These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#3381 - 2015-02-07 00:27:11 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Charadrass wrote:
i dont Need a reason for asking for a Statement in the english part of the Forums do i?

Well no, ofc, but it's still amusing

Just like it's amusing to us that everyone and their mother wants CCP to do their dirty work.
Trakow
Beta Switch
#3382 - 2015-02-07 00:43:42 UTC
Charadrass wrote:
first.
posting a gm petition answer is violating the eula.


First, it wasn't from a GM. And second, how does it violate the EULA?
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#3383 - 2015-02-07 01:07:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Nolak Ataru
Trakow wrote:
Charadrass wrote:
first.
posting a gm petition answer is violating the eula.


First, it wasn't from a GM. And second, how does it violate the EULA?

Can't post private correspondences between players and GMs / CCPs from petitions.

e: I'd quote you the exact section, paragraph, and subsection, but CCP has no doubt changed that.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#3384 - 2015-02-07 01:46:47 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
If you haven't been banned and you are following the new rules, don't worry about it. IF you get hit with a ban, then squawk.

no, if you get hit with a ban you disappear...

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 ?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3385 - 2015-02-07 02:40:00 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Trakow wrote:
Charadrass wrote:
first.
posting a gm petition answer is violating the eula.


First, it wasn't from a GM. And second, how does it violate the EULA?

Can't post private correspondences between players and GMs / CCPs from petitions.

e: I'd quote you the exact section, paragraph, and subsection, but CCP has no doubt changed that.

And a huge problem with that part of the EULA is - The person asking the right question gets a "private" answer which the rest of the playing community may or may not get, depending on who gives the answer and or if it suits them to keep everyone on the same page as far as rules and changes go.

Prior to the message from CCP Peligro being posted, there was no ruling stating you would be banned for using round robin keystrokes. Now it "seems" you can be banned for using them but no-one from CCP has officially made this information known to their paying customers. Some of whom are at risk of being banned for using tools provided by CCP.



Keeping secrets about upcoming changes to SOV is one thing, keeping secrets about rule changes is entirely different.

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.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#3386 - 2015-02-07 04:27:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Trakow wrote:
Charadrass wrote:
first.
posting a gm petition answer is violating the eula.


First, it wasn't from a GM. And second, how does it violate the EULA?

Can't post private correspondences between players and GMs / CCPs from petitions.

e: I'd quote you the exact section, paragraph, and subsection, but CCP has no doubt changed that.

And a huge problem with that part of the EULA is - The person asking the right question gets a "private" answer which the rest of the playing community may or may not get, depending on who gives the answer and or if it suits them to keep everyone on the same page as far as rules and changes go.

Prior to the message from CCP Peligro being posted, there was no ruling stating you would be banned for using round robin keystrokes. Now it "seems" you can be banned for using them but no-one from CCP has officially made this information known to their paying customers. Some of whom are at risk of being banned for using tools provided by CCP.



Keeping secrets about upcoming changes to SOV is one thing, keeping secrets about rule changes is entirely different.

Yeah, Well it's also the case that you can't anyway be allowed to know what has been done (as the person telling you would get banned for letting you know about a decision).

So their intent is for everyone to petition anything involving more than one client at a time
(obviously not just cyno alts, unless you're lighting cynos really rapidly, but why would you...)
(or afk cloaking alts, unless they all cloak really rapidly, but logging in at once is ok)

With all the vague wording around, it's common sense to not assume anything is "ok" without a specific petition to a GM, which has a reply attached to it clearly saying "yeah this one thing is ok". But you can't share it, or you will be In Trouble.

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 ?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3387 - 2015-02-07 05:39:12 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Trakow wrote:
Charadrass wrote:
first.
posting a gm petition answer is violating the eula.


First, it wasn't from a GM. And second, how does it violate the EULA?

Can't post private correspondences between players and GMs / CCPs from petitions.

e: I'd quote you the exact section, paragraph, and subsection, but CCP has no doubt changed that.

And a huge problem with that part of the EULA is - The person asking the right question gets a "private" answer which the rest of the playing community may or may not get, depending on who gives the answer and or if it suits them to keep everyone on the same page as far as rules and changes go.

Prior to the message from CCP Peligro being posted, there was no ruling stating you would be banned for using round robin keystrokes. Now it "seems" you can be banned for using them but no-one from CCP has officially made this information known to their paying customers. Some of whom are at risk of being banned for using tools provided by CCP.



Keeping secrets about upcoming changes to SOV is one thing, keeping secrets about rule changes is entirely different.

Yeah, Well it's also the case that you can't anyway be allowed to know what has been done (as the person telling you would get banned for letting you know about a decision).

So their intent is for everyone to petition anything involving more than one client at a time
(obviously not just cyno alts, unless you're lighting cynos really rapidly, but why would you...)
(or afk cloaking alts, unless they all cloak really rapidly, but logging in at once is ok)

With all the vague wording around, it's common sense to not assume anything is "ok" without a specific petition to a GM, which has a reply attached to it clearly saying "yeah this one thing is ok". But you can't share it, or you will be In Trouble.

The support ticket i lodged simply referred me to this forum thread "as all changes relating to my questions can be found there".

Not very supportive (or informative) support.

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.
Trakow
Beta Switch
#3388 - 2015-02-07 17:30:49 UTC
So, I posted my answer not to stir the pot, but to help clear things up. Since nobody seemed to get any straight answers, and CCP does not clarify or seem to want to make things clear, I figured I should post the response because I DID get a clear, specific and definite answer to my questions.

In my defense for posting the correspondence:

First of all, by doing so, I DID NOT breach any of the EULA rules. I read the whole thing, including the Privacy Policy. What I did "break" was the Forum Moderation Policy which is separate from the EULA.

Second of all, I did not have to sign up for this forum, nor did I have to click on a checkbox or button saying I agreed to the Forum Moderation Policy. All I had to do was log into Eve Gate like I always do, and thanks to SSO, I was signed into the forum. Perhaps CCP should revisit the forum login method and have users have to click on "agree" on their first visit to the forum. Then the policy is right there in front of you and you have no choice but to click "agree". Putting a link somewhere on the page to the forum rules does not mean anyone will click on it, it could for all we know, be one of those spam ads, like "You have one new message, click here to read it". You know what I mean... This is for the same reasons that when you install software, you have to click the button that says you agree or accept the terms/conditions/eula otherwise it will not install. This forces you to agree/accept if you want the software installed.

Just wanted to clear those things up.
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#3389 - 2015-02-07 18:28:50 UTC
Trakow wrote:
First of all, by doing so, I DID NOT breach any of the EULA rules. I read the whole thing, including the Privacy Policy. What I did "break" was the Forum Moderation Policy which is separate from the EULA.


Actually, it is a violation of the EVE EULA, but you have to dig a bit...

First, Section 6C refers you to a location outside the EULA...
Section 6C of the EVE Online EULA wrote:
You agree to observe and abide by the Rules of Conduct as may be amended by CCP from time to time. The current version of the Rules of Conduct may be viewed at https://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/eve-tos/, and are incorporated in the EULA by reference.


Paragraph 18 in the ToS is where CCP's stance on publishing communications from CCP is stated.

EVE Online Terms of Service wrote:
18, You may not publish private communications from CCP, their agents or representatives or EVE Online volunteers without authorization.


That's anything, any place. Even outside the forums. So yes, publishing that violated the EULA, through violating the Rules of Conduct (aka the ToS). Trust me, I understand your reasoning and sympathize with it. There are some things I've been sent in the past (not necessarily directly by CCP) I'd like to publish, but I like my accounts too much Big smile

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
Charadrass
Angry Germans
#3390 - 2015-02-07 19:03:57 UTC
somer blink got banned permanently for posting gm communication btw.

but back to Topic.

we still need clarification.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#3391 - 2015-02-07 21:32:25 UTC
It's good we all agree that someone can be nuked.

I'm going to try and learn to use multiple characters as well, it seems like an interesting challenge.

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 ?
Trakow
Beta Switch
#3392 - 2015-02-07 22:34:07 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:
Trakow wrote:
First of all, by doing so, I DID NOT breach any of the EULA rules. I read the whole thing, including the Privacy Policy. What I did "break" was the Forum Moderation Policy which is separate from the EULA.


Actually, it is a violation of the EVE EULA, but you have to dig a bit...

First, Section 6C refers you to a location outside the EULA...
Section 6C of the EVE Online EULA wrote:
You agree to observe and abide by the Rules of Conduct as may be amended by CCP from time to time. The current version of the Rules of Conduct may be viewed at https://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/eve-tos/, and are incorporated in the EULA by reference.


Paragraph 18 in the ToS is where CCP's stance on publishing communications from CCP is stated.

EVE Online Terms of Service wrote:
18, You may not publish private communications from CCP, their agents or representatives or EVE Online volunteers without authorization.


That's anything, any place. Even outside the forums. So yes, publishing that violated the EULA, through violating the Rules of Conduct (aka the ToS). Trust me, I understand your reasoning and sympathize with it. There are some things I've been sent in the past (not necessarily directly by CCP) I'd like to publish, but I like my accounts too much Big smile


Ah, well, something I learned from the ISBoxers is how to interpret the EULA and rules in my favor, and nitpick details. As I see it, they say that you may not publish it. I didn't, because it's not in any newspaper, magazine or article, nor was it produced or distributed by a publisher. That's my understanding of that statement until CCP tell me directly, specifically and publicly what they mean by that para.
Verisimilidude 001
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3393 - 2015-02-07 22:35:27 UTC
http://youtu.be/HFdYO9h0H3Y

Here's a video of me multiboxing two 20 man Incursions post-EULA changes. The first took 20 minutes and the second 18 and change. Max skilled, I could probably shave this down to 12-15 minutes per site.

You'll note that there is no multiplexing or macros--Just some good old video effects. Everything you see here falls completely within the guidelines that CCP has posted with respect to their ToS/EULA changes.

Ultimately, I find the changes to be an irritation more than anything else. All they do is make certain activities more inefficient and certainly don't break any of the activities CCP was trying to curtail.

The worst part about the changes is that CCP refuses to answer questions--It seems like the plan is to intimidate people more than anything.
Charadrass
Angry Germans
#3394 - 2015-02-07 22:51:16 UTC
wow
i was thinking a was videofxing like a pro but it seems i am only at beginner state :)

that is awesome!

i am using different keys. one key for each box and each order. in combination with videofx ofc.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#3395 - 2015-02-07 22:54:34 UTC
Charadrass wrote:
i was thinking a was videofxing like a pro but it seems i am only at beginner state :)

Told'ja.
Kaphrah
Thats my BOI
#3396 - 2015-02-08 00:10:27 UTC
Verisimilidude 001 wrote:
http://youtu.be/HFdYO9h0H3Y

Here's a video of me multiboxing two 20 man Incursions post-EULA changes. The first took 20 minutes and the second 18 and change. Max skilled, I could probably shave this down to 12-15 minutes per site.

You'll note that there is no multiplexing or macros--Just some good old video effects. Everything you see here falls completely within the guidelines that CCP has posted with respect to their ToS/EULA changes.

Ultimately, I find the changes to be an irritation more than anything else. All they do is make certain activities more inefficient and certainly don't break any of the activities CCP was trying to curtail.

The worst part about the changes is that CCP refuses to answer questions--It seems like the plan is to intimidate people more than anything.



nicely done, so could maybe some ccp official state if stuff like this is fine if done very fast?
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#3397 - 2015-02-08 01:58:08 UTC
Trakow wrote:
Rosewalker wrote:
Trakow wrote:
First of all, by doing so, I DID NOT breach any of the EULA rules. I read the whole thing, including the Privacy Policy. What I did "break" was the Forum Moderation Policy which is separate from the EULA.


Actually, it is a violation of the EVE EULA, but you have to dig a bit...

First, Section 6C refers you to a location outside the EULA...
Section 6C of the EVE Online EULA wrote:
You agree to observe and abide by the Rules of Conduct as may be amended by CCP from time to time. The current version of the Rules of Conduct may be viewed at https://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/eve-tos/, and are incorporated in the EULA by reference.


Paragraph 18 in the ToS is where CCP's stance on publishing communications from CCP is stated.

EVE Online Terms of Service wrote:
18, You may not publish private communications from CCP, their agents or representatives or EVE Online volunteers without authorization.


That's anything, any place. Even outside the forums. So yes, publishing that violated the EULA, through violating the Rules of Conduct (aka the ToS). Trust me, I understand your reasoning and sympathize with it. There are some things I've been sent in the past (not necessarily directly by CCP) I'd like to publish, but I like my accounts too much Big smile


Ah, well, something I learned from the ISBoxers is how to interpret the EULA and rules in my favor, and nitpick details. As I see it, they say that you may not publish it. I didn't, because it's not in any newspaper, magazine or article, nor was it produced or distributed by a publisher. That's my understanding of that statement until CCP tell me directly, specifically and publicly what they mean by that para.


I bow to the master Cool

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
ashley Eoner
#3398 - 2015-02-08 03:29:34 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
That is way more involved then what I'm doing. Props to you for all that extra stuff.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#3399 - 2015-02-08 05:47:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Kaphrah wrote:
Verisimilidude 001 wrote:
http://youtu.be/HFdYO9h0H3Y

Here's a video of me multiboxing two 20 man Incursions post-EULA changes. The first took 20 minutes and the second 18 and change. Max skilled, I could probably shave this down to 12-15 minutes per site.

You'll note that there is no multiplexing or macros--Just some good old video effects. Everything you see here falls completely within the guidelines that CCP has posted with respect to their ToS/EULA changes.

Ultimately, I find the changes to be an irritation more than anything else. All they do is make certain activities more inefficient and certainly don't break any of the activities CCP was trying to curtail.

The worst part about the changes is that CCP refuses to answer questions--It seems like the plan is to intimidate people more than anything.

nicely done, so could maybe some ccp official state if stuff like this is fine if done very fast?

That is very amazing. Verisimilidude, really well thought out stuff you have there.

If you want to know if it is fine then I guess you'll have to petition and ask. But don't share the response (whatever it is) because you might suddenly get nuked!

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 ?
Kaphrah
Thats my BOI
#3400 - 2015-02-08 22:22:08 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Kaphrah wrote:
Verisimilidude 001 wrote:
http://youtu.be/HFdYO9h0H3Y

Here's a video of me multiboxing two 20 man Incursions post-EULA changes. The first took 20 minutes and the second 18 and change. Max skilled, I could probably shave this down to 12-15 minutes per site.

You'll note that there is no multiplexing or macros--Just some good old video effects. Everything you see here falls completely within the guidelines that CCP has posted with respect to their ToS/EULA changes.

Ultimately, I find the changes to be an irritation more than anything else. All they do is make certain activities more inefficient and certainly don't break any of the activities CCP was trying to curtail.

The worst part about the changes is that CCP refuses to answer questions--It seems like the plan is to intimidate people more than anything.

nicely done, so could maybe some ccp official state if stuff like this is fine if done very fast?

That is very amazing. Verisimilidude, really well thought out stuff you have there.

If you want to know if it is fine then I guess you'll have to petition and ask. But don't share the response (whatever it is) because you might suddenly get nuked!


Make a guess where I was told to ask.

it couldn't be this thread here, could it? Oh wait, they really told me to ask in this thread...