These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#4021 - 2015-04-10 23:19:11 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

Alright, if you want to nitpick, I shall acquiesce:
ISBoxer violates 6A2, but not in the way you think.
TS3 violates 6A2.
Mumble violates 6A2
Overwolf violates 6A2
Steam Overlay violates 6A2.
EVE-Online Preview violates 6A2.
Windows Aero violates 6A2.
PYFA violates 6A3.
EFT violates 6A3.
Fuzzworks violates 6A3.
That new market program violates 6A3.

I'm probably missing a bit, but this was what just came to me off the top of my head.


So now you are saying ISBoxer does violate the EULA. What on earth have you been moaning about for the past 200 pages for then?.

Just so you know, you are wrong about them violating the EULA, they can be used to violate the EULA. Thats a vey important distinction you should remember.
Does this mean I get the 1 Billion isk you promised earlier in the thread?

BINGO - Give that man a cookie..

"They can be used to violate" is the key phrase concerning ALL 3rd party programs.

ISBoxer is no more or less guilty of this than any other program, yet CCP have chosen to use less than scrupulous methods and interpretation of the EULA to ban players using this type of 3rd party software in a way that according to the EULA is not technically a breach. While allowing other 3rd party software in the same category to continue to be used, CCP is not so much policing their game to ensure players are within the EULA but playing hypocrite by banning players, they believe (with no other proof than, their belief) are somehow in breach.

Unfortunately the multibox community is divided in the game, some choosing to continue multiboxing within the stated guidlines and hoping not to draw attention to themselves, while others are prepared to speak up and try to get the current situation clarified. When a player can be banned for being too efficient at the game, there is a problem with those running the game.
When those running the game just ignore valid questions and concerns it shows a complete lack of regard for EVERY paying customer, who will they point the "I/we don't like how you play" ban stick to next?

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.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4022 - 2015-04-11 02:15:51 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
When a player can be banned for being too efficient at the game, there is a problem with those running the game.


I'd be highly interested in seeing some actual proof of this happening, and not from those bot apologists at dualboxing.com, too.

Thus far, Nolak's only attempt at this, when I asked for it, was to show a guy who was clearly in violation by using macros. After that he kept blustering and refusing to post anything else for a serious attempt at proof.

Quote:
When those running the game just ignore valid questions and concerns it shows a complete lack of regard for EVERY paying customer, who will they point the "I/we don't like how you play" ban stick to next?


They set that particular precedent some time ago, and people like you (possibly actually you, idk, the whole thread got deleted) cheered and applauded. I take great delight in twisting the knife now.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#4023 - 2015-04-11 03:13:58 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
When a player can be banned for being too efficient at the game, there is a problem with those running the game.


I'd be highly interested in seeing some actual proof of this happening, and not from those bot apologists at dualboxing.com, too.

Thus far, Nolak's only attempt at this, when I asked for it, was to show a guy who was clearly in violation by using macros. After that he kept blustering and refusing to post anything else for a serious attempt at proof.

Quote:
When those running the game just ignore valid questions and concerns it shows a complete lack of regard for EVERY paying customer, who will they point the "I/we don't like how you play" ban stick to next?


They set that particular precedent some time ago, and people like you (possibly actually you, idk, the whole thread got deleted) cheered and applauded. I take great delight in twisting the knife now.

Get CCP to relax the rules about posting Dev to player communications and I feel pretty confident, the "proof" is there. Although for absolute proof, you would need to be sitting in the same room as an accused individual.

Erring on the side of "everyone tells lies" is a useful strategy when you have nothing else.

The simple 'fact" CCP refuse to clarify their stance on multiboxing is enough reason for me to believe, they are hiding something, something important.

You choose to believe everyone on the multibox forums is telling lies, I'm not prepared to call them liars without proof. Which of course is unavailable due to CCP's threat to ban players for posting communications that could provide proof.
It is a shame those who have been banned can't access the forums, they could post what happened to them.

If i did at some time applaud something CCP did, it must have been a few years ago. They haven't done ANYTHING I would applaud, for a long time.

Sadly you are right, the precedent was set some time ago, and will continue affecting a lot of players who have been loyal to the game for many years.
I wonder, if Devs fixed Concord (and the joke called Faction Police) so it was not possible for gankers and -10's to manipulate them, how much of an outcry there 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.

Trakow
Beta Switch
#4024 - 2015-04-11 06:44:06 UTC
Jason Xado wrote:
Trakow wrote:
Jason Xado wrote:
Trakow wrote:

To those who say they can't defend themselves against groups of people: MAKE FRIENDS! In case you haven't noticed, there are other people playing Eve that you can interact with so you too can also join a fleet or corp. If you can't make friends, then that's your personal social issue that you need to work on.


O.K. finally someone who might be able to answer my question.

Do you know why CCP now considered group play to be better than solo play and is trying to force solo players to join groups?

You seem to have a good handle on why group play is morally superior to solo play, so please help me understand.

Thanks.


I don't see how you think that CCP considers group play to be better than solo play. You can still easily play solo. I have a couple characters that do, and aren't in corps with anyone. You can play solo and mine, or explore, refine and build, the options are many. However, if you plan to go into more hostile territory like mining in nullsec for example, it's probably best to go with some friends, but hey, that's your choice. If you decide to go mine in nullsec alone, then you're choosing to take that risk, and you should probably stab up. Same goes with anything else, like exploring wormholes for example. If you plan on doing so, it's best to have a fast and/or cloaky ship to minimize the risk. If you plan on taking a Bowhead full of ships across null/lowsec unescorted, that's your choice. Common sense really.

Want to PvP? That's fine too, and it's not hard to find solo PvP'ers in nullsec, and avoid large groups, except sometimes gate camps, but even those are avoidable and can be escaped easily enough if you know what you're doing and you're fitted properly. Seeing a single person in local and finding him is a pretty safe engagement, but if local starts filling fast, then it's time to GTFO. Want to PvP in larger engagements with fleets? Then find a fleet. There's even a built-in fleet finder in Eve itself...

Eve has always been a multiplayer game where you can team up and (insert gameplay pastime here), so I don't know what the issue is with needing to play solo and ONLY solo. Fleets and Corps' are not new, and most MMORPG's have their own versions (Guilds or whatever). Using some software to help you control your own fleet in an easier way than doing it manually is pretty lame IMO, and has the same honor in killing as shooting someone in the back, or back stabbing, whichever you prefer. I also don't see why people who do this think they're superior in the game. Most boxers have all their characters look similar and have similar names, so it's quite obvious on the KB when you see all parties involved that killed a single guy, and it just makes them look like a coward.

If you're really hard set on playing solo, there's plenty of other space games out there that aren't online and don't even require an internet connection. Then you can do what you want and you won't be bothered by other real players in the game, and vice versa.


You still didn't answer the question. Why is group play considered better. You seem to misunderstand solo player vs. solo character. I am talking about a solo player, not a solo character.

If I want to run 10 accounts(with 1 player) and go toe-to-toe with 10 other accounts(with 10 players), why should the 10 accounts each with a player behind them be better than the 10 accounts with just one player behind them.

Before this change the 10 solo accounts could compete with the 10 group accounts. Now the 10 group accounts are better, per CCP mandate.

I still have the question. WHY????


I did answer your question, with a statement (see bolded underlined above) about how I don't know where you got the idea that group play is considered better. Who said that? Not me, and not CCP... And I WAS talking about solo players...

Also, you just admitted that "Before this change the 10 solo accounts could compete with the 10 group accounts.", therefore, there was an advantage since a single player could compete with 10 players, even more so if 10+ accounts run by a solo player were to engage a solo-character-solo-player. Thanks for proving the point.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4025 - 2015-04-11 11:58:02 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

You choose to believe everyone on the multibox forums is telling lies, I'm not prepared to call them liars without proof.


It's not without cause. The fact that the video showing someone doing "nothing wrong" clearly violated the rules is my cause for doing so.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Jason Xado
Doomheim
#4026 - 2015-04-11 12:38:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Jason Xado
Trakow wrote:


I did answer your question, with a statement (see bolded underlined above) about how I don't know where you got the idea that group play is considered better. Who said that? Not me, and not CCP... And I WAS talking about solo players...

Also, you just admitted that "Before this change the 10 solo accounts could compete with the 10 group accounts.", therefore, there was an advantage since a single player could compete with 10 players, even more so if 10+ accounts run by a solo player were to engage a solo-character-solo-player. Thanks for proving the point.


No you still haven't answered the question, and your statement still shows a bias to group players (despite the underlined part above). Let me try a fill in the blank question.

10 identical ships being control by 10 players should have an advantage over 10 of the same identical ships being controlled by 1 player because _______________________?

I am trying to understand why you (and CCP) have a bias toward accounts controlled by multiple players vs. accounts controlled by only one player. I am trying to understand why all accounts are not treated equal. Here is the question in math form:

10 <> 10 because __________________?

Or perhaps a question with a more "feelings":

If I am in a group of 10 players in a fleet of 10 ships flying through null and we run into another fleet of 10 identical ships, I feel different towards the 10 ships if they are controlled by only 1 player because _____________________?

Can you please answer the questions? I really want to understand.
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#4027 - 2015-04-11 13:58:09 UTC
Jason Xado wrote:

I am trying to understand why you (and CCP) have a bias toward accounts controlled by multiple players vs. accounts controlled by only one player. I am trying to understand why all accounts are not treated equal.


They don't.

The bias you see from CCP towards accounts controlled by only one player is all in your head. The way you word your ridiculous question shows you are incapable of rational thought.

All players, no matter how many accounts they have are all treated the same by CCP.

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'

Eve Solecist
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#4028 - 2015-04-11 14:06:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Eve Solecist
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Jason Xado wrote:

I am trying to understand why you (and CCP) have a bias toward accounts controlled by multiple players vs. accounts controlled by only one player. I am trying to understand why all accounts are not treated equal.


They don't.

The bias you see from CCP towards accounts controlled by only one player is all in your head. The way you word your ridiculous question shows you are incapable of rational thought.

All players, no matter how many accounts they have are all treated the same by CCP.

What I like most about CCP is their capability to do things in a way
that makes people talk pointlessly, while making sure they keep having an account.

It's remarkable!
I wished I had CCPs ability to deal with immature adults like that!

....... but actually they don't even do that. They let them talk,
which makes them believe anyone cares and that's all there is to it.

It's brilliant!
  • All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
Nolak Ataru
Unsanitary Landfill
#4029 - 2015-04-11 14:15:00 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

You choose to believe everyone on the multibox forums is telling lies, I'm not prepared to call them liars without proof.

It's not without cause. The fact that the video showing someone doing "nothing wrong" clearly violated the rules is my cause for doing so.


We already went over this ten times before, but I shall do it again:
Round Robin Broadcasting is the act of sending one command to one client for one click, and for each subsequent click, the command is sent to a different client. It was not banned by CCP as it only sends one action per click.
It is entirely possible to configure ISBoxer to change VideoFX sources once a player clicks on one. The route a command takes for a player using ISBoxer is thus:
OS>ISBoxer>EVE
Such that it can seem like a player is Round-Robin broadcasting when he indeed is not.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4030 - 2015-04-11 14:16:30 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:

We already went over this ten times before, but I shall do it again:


No one is listening to your excuses and your wild attempts at deflection.

Proof or stfu.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Nolak Ataru
Unsanitary Landfill
#4031 - 2015-04-11 14:31:28 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

We already went over this ten times before, but I shall do it again:


No one is listening to your excuses and your wild attempts at deflection.
Proof or stfu.

Nobody's listening to your moving goalposts, fallacies, slander, and other lies.
I believe the function in ISBoxer is located in the KeyMaps section. In pseudocode:
OnClick
Send Action to client 1
Switch VideoFX Box1 to Box2

Now, where is your proof that RoundRobin was banned by CCP?
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#4032 - 2015-04-11 15:01:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Archibald Thistlewaite III
Nolak Ataru wrote:
ISBoxer violates 6A2
(4078)
You've already admitted that ISBoxer can be used to break Eve's EULA/TOS & policies. Why are your here arguing with yourself?

Edit: Still waiting for that 1 bil isk you promised.

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'

Nolak Ataru
Unsanitary Landfill
#4033 - 2015-04-11 15:34:18 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
ISBoxer violates 6A2
(4078)
You've already admitted that ISBoxer can be used to break Eve's EULA/TOS & policies. Why are your here arguing with yourself?
Edit: Still waiting for that 1 bil isk you promised.


Guns can be used to kill people. Are we going to ban those? Cars can be used to run over people. Will we ban those too? How about cigarettes? Alcohol? Do you know how many people die from preventable heart disease and clogged arteries?

PYFA and EFT can be used to violate 6A3. Let's ban people who use those. TS3, Mumble, and Overwolf's Overlay violate 6A2. Let's ban everyone who uses them too. EVE-O Preview definitely violates 6A2, so why is CCP working on it?

Either CCP enforces their EULA and Policy for every program, or they don't enforce it at all.
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4034 - 2015-04-11 15:52:28 UTC
Is using a control surface such as the akai mpd32 permitted? By using such a control surface i mean assigning keyboard hotkeys to the drum pads, non macro'd, non repeating, single key assignment only, just another input device for simplified hotkeys.

Further clarification, I multibox, and the usage would still mean i manually switch between characters on screen, and individually use hotkeys. if it is not assignable to a hotkey it will still be done via mouse/touchscreen/trackball/tablet.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.

Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#4035 - 2015-04-11 16:09:57 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:


Either CCP enforces their EULA and Policy for every program, or they don't enforce it at all.


Nope. CCP can enforce their EULA and Policy however they please. You don't get to tell CCP how to enforce their own policies, they've made it perfectly clear whats allowed.

Now that you admit ISBoxer can be used to break the EULA/TOS & policies and you have admitted that banning cheats is good for the game (3839), why don't you stop complaining about CCP doing what you agree with.

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'

kraken11 jensen
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#4036 - 2015-04-11 17:22:07 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
ISBoxer violates 6A2
(4078)
You've already admitted that ISBoxer can be used to break Eve's EULA/TOS & policies. Why are your here arguing with yourself?

Edit: Still waiting for that 1 bil isk you promised.



Please don't quote 1/10'th of what he said to put it out off the context/situation/way it was used in.
I don't care what it's about. Doing that is not Cool. So please don't :)

Thank you :)

Nolak Ataru
Unsanitary Landfill
#4037 - 2015-04-11 17:25:14 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

Either CCP enforces their EULA and Policy for every program, or they don't enforce it at all.

Nope. CCP can enforce their EULA and Policy however they please. You don't get to tell CCP how to enforce their own policies, they've made it perfectly clear whats allowed.
Now that you admit ISBoxer can be used to break the EULA/TOS & policies and you have admitted that banning cheats is good for the game (3839), why don't you stop complaining about CCP doing what you agree with.


You weren't here when T20 happened. Neither was I, but I managed to track down someone who was and obtained some of the story. A CCP Dev had violated the separation of his job and his EVE character, and spawned T2 BPOs for his alliance and spied on his alliance's enemies, among other actions. The Internal Affairs dept. was created to ensure that stuff like that didn't happen, and that they enforced their EULA uniformly so as to not favor one group over another. Right now, that is not happening. CCP is regressing to the time of T20 where changes are being made not as balancing factors, or QoL improvements, or anything of the nature, but as to favor one group over another whilst ignoring other violations of the EULA.
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#4038 - 2015-04-11 17:31:15 UTC
kraken11 jensen wrote:
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
ISBoxer violates 6A2
(4078)
You've already admitted that ISBoxer can be used to break Eve's EULA/TOS & policies. Why are your here arguing with yourself?

Edit: Still waiting for that 1 bil isk you promised.



Please don't quote 1/10'th of what he said to put it out off the context/situation/way it was used in.
I don't care what it's about. Doing that is not Cool. So please don't :)

Thank you :)


Why do you think I provided the link, it was so people could see it wasn't taken out of context or situation it was used in. That guy has constantly lied and abused CCP's devs in this thread and now he has started arguing with himself. He is a joke and needs to be exposed as such. He is responsible for telling people that certain functions of programs (like ISBoxer) are ok to use, whilst stopping using them himself. I dread to think how many people have ended up banned because they believe the nonsense he has been spouting.

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'

Trakow
Beta Switch
#4039 - 2015-04-11 18:40:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Trakow
Jason Xado wrote:
Trakow wrote:


I did answer your question, with a statement (see bolded underlined above) about how I don't know where you got the idea that group play is considered better. Who said that? Not me, and not CCP... And I WAS talking about solo players...

Also, you just admitted that "Before this change the 10 solo accounts could compete with the 10 group accounts.", therefore, there was an advantage since a single player could compete with 10 players, even more so if 10+ accounts run by a solo player were to engage a solo-character-solo-player. Thanks for proving the point.


No you still haven't answered the question, and your statement still shows a bias to group players (despite the underlined part above). Let me try a fill in the blank question.

10 identical ships being control by 10 players should have an advantage over 10 of the same identical ships being controlled by 1 player because the fleet of 10 players only have to control one ship while the player controlling 10 ships needs to alt-tab or switch boxes to control each ship and can't monitor and control them simultaneously unless using software which violates the EULA. Using software to help control the 10 ships gives the single player an advantage since he can simultaneously lay all fire on a single ship and once destroyed, switch to the next, etc. 10 Players need to coordinate with each other (likely via an FC) which takes extra time and they lose valuable time. Whereas the single player ISBoxing has no delay between decision making and taking action. So the advantage is different depending on if the single player is using software to help or not, which is against the EULA.

I am trying to understand why you (and CCP) have a bias toward accounts controlled by multiple players vs. accounts controlled by only one player. I am trying to understand why all accounts are not treated equal. Here is the question in math form:

10 <> 10 because Not a math question because 10 does in fact equal 10. 10 of what? That's likely your question which you can't express, so if that's the case, it depends what 10 things you're comparing. 10 players vs 10 accounts controlled by one player are not equal, no. 10 players vs 10 players is 10=10

Or perhaps a question with a more "feelings":

If I am in a group of 10 players in a fleet of 10 ships flying through null and we run into another fleet of 10 identical ships, I feel different towards the 10 ships if they are controlled by only 1 player because a fleet of 10 players being destroyed by a single player that's using software which goes against the EULA to win a fight has no honor or merit in winning. Similarly, if the group of 10 players destroyed the single ISBoxer, I wouldn't call that a proper win either. Why? Take a single player from that group of 10, and take the single ISBoxer player and compare how they're playing. There's so much difference that they might as well be playing different games...

Can you please answer the questions? I really want to understand.


There. I filled in your ridiculous blanks. And I don't see how my post showed bias towards group play when I explained many times how you can play solo. Now, answer me this. Why do YOU think that Eve is biased towards group play? Because you can't control a fleet by yourself anymore? Too bad for you, that's the rules. Why do YOU not want to make friends and play with others? Are you just not so good at the game and can't play with a single account at a time? Are you that afraid to lose a ship or get podded? Perhaps you're playing the wrong game. Like I said before, there are plenty of other games you can play, so go play those if you don't like how Eve is.


Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Jason Xado wrote:

I am trying to understand why you (and CCP) have a bias toward accounts controlled by multiple players vs. accounts controlled by only one player. I am trying to understand why all accounts are not treated equal.


They don't.

The bias you see from CCP towards accounts controlled by only one player is all in your head. The way you word your ridiculous question shows you are incapable of rational thought.

All players, no matter how many accounts they have are all treated the same by CCP.


Agreed 100%. Anyone can ask questions and refuse any answer given, and just say that the question wasn't answered. But I'm not sure at this point if he's trolling or really incapable of understanding logic.
Helenetor
Doomheim
#4040 - 2015-04-11 20:51:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Helenetor
Jason Xado wrote:
Trakow wrote:


I did answer your question, with a statement (see bolded underlined above) about how I don't know where you got the idea that group play is considered better. Who said that? Not me, and not CCP... And I WAS talking about solo players...

Also, you just admitted that "Before this change the 10 solo accounts could compete with the 10 group accounts.", therefore, there was an advantage since a single player could compete with 10 players, even more so if 10+ accounts run by a solo player were to engage a solo-character-solo-player. Thanks for proving the point.


No you still haven't answered the question, and your statement still shows a bias to group players (despite the underlined part above). Let me try a fill in the blank question.

10 identical ships being control by 10 players should have an advantage over 10 of the same identical ships being controlled by 1 player because _______________________?

I am trying to understand why you (and CCP) have a bias toward accounts controlled by multiple players vs. accounts controlled by only one player. I am trying to understand why all accounts are not treated equal. Here is the question in math form:

10 <> 10 because __________________?

Or perhaps a question with a more "feelings":

If I am in a group of 10 players in a fleet of 10 ships flying through null and we run into another fleet of 10 identical ships, I feel different towards the 10 ships if they are controlled by only 1 player because _____________________?

Can you please answer the questions? I really want to understand.


1 Player with 10 accounts has the advantage over 10 players with 10 accounts as that one player can give commands to 10 accounts simultaneously whereas 10 players with 10 accounts has the disadvantage of the time delay in the chat they are using and also the half a second it takes between hearing the command and pressing the button. The 1 player does not have that delay there thus giving HIM the advantage.