to this point because players have been exploiting everything in game they can to maximize their doctrines for the last +10 years. Making changes in such an environment is extremely difficult.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2798 - 2014-12-23 21:48:03 UTC
Vala Ancalagon wrote:
Not really, I'm simply saying that CCP's rules are pretty much self-explanatory. You obviously have to use an OS, because it is designed to run on one. Kind of a disingenuous argument there. What CCP wants is obvious: use the client as intended, don't use things that allow you to do in the client what you can't do with the basic mouse/keyboard setup. Some common sense goes a lot way here, and people pushing the "limits" know they are doing so. Them claiming that they don't know is also disingenuous. For those that truly don't have a clue, the multi-strike rules will have to suffice.

As for my dislike of multi-boxing, it has nothing to do with disadvantage or whatever you believe it is. I just think it would make the game better overall from a social and teamwork perspective. I'd like to see boosters be an interesting and interactive part of fleets. I'd like there to be an interesting reason to be the cyno character for your fleet. The fact there it isn't is a mechanic problem that drives people to rely on multi-boxing. And I stated that getting rid of multi-box would never happen, it was simply a personal view. CCP is heavily invested in multi-boxing financially at this point.


Except they aren't self explanatory... not in the least. If CCP says that X breaks the EULA, and people ask about Y and Z which mimic X in such a way that it would be damn near impossible to tell the difference, then they need to clarify.

Your dislike of multiboxing does not take into consideration differences of personalities, nor does it take TZ issues into account. It's hard for some Aussies because of sub-par internet at times and lack of people, so they must rely on alts heavily.

Rosewalker wrote:
But the objective should be to avoid getting banned in the first place. That means trying to figure out where the line that will get you banned is

Victim blaming aside, that's what we're TRYING to do here.... We want CCP to paint the line with neon orange paint and a paintbrush and say "This is the line", not use a pressure washer and spray it everywhere. You also dismiss the idea of Twitter being a reliable source and then attempt to use it to support your argument. If you bothered to read the Dev blog, it was pretty much "yep, we let the people speak without offering help, time to pack up and call it a day" with no expansion on the topic.

ashley Eoner wrote:
There's no strawman the people are in this very thread. Just read it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
"By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate."
I never said I wanted mice and keyboards banned. I simply pointed out that it and other software that the average EVE user uses could be in breach of the new interpretation of the EULA.
ashley Eoner
#2799 - 2014-12-23 21:51:01 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Vala Ancalagon wrote:
Not really, I'm simply saying that CCP's rules are pretty much self-explanatory. You obviously have to use an OS, because it is designed to run on one. Kind of a disingenuous argument there. What CCP wants is obvious: use the client as intended, don't use things that allow you to do in the client what you can't do with the basic mouse/keyboard setup. Some common sense goes a lot way here, and people pushing the "limits" know they are doing so. Them claiming that they don't know is also disingenuous. For those that truly don't have a clue, the multi-strike rules will have to suffice.

As for my dislike of multi-boxing, it has nothing to do with disadvantage or whatever you believe it is. I just think it would make the game better overall from a social and teamwork perspective. I'd like to see boosters be an interesting and interactive part of fleets. I'd like there to be an interesting reason to be the cyno character for your fleet. The fact there it isn't is a mechanic problem that drives people to rely on multi-boxing. And I stated that getting rid of multi-box would never happen, it was simply a personal view. CCP is heavily invested in multi-boxing financially at this point.


Except they aren't self explanatory... not in the least. If CCP says that X breaks the EULA, and people ask about Y and Z which mimic X in such a way that it would be damn near impossible to tell the difference, then they need to clarify.

Your dislike of multiboxing does not take into consideration differences of personalities, nor does it take TZ issues into account. It's hard for some Aussies because of sub-par internet at times and lack of people, so they must rely on alts heavily.

Rosewalker wrote:
But the objective should be to avoid getting banned in the first place. That means trying to figure out where the line that will get you banned is

Victim blaming aside, that's what we're TRYING to do here.... We want CCP to paint the line with neon orange paint and a paintbrush and say "This is the line", not use a pressure washer and spray it everywhere. You also dismiss the idea of Twitter being a reliable source and then attempt to use it to support your argument. If you bothered to read the Dev blog, it was pretty much "yep, we let the people speak without offering help, time to pack up and call it a day" with no expansion on the topic.

ashley Eoner wrote:
There's no strawman the people are in this very thread. Just read it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
"By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate."
I never said I wanted mice and keyboards banned. I simply pointed out that it and other software that the average EVE user uses could be in breach of the new interpretation of the EULA.

Look at the comments I quoted look at what has been said in this thread. There is no strawman when people are actually advocating it...

christ almighty you're about as bad as the anti-multibox nuts.
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#2800 - 2014-12-23 21:58:51 UTC
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-modules-round-two

Merry Christmas Big smile

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.