These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hector Skunk
Highsecberg.
#4061 - 2015-04-13 19:26:00 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
But now, mutatum mutandis, it is. Let's get on with our lives.
You have earned one of these "Like" from me for using "mutatum mutandis" in a sentence.

I am Hector Skunk. - "Tisiphone Dira > I feel bullied."

Trakow
Beta Switch
#4062 - 2015-04-13 22:52:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Trakow
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Trakow wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Trakow wrote:


See CCP Random's comments here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBD7CL9oQqE starting around 10:45 is where your proof is. Seems that my correspondence some time ago which got removed wasn't "proof" enough for you. Maybe now you can drop it, if you have any kind of maturity about it.

EDIT: And also at 13:35 he talks of using any third party software to activate modules, which I'm sure RR and VFX falls under as well, since you're not directly interacting with the client to activate the modules, you're interacting with VFX/ISBoxer, which in turn is activating modules.

Interesting, so in fact any overlay used in Eve can get you banned.
Also interesting is that CCP is choosing to police this on a very selective basis.

Funny but you don't need VFX to use RR, I've used RR for years but never with anything other than Windows. Yet I can still be banned for using RR, at the discretion of CCP (because my server tics exceed what they believe is "normal").

Round Robin in no way breaches CCP's EULA as long as it is not used in conjunction with 3rd party software.
VFX, does not breach the EULA, as long as it is not used to enhance game play.
That is something that is very subjective. What is considered "enhancing"?
I have a friend who uses VFX on his (pretty basic spec'd) laptop to allow him to move his titan around more safely, he can see what is happening with cynos and the titan without having to alt tab. His laptop would have trouble running more than 1 client without VFX. Should he be banned? Should he be forced to spend money he may not have so he can do it without the need for VFX?

CCP haven't changed the EULA. What they have changed is how CCP employees interpret it.
Leaving the door wide open to ban selectively, anyone (with multiple accounts) they choose to.

CCP really need to stop promoting (and making income from) multiboxing until such time as they have clear policies (written into the EULA) on multiboxing.


EDIT; According to the EULA, the OS could be considered 3rd party software as it, combined with shortcuts provided by the eve interface, allows a player to input commands as fast as his or her fingers can press keys.. Not a very clear definition.


I never said RR and VFX were related or dependent on eachother, they are separate violations. And yes, using Round Robin in ISBoxer is in violation, I don't know how that's not clear to you. As for someone using VFX to enhance a slow laptop's performance, yes, it's still a violation regardless of why it's being used. Can I modify Eve's code to make it run on a really old computer? No. The fact that I'm modifying it so that I can play on old hardware doesn't negate the fact that I would violate the EULAs/policies.

You're right, they haven't changed the EULA's, they're just now enforcing things. And like I've said before, if someone doesn't like it, they don't have to play Eve. Play something else.

It isn't that they are now enforcing certain parts of the EULA. The issue is "how" they are enforcing it.
As a proponent of 1 .exe per IP you would not understand. Many find the challenge of multi boxing more interesting and engaging than just using 1 character at a time.

CCP as far as I know have not banned use of VFX, unless it is used in conjunction with tools CCP provide. That is not to say they won't at some time - And that is the whole issue.

CCP have moved the line of "what we will turn a blind eye to" but not made clear where that line is.

As for "if you don't like it leave" - Typical troll response. If everyone who didn't agree with or like certain aspects of Eve left the game. There would be so few left, CCP would be forced to close up shop. Eve is not perfect for everyone, never will be but the "don't like it leave" attitude is just childish and nonsense.


Just saying that I would not understand is a cheap and easy way to try to win an argument. Besides, I never said that I've never multiboxed before, so you're just making uneducated assumptions.

Refusing to believe that things are changing, regardless of if it's just what CCP is now enforcing, is childish behavior and nonsense. If what's already been said, and people getting banned is not enough, then you are hopeless.

I still stand by "If you don't like it, then leave". Because no matter how much you complain, it's not going to change. So I suppose a better statement would be to say that if you can't adapt to the new enforcements, then leave, because your only other alternative is to deal with it and abide.
Trakow
Beta Switch
#4063 - 2015-04-13 22:56:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Trakow
Lucas Kell wrote:
Trakow wrote:
I'm also at the point of realizing now that I think you're just trolling and you simply enjoy the argument, and refuse to believe that you were ever in violation. I came across this interesting blog post by The Nosy Gamer that even specifically names you

Quote:
To which, Nolak Ataru (aka bugme143) added:

TL;DR: CCP's not following their own EULA, banning people for 2+ commands in three seconds even without ISBoxer installed.

(SNIP)

The problem is that CCP did not enforce the EULA on this matter for years and only openly declared the use of ISBoxer a EULA violation in April 2013. Worse, users like Nolak refused to believe that the practice ever violated the EULA.


Source : http://nosygamer.blogspot.ca/2015/01/input-broadcasting-bans-have-begun.html
The problem with this is that it's wrong. The EULA is designed to be broad and non-specific. What makes something "against the EULA" isn;t if the definitions within the EULA can be stretched to cover the activity, it's whether or not CCP class it as against the EULA. Strictly speaking any overlay software is against the EULA, as in against the wording. But CCP explicitly state that those are OK, so they aren't against the EULA, and if CCP ever change their minds it doesn't mean they were always against the EULA, it means that their enforcement has changed while the wording has not and they are now against the EULA.

ISBoxer is the same. For many years it wasn't just tolerated, it was explicitly allowed. Forum posts from CCP devs stated it, multiple support tickets also stated it as allowed as long as 1 click didn't perform multiple actions within any given client. So no, ISBoxer was not against the EULA, even if a popular blogger claims the wording might have covered it in the past.


CCP has come out and said what they're enforcing now, regardless of if they tolerated or allowed it before or not. The fact is that it's now no longer tolerated/allowed, and they don't have to give you any reason why. CCP's interpretation of the EULA and policy and what they decide to enforce is all that matters.

If their statements and seeing other people getting banned for doing certain things isn't enough for you, then just be glad that the first offense isn't a permanent ban. At least you'll get the point on your first warning. Until then, rant all you want, good luck with your warning ban.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#4064 - 2015-04-14 07:18:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Trakow wrote:
CCP has come out and said what they're enforcing now, regardless of if they tolerated or allowed it before or not. The fact is that it's now no longer tolerated/allowed, and they don't have to give you any reason why. CCP's interpretation of the EULA and policy and what they decide to enforce is all that matters.

If their statements and seeing other people getting banned for doing certain things isn't enough for you, then just be glad that the first offense isn't a permanent ban. At least you'll get the point on your first warning. Until then, rant all you want, good luck with your warning ban.
I didn't say they did have to explain why they are doing it. My issue is that their detection sucks, meaning that people who manual multibox using no tools are at risk of being banned. They have no client side detection, so they can't tell the difference between someone using round robin and someone with their windows tiled clicking quickly between them for example.

And hey genius, I'm not an ISBoxer user (or a user of any other tools - though I'm considering eve-o preview as I can probably tick up to 30 accounts if I use that), so if I get a warning my point is proven. Either way, claiming that ISBoxer was always against their EULA is simply wrong. Regardless of whether the change is by wording or enforcement, it was not against the EULA until the recent change, so get off your high horse and stop acting like everyone that was using it was scum. They played in a way that was fully allowed by CCP and they contributed far more to this game than you ever will, not just in cash terms but in content too. CCP changed it because little whining crybabies complained that "their" ice was being taken. Now it's changed and they still whine to no end because it turns out a shockingly large number of players they were complaining about were manual multiboxers and actual fleets of players. So all in all CCP have kicked a very dedicated portion of the playerbase in the nuts for no benefit.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Dustpuppy
New Eden Ferengi
#4065 - 2015-04-14 12:10:36 UTC
208 pages and I still have no clue why some people complain about a change which happened 4.5 months ago.

If the change had no influence on the style of playing EVE (which is what they all pretend), why do you care so much about it?

Nolak Ataru
Unsanitary Landfill
#4066 - 2015-04-14 12:20:26 UTC
Dustpuppy wrote:
208 pages and I still have no clue why some people complain about a change which happened 4.5 months ago.
If the change had no influence on the style of playing EVE (which is what they all pretend), why do you care so much about it?

1) Because it was a needless change that hurt the game's health and
2) Because people are getting banned for following the new interpretation of the EULA.
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#4067 - 2015-04-14 13:58:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Archibald Thistlewaite III
Nolak Ataru wrote:


1) Because it was a needless change that hurt the game's health and
2) Because people are getting banned for following the new interpretation of the EULA.


1) That's your opinion. CCP disagrees with you and given a choice of believing CCP, who have all the data available to them and someone who has consistently lied in this thread. I'd say CCP are better placed to make that judgement.

2) No there are not. They are getting banned for breaking the EULA because they are to pig-headed to accept what they are doing is breaking the EULA. As well as having people like you tell them its ok, when it clearly goes against the EULA/TOS & other policies.

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

Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#4068 - 2015-04-14 15:20:07 UTC
Im confused are people just getting mad at the use of 3rd party program, or the use of mulitple accounts
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#4069 - 2015-04-14 15:31:55 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
1) That's your opinion. CCP disagrees with you and given a choice of believing CCP, who have all the data available to them and someone who has consistently lied in this thread. I'd say CCP are better placed to make that judgement.
Actually, there's nothing to show there's been any improvements to the game following this, and CCP haven't claimed there have been. We know for certain they lost some income, but the collapse of PLEX prices and skyrocket of highsec mineral prices simply never happened. There's still multiboxed fleets everywhere and people are still crying about them. The truth is the vast majority of what people had a problem with was people using multiple accounts, and that will not change. They just wrongly assumed that everyone was using ISBoxer.

Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
2) No there are not. They are getting banned for breaking the EULA because they are to pig-headed to accept what they are doing is breaking the EULA. As well as having people like you tell them its ok, when it clearly goes against the EULA/TOS & other policies.
Actually they are getting banned even when using zero tools. You're so arrogant you assume that everyone must be lying, but that's just not the case. You can get banned for using nothing but the client if you are too efficient at controlling it, as CCP have no method of detecting how the player is interacting with the client. Quite honestly though from what you've written I don't think you understand what the change affects, since you yourself keep linking out of date and incorrect information.

Lee Sin Priest wrote:
Im confused are people just getting mad at the use of 3rd party program, or the use of mulitple accounts
It's the 2nd, but people think it's the 1st.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nolak Ataru
Unsanitary Landfill
#4070 - 2015-04-14 15:33:28 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
1) Because it was a needless change that hurt the game's health and
2) Because people are getting banned for following the new interpretation of the EULA.

1) That's your opinion. CCP disagrees with you and given a choice of believing CCP, who have all the data available to them and someone who has consistently lied in this thread. I'd say CCP are better placed to make that judgement.
2) No there are not. They are getting banned for breaking the EULA because they are to pig-headed to accept what they are doing is breaking the EULA. As well as having people like you tell them its ok, when it clearly goes against the EULA/TOS & other policies.

1) It's not just my opinion, and I would wager my alt accounts that if CCP released a poll tied to API keys right this instant with neutral wording that made a clear distinction between an ISBoxer and a botter, you would see that the first majority of people would be indifferent, and that the next largest percentage would be in favor of removing the ban on ISBoxer's functionalities. Additionally, you have failed to meet the bar for proving that I lied. You cherry-picked statements from me and attempted to both straw-man and outright twist what I said for your own use.
2) Yes, they are. That 5-boxer was not using any broadcasting tools and got banned. I've stopped giving advice to players other than fitting changes, and "Solo C5 Capital escalation fleet" (which, by the way, earns more money than any ISBoxer, including Bikkus's HQ fleet, after taking PLEX costs into account, and only takes 5 accounts, 4 if you dont mind spending a lot of ISK on Nanite Paste).
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#4071 - 2015-04-14 15:43:26 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:

1) It's not just my opinion, and I would wager my alt accounts that if CCP released a poll tied to API keys right this instant with neutral wording that made a clear distinction between an ISBoxer and a botter, you would see that the first majority of people would be indifferent, and that the next largest percentage would be in favor of removing the ban on ISBoxer's functionalities. Additionally, you have failed to meet the bar for proving that I lied. You cherry-picked statements from me and attempted to both straw-man and outright twist what I said for your own use.
2) Yes, they are. That 5-boxer was not using any broadcasting tools and got banned. I've stopped giving advice to players other than fitting changes, and "Solo C5 Capital escalation fleet" (which, by the way, earns more money than any ISBoxer, including Bikkus's HQ fleet, after taking PLEX costs into account, and only takes 5 accounts, 4 if you dont mind spending a lot of ISK on Nanite Paste).


1) So, it is just your opinion. Unless you are a mind reader and can tell what the results of your imaginary poll are. You've lied consistently just go back and read your own posts.

2) Just because the guy wasn't using any broadcasts does not mean he wasn't breaking the EULA/TOS & other policies. If you have any evidence that your 5-boxer was banned and wasn't breaking the EULA/TOS & other policies then post that evidence. There is no reason why you can't post evidence of people doing nothing wrong. Otherwise you are just lying again.

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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#4072 - 2015-04-14 15:51:40 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
2) Just because the guy wasn't using any broadcasts does not mean he wasn't breaking the EULA/TOS & other policies. If you have any evidence that your 5-boxer was banned and wasn't breaking the EULA/TOS & other policies then post that evidence. There is no reason why you can't post evidence of people doing nothing wrong. Otherwise you are just lying again.
Just FYI, it's pretty much impossible to post proof that nothing was being broken, and it's even more impossible to post it without breaking the EULA by posing it. As I've stated before though, I was there at fanfest and asked CCP questions directly to this, and there's no way they can view the client, they are banning from data analysis which is notorious for false positives. You're going with the classic "where there's smoke there's fire" argument here even though it's quite obvious that the detection methods are far below acceptable standards.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#4073 - 2015-04-14 15:53:29 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Actually, there's nothing to show there's been any improvements to the game following this, and CCP haven't claimed there have been. We know for certain they lost some income, but the collapse of PLEX prices and skyrocket of highsec mineral prices simply never happened. There's still multiboxed fleets everywhere and people are still crying about them. The truth is the vast majority of what people had a problem with was people using multiple accounts, and that will not change. They just wrongly assumed that everyone was using ISBoxer.
We were talking about the health of Eve being hurt. You know the same way when botters get banned they claim it will hurt the game. (I'm not saying ISBoxer is the same as botting, It's just curious that both groups use the same defence of ' It will hurt Eve if we get banned')

Lucas Kell wrote:
Actually they are getting banned even when using zero tools. You're so arrogant you assume that everyone must be lying, but that's just not the case. You can get banned for using nothing but the client if you are too efficient at controlling it, as CCP have no method of detecting how the player is interacting with the client. Quite honestly though from what you've written I don't think you understand what the change affects, since you yourself keep linking out of date and incorrect information.


I've never heard of a game company tell its player base exactly how they detect EULA (etc) violations. Its bad practice as it easier for those people who do cheat to avoid detection. The same way as if you do get banned you won't be told exactly what you did, just which part of the EULA you broke and a general statement. That is once again to make it harder for those people who want to cheat to work around the rules. CCP may have told you part of their detection process, but I doubt its all of it.

If you think me linking the EULA and CCP's other policies is out of date and incorrect information then I can see why you are having problems understanding why people are getting banned.

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

Dana Goodeye
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#4074 - 2015-04-14 16:09:09 UTC
one of my friends, hathorflux for example got banned because he moved to an another place, and changed his creditcard, and the silly ccp ppl just banned him because they tought he sold his char. he logged in once with a new char to tell us abot what happened, and how disapointed he is, then left the game. i like eve, but still... banning somebody for nothing is silly -.- but about this multiboxing thing, im glad because there is no way to be able to compete with an isboxer fleet. am i spelling it correctly? oh well nvm. but ccp, stop banning ppl just because youre silly -.-
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#4075 - 2015-04-14 16:48:54 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
We were talking about the health of Eve being hurt. You know the same way when botters get banned they claim it will hurt the game. (I'm not saying ISBoxer is the same as botting, It's just curious that both groups use the same defence of ' It will hurt Eve if we get banned')
Overall the health of the game is being hurt. The changes have no benefit to the actual game, but they do reduce the amount of income CCP receive as they are banning some of the more dedicated players and reducing the overall number of active accounts. That works out to be a net loss.

Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
I've never heard of a game company tell its player base exactly how they detect EULA (etc) violations. Its bad practice as it easier for those people who do cheat to avoid detection. The same way as if you do get banned you won't be told exactly what you did, just which part of the EULA you broke and a general statement. That is once again to make it harder for those people who want to cheat to work around the rules. CCP may have told you part of their detection process, but I doubt its all of it.
CCP were quite open when we were speaking to them in the round table, and they explicitly stated that they have zero client side detection methods. I even clarified this by asking if that means they perform all of their detection through data analysis to which they stated yes. They are using server side data to determine what the likelihood is that your commands are being driven by third party tools and banning based on that, meaning that if you are too efficient compared to what they consider to be a "normal" player you will be flagged. The thing is, things like round robin are as manual (from a logging perspective) as a player with tiled windows, so either they will not be trapping round robin users, or more likely will be trapping users who are playing manually but with an efficient setup.

Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
If you think me linking the EULA and CCP's other policies is out of date and incorrect information then I can see why you are having problems understanding why people are getting banned.
But you aren't just linking the EULA, you are linking flowcharts which when followed show things which we know for certain are against the EULA as OK.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#4076 - 2015-04-14 16:54:24 UTC
Dana Goodeye wrote:
but about this multiboxing thing, im glad because there is no way to be able to compete with an isboxer fleet
Yes there is. Not only are you actually more efficient than the vast majority of ISBoxer users if you control your characters manually, they also suffer from the weakness that they are shockingly easy to disrupt. People who were unable to compete with ISBoxer fleets are simply terrible at EVE won't be able to compete with anyone who's remotely skilled, ISBoxer or not.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#4077 - 2015-04-14 17:04:43 UTC
can't believe im saying this but i feel like CCP needs to take a leaf out of blizzards user handbook when it comes to how to handle customers
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#4078 - 2015-04-14 17:14:29 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Overall the health of the game is being hurt. The changes have no benefit to the actual game, but they do reduce the amount of income CCP receive as they are banning some of the more dedicated players and reducing the overall number of active accounts. That works out to be a net loss.
That is just your opinion. CCP's opinion differs (Read the EULA to see why I say that). You are using the same defense the people who runs bots use. It is not a valid argument for allowing people to break the EULA (etc).

Lucas Kell wrote:
CCP were quite open when we were speaking to them in the round table, and they explicitly stated that they have zero client side detection methods. I even clarified this by asking if that means they perform all of their detection through data analysis to which they stated yes. They are using server side data to determine what the likelihood is that your commands are being driven by third party tools and banning based on that, meaning that if you are too efficient compared to what they consider to be a "normal" player you will be flagged. The thing is, things like round robin are as manual (from a logging perspective) as a player with tiled windows, so either they will not be trapping round robin users, or more likely will be trapping users who are playing manually but with an efficient setup.
Using that data to flag possible breaches of the EULA is fine. Using data collected over a period of months seems a very sensible way to determine who is using third party software to help control their clients. If CCP were just monitoring people for a few days or a week or 2 then I would understand your concerns. But if its over months as you claim then it will be very accurate. I personally think the data that comes from someone using a round robin will look completely different than the data from a very fast player switching clients, when that data is collected and compared over multiple months.

Lucas Kell wrote:
But you aren't just linking the EULA, you are linking flowcharts which when followed show things which we know for certain are against the EULA as OK.

Ok, the first time I linked that flowchart (which came from a CCP dev) it was pretty meaningless on its own. The second time it was posted as a supplement to the EULA/TOS that I linked. I thought since you were struggling with the written EULA a diagram might help you understand it better. It was never intended to convey exactly what is or isn't allowed. The EULA (etc) is for that.

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

kraken11 jensen
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#4079 - 2015-04-14 18:30:38 UTC
Following Eula or not following Eula. I can pretty much guarantee that wrongly bans are going to occur and have occurred, Like in real life. People getting punished for something they didn't do. it happens, sadly. if you think in the big scale.. its going to happened either way. Nothing is perfect ...
kraken11 jensen
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#4080 - 2015-04-14 18:43:28 UTC
Lee Sin Priest wrote:
can't believe im saying this but i feel like CCP needs to take a leaf out of blizzards user handbook when it comes to how to handle customers


I do somewhat agree to that one. blizzard is an cluster ****, but I only have good and supportive experience with their customer support, they have all ways helped me if it was something. and that make me feel heard? valued? appreciated? I'm not sure... All I know is that it's an good thing :) (also they did indeed help/get to me in an short amount off time) they even have live support. :) and the games I played when I did needed help was not even subscription fee each month, but 1 time pay for the game, and no more. So, yeah. It is/was nice :) Pirate