These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
#4081 - 2015-04-14 18:50:06 UTC
It's been a good many years since WoW ... but you are right. Blizzard support is there in support of customers. Not to say CCP has never helped me when something went wrong in the game but the general feeling of ccp support tickets is you are dealing with elitist jerks who dole out actual customer service only when they feel so inclined. Even when they do grand your request they pretty much say "you were lucky this time" which is not a tone I appreciate from people whose salaries I take part in providing.

I dont expect ccp support to be as fast as blizzard, but it would be good if they could be as supportive of their paying customers.
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#4082 - 2015-04-14 19:26:48 UTC
Lee Sin Priest wrote:
Im confused are people just getting mad at the use of 3rd party program, or the use of mulitple accounts

Both really.

There's a vocal element on the forums that want multiboxing completely removed from Eve. I find that movement hilarious as WoW's response to the same people was HTFU. CCP doesn't seem to have the moxy to say the same thing as Blizzard though.

In game I would say most people don't care what I'm doing. Those that do care tend to be more fascinated or amazed while a small number are vocally against it.

So much like life the majority of players don't care either way until they have a "run in" with a boxer.


I've decided that the next time I run I'm going to have my ore dropper in a cloaked prospect so I can get some video of my fleet from an outsider's perspective. Bet it looks like I"m using a repeater :(



Dana Goodeye wrote:
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 -.-


There have been nearly a hundred ways to defeat an isboxer listed in this very thread.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#4083 - 2015-04-14 22:34:47 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
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).
How does CCPs opinion differ? They haven't claimed it's made the game any better either. And it's certainly not opinion that it's lost them income, since they've definitely lost account subs over it. And no, it's nothing like botters. Roll

Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
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.
But there is no difference between someone using round robin and someone using tiled windows. From a server point of view it's indistinguishable, so either they are not banning round robin (which they claim to be) or they are banning legitimate manual multiboxers. You may personally think what you want, but you're wrong.

Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
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.
I'm not struggling with the EULA, I'm pointing out flaws in enforcement. Look mate, I get that most of this is way over your head so seriously just stop digging. You obviously have very little idea what was changed or what the multiboxing tools in question even do. All you are doing is parroting other people and acting like it means something. That flowchart is wrong and that's according to CCP. Whatever you think your reason for linking it is, it's pointless, since it's wrong. It was posted very early in this thread as a quick guide to what the thread was stating and was later discarded as it gave the wrong information in multiple circumstances.

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
#4084 - 2015-04-15 02:21:50 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
How does CCPs opinion differ? They haven't claimed it's made the game any better either. And it's certainly not opinion that it's lost them income, since they've definitely lost account subs over it. And no, it's nothing like botters. Roll
Read the EULA and you'll see why CCP's opinion differs. The argument that it has hurt the game because subs have been lost, is the same argument you see when a load of botters get banned. Its no defence for them and its no defence for anyone else.
Lucas Kell wrote:
But there is no difference between someone using round robin and someone using tiled windows. From a server point of view it's indistinguishable, so either they are not banning round robin (which they claim to be) or they are banning legitimate manual multiboxers. You may personally think what you want, but you're wrong.
You can also think what you want, but you're wrong, if as you claim CCP are monitoring over a period of months. The data will be different. You may disagree but just like you don't understand the EULA (etc) and gave the wrong advice to people in this thread you are wrong about about this too.
Lucas Kell wrote:
I'm not struggling with the EULA, I'm pointing out flaws in enforcement. Look mate, I get that most of this is way over your head so seriously just stop digging. You obviously have very little idea what was changed or what the multiboxing tools in question even do. All you are doing is parroting other people and acting like it means something. That flowchart is wrong and that's according to CCP. Whatever you think your reason for linking it is, it's pointless, since it's wrong. It was posted very early in this thread as a quick guide to what the thread was stating and was later discarded as it gave the wrong information in multiple circumstances.
Sorry about the diagram Mate. I'll have a look for some pictures that will explain it to you. Do you happen to have a link to CCP saying the diagram was wrong? Looking through the Dev posts in this thread doesn't seem to come up with it, but its late and I may have missed it. Although I have to say it looks useful as a quick look guide to what the changes in this thread refer to as long as you use the EULA for the actual details.

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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#4085 - 2015-04-15 07:26:59 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Read the EULA and you'll see why CCP's opinion differs. The argument that it has hurt the game because subs have been lost, is the same argument you see when a load of botters get banned. Its no defence for them and its no defence for anyone else.
Lol? the EULA does not state that it damages the game, eot does it say that there's been any improvement to the game from removing ISBoxer. In fact, the EULA says exactly the same as what it said when ISBoxer was allowed. And I've not seen botters making that excuse, but that still doesn't make it not true. Are you claiming CCP haven;t lost subs and thus haven't lost income over this? Prove it.

At this point I'm getting the impression you are just a troll.

Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
You can also think what you want, but you're wrong, if as you claim CCP are monitoring over a period of months. The data will be different. You may disagree but just like you don't understand the EULA (etc) and gave the wrong advice to people in this thread you are wrong about about this too.
Obviously you have no experience with what we are talking about here. I'm a developer, I know how software works, I know a heck of a lot about data analysis, and I know how things like ISBoxer operate. There is no way possible for any program not installed on the clients machine to tell the difference between round robin and a tiled window setup. No way at all. It doesn't matter if you record years of data, the commands firing through from the client to the server will be the same. If they had client side detection like many anti-cheat systems, sure, but they don't, so there's simply no way. At most they can make a best guess which will still result in false positives with legitimate players being banned. Worse still, when they ban a legitimate player assuming they are cheating they update their detection profiles making it more likely to catch legitimate players later.

The thing is, you seem to be assuming I'm an ISBoxer user which is why I assume your so hostle. I'm not, I'm a completely manual multiboxer, and I don't want to end up targeted by stupid detection methods because CCP can't be bothered to enforce their rules effectively. My setup is as efficient if not slightly more efficient than any round robin setup, so I'm in that nice chunk of players likely to be banned for no reason.

Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Sorry about the diagram Mate. I'll have a look for some pictures that will explain it to you. Do you happen to have a link to CCP saying the diagram was wrong? Looking through the Dev posts in this thread doesn't seem to come up with it, but its late and I may have missed it. Although I have to say it looks useful as a quick look guide to what the changes in this thread refer to as long as you use the EULA for the actual details.
Lol, troll confirmed. The diagram makes things we KNOW are banned show as legal if you follow it through. I mean not when you follow it through, because when you follow it through you think that global keybinds and voice software are banned too, but when a normal person follows it though. The EULA is the same. According to the EULA most overlay software is banned as is eve-o preview, yet we know for a fact those are not banned.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Dustpuppy
New Eden Ferengi
#4086 - 2015-04-15 11:44:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Dustpuppy
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.




Forgive me but I don't understand this or your statements are simply speaking wrong. Again: A change which has no consequences on the way people play cannot have any influence on the player population or game's health. So either your statement about the main usage of ISboxer is wrong and the main usage was input broadcasting or the change simply had no effect on the players base.

Your first statement by the way is not logical and therefor wrong. Only if input broadcasting was important the change had an influence and those players relying on it left the game (see above). And I (just like many others) am absolutely convinced that the change wasn't needless and/or hurt the game but helped it. It wasn't loosing players but getting rid of people playing in a style which hurt the game.

Just like someone said: I don't have problems to loose against a fleet with 10 players. I hate to loose against a single player steering ten ships.

Last comment: if your correlation between health of the game and input broadcasting would be right then EVE would be broken/dead. 4.5 months are enough time to see what consequences a change has, and EVE is still alive.


Concerning 2)
Just because you found one who was banned by accident there is no reason to turn around. No matter what you do, no matter what is changed, you will always someone who feels he was or is treated in a wrong way. And there is always someone who doesn't like the change and who is using the first guy as example why the whole thing was a bad idea.

Now instead of fighting a lost war for this guy you could either settle down and continue playing or just search for another game. Why not WOW? i heard it also supports ISBoxer.
Nolak Ataru
Unsanitary Landfill
#4087 - 2015-04-15 12:33:15 UTC
Dustpuppy wrote:
Forgive me but I don't understand this or your statements are simply speaking wrong. Again: A change which has no consequences on the way people play cannot have any influence on the player population or game's health. So either your statement about the main usage of ISboxer is wrong and the main usage was input broadcasting or the change simply had no effect on the players base.
Your first statement by the way is not logical and therefor wrong. Only if input broadcasting was important the change had an influence and those players relying on it left the game (see above). And I (just like many others) am absolutely convinced that the change wasn't needless and/or hurt the game but helped it. It wasn't loosing players but getting rid of people playing in a style which hurt the game.

Except the change did have a consequence. It led to people who were following the new guideline to get banned, and it led to the banning of a player who was not using broadcasting in any form. Needless =/= no consequence.

Quote:
Just like someone said: I don't have problems to loose against a fleet with 10 players. I hate to loose against a single player steering ten ships.

Would you have a problem if you won vs a 10-box fleet? Would you have a problem if you and your three friends won vs a 10-box fleet?

Quote:
Last comment: if your correlation between health of the game and input broadcasting would be right then EVE would be broken/dead. 4.5 months are enough time to see what consequences a change has, and EVE is still alive.

I've already talked about this, but I'll repeat. I never said that EVE would die with this change. During the last Fountain War we regularly hit or broke 50k concurrent players. Right now, the maximum 24h from Chribba's website is 35k. When you have players who are living under the threat of being banned for being "too efficient" you start to see players not want to play. When you have devs who regularly refuse to talk to their playerbase, who refuse to use logic and reason with their changes, then you start to see players question why they're playing a game where the devs don't give a damn anymore.


Quote:
Concerning 2)
Just because you found one who was banned by accident there is no reason to turn around. No matter what you do, no matter what is changed, you will always (be) someone who feels he was or is treated in a wrong way. And there is always someone who doesn't like the change and who is using the first guy as example why the whole thing was a bad idea.

Counter: Just because there's one who we know about who was banned by accident does not mean there are not more.
Do you know me personally? You seem to think you do, despite only ever really seeing me on this one issue. I've been active in a few subforums, and a good portion of the time I was happy with my interactions with the devs. For example, I was semi-active during the Marauder re-balance, and was quite happy with the Bastion Module. I was quite happy with the new Burner missions as well, not to mention the Bowhead. I wasn't happy with the HML nerf, agreed, because I was watching Tengus get sniped by Navy Apocs and achieve near-zero ISK efficiency. I didn't quite agree on the Tengu rebalance, but I understand why CCP did what they did, and I can live with it. So please don't pretend you know who I am.
I've made our points quite clear on the issue of ISBoxer. If you don't want to read it, fine.

Quote:
Hurr durr leave.

I thought so.
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#4088 - 2015-04-15 12:35:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Kinete Jenius
Dustpuppy wrote:
Concerning 2)
Just because you found one who was banned by accident there is no reason to turn around. No matter what you do, no matter what is changed, you will always someone who feels he was or is treated in a wrong way. And there is always someone who doesn't like the change and who is using the first guy as example why the whole thing was a bad idea.
Just as long as that person isn't you.... right?


I can see that appealing to your sense of empathy is useless.
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#4089 - 2015-04-15 12:40:36 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Lucas Kell wrote:
Lol? the EULA does not state that it damages the game, eot does it say that there's been any improvement to the game from removing ISBoxer. In fact, the EULA says exactly the same as what it said when ISBoxer was allowed. And I've not seen botters making that excuse, but that still doesn't make it not true. Are you claiming CCP haven;t lost subs and thus haven't lost income over this? Prove it.

At this point I'm getting the impression you are just a troll.
Good job I never said the EULA states that. I said read the EULA to understand why I can claim CCP disagrees with your opinion that these EULA enforcements harm the game. You seem to suffer from the same problem as Nolak, where you read one thing and presume the opposite is meant and you accuse me of being the troll. You are right the EULA hasn't changed, you claim to understand it yet seem oblivious to what it actually says. If you want me to explain it to you then just ask.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Obviously you have no experience with what we are talking about here. I'm a developer, I know how software works, I know a heck of a lot about data analysis, and I know how things like ISBoxer operate. There is no way possible for any program not installed on the clients machine to tell the difference between round robin and a tiled window setup. No way at all. It doesn't matter if you record years of data, the commands firing through from the client to the server will be the same. If they had client side detection like many anti-cheat systems, sure, but they don't, so there's simply no way. At most they can make a best guess which will still result in false positives with legitimate players being banned. Worse still, when they ban a legitimate player assuming they are cheating they update their detection profiles making it more likely to catch legitimate players later.
In your opinion. You don't know what data CCP collects and you don't know what it shows. You are just making wild accusations without a shred of proof and you accuse me of being the troll.

Lucas Kell wrote:
The thing is, you seem to be assuming I'm an ISBoxer user which is why I assume your so hostle. I'm not, I'm a completely manual multiboxer, and I don't want to end up targeted by stupid detection methods because CCP can't be bothered to enforce their rules effectively. My setup is as efficient if not slightly more efficient than any round robin setup, so I'm in that nice chunk of players likely to be banned for no reason.
I don't assume anything, I'll leave that sort of behavior to you. I do use ISBoxer. I used it years ago to rat and mine in null and have just recently got back into using to see what all the fuss is about. I have no worries about being caught up in any bannings because I use it in a way which doesn't break the EULA or any other policies. Although that eve-o-preview looks like it might work for me too.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Sorry about the diagram Mate. I'll have a look for some pictures that will explain it to you. Do you happen to have a link to CCP saying the diagram was wrong? Looking through the Dev posts in this thread doesn't seem to come up with it, but its late and I may have missed it. Although I have to say it looks useful as a quick look guide to what the changes in this thread refer to as long as you use the EULA for the actual details.
Lol, troll confirmed. The diagram makes things we KNOW are banned show as legal if you follow it through. I mean not when you follow it through, because when you follow it through you think that global keybinds and voice software are banned too, but when a normal person follows it though. The EULA is the same. According to the EULA most overlay software is banned as is eve-o preview, yet we know for a fact those are not banned.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal..

So you don't have a link to a CCP dev saying that diagram is wrong or out-dated. If it was the same group of players claiming that, that have been incorrectly telling other people whats allowed in this thread whilst not doing those things themselves (That is you Lucas). Then I'll make my own mind up. That diagram is a useful if taken in the context it was meant, to help people understand the changes discussed by CCP in this thread. It was not meant to be an all encompassing way of understanding Eve's EULA/TOS or any other policies.

*Snip* Removed a reply to an edited out part of the quoted post. ISD Ezwal.

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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#4090 - 2015-04-15 13:48:45 UTC
Dustpuppy wrote:
Forgive me but I don't understand this or your statements are simply speaking wrong. Again: A change which has no consequences on the way people play cannot have any influence on the player population or game's health. So either your statement about the main usage of ISboxer is wrong and the main usage was input broadcasting or the change simply had no effect on the players base.
Sure it can. It generated a fair amount of fear and contempt causing multiple players to quit. The game is no different than it used to be, multiboxing is still incredibly easy to do, but the income CCP generates is lower which in turn affects the health of the game.

Dustpuppy wrote:
And I (just like many others) am absolutely convinced that the change wasn't needless and/or hurt the game but helped it. It wasn't loosing players but getting rid of people playing in a style which hurt the game.
OK, so what benefit did it give? What part of the game is improved? Wherever I go I still see fleets of characters controlled by a single player. I see less videos of 40 multiboxed mining barges getting smartbombed however. So what is this mysterious benefit to the game?

Dustpuppy wrote:
Just like someone said: I don't have problems to loose against a fleet with 10 players. I hate to loose against a single player steering ten ships.
Which still happens. You don't need ISBoxer to control 10 ships, and if you are using them for PvP, they were more than likely controlled individually before the change too.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#4091 - 2015-04-15 13:59:39 UTC
Cutting out all of the utter rubbish not worth a response in that post...

Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
In your opinion. You don't know what data CCP collects and you don't know what it shows.
Yes, I do. You could to if you wanted to. Not that CCP can only collect the data your computer sends, therefore if what your computer sends during a round robin and what if sends while playing with tiled windows is the same, you can in fact see that they can't possibly be getting the magical data you think they get.

If you actually understand what a round robin is, it's just pressing a button maually, just swapping clients between presses - exactly the same was what happens when you swap between clients on you screen and press the same button manually.

Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
I have no worries about being caught up in any bannings because I use it in a way which doesn't break the EULA or any other policies.
It's a shame that's irrelevant, since they can't see how you are using it. I guarantee that if you are too efficient you will find yourself banned down the line.

Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
If you had any proof to back up your ridiculous claims that CCP is banning people unfairly then you would share them.
Alas part of CCPs EULA covers you not being allowed to release information about bans so no, you won;t be luring me into breaking the EULA. the thing is though, nothing would satisfy you even if it could be released. You would just assume it's all made up. You've already made it pretty clear that you automatically think anyone who has been banned and done nothing wrong is a liar, and short of recording their historic play sessions, they can't prove otherwise. I really hope you end up on the other side of that situation, then I'll be the one here calling you a cheating liar.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nolak Ataru
Unsanitary Landfill
#4092 - 2015-04-15 15:06:00 UTC
Archie is falling into the "absence of evidence" fallacy, but with a twist. We have invited him multiple times to ask for the proof on other forums that were not controlled by CCP, but he steadfastly stuck his head in the sand like an ostrich.

Please explain in 5000 words or less how RR breaks 6a2 that would exclude programs like Logitech Gaming Software and Razer Synapse.
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#4093 - 2015-04-15 15:15:58 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Archie is falling into the "absence of evidence" fallacy, but with a twist. We have invited him multiple times to ask for the proof on other forums that were not controlled by CCP, but he steadfastly stuck his head in the sand like an ostrich.
I searched the other forums for your proof and found non. All the people I could find on dual-boxing.com that claimed to be banned unfairly and tried to provide proof were in fact breaking Eve's EULA and those that posted correspondence were told exactly what part they were breaking.

Nolak Ataru wrote:
Please explain in 5000 words or less how RR breaks 6a2 that would exclude programs like Logitech Gaming Software and Razer Synapse.
Read Eve's EULA/TOS & other policies.

Why would users of Logitech Gaming Software and Razer Synapse be exempt from the EULA?

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

Marsha Mallow
#4094 - 2015-04-15 17:30:41 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
All I can assume is that you sit around crying while someone else steals all of "your" ice, and now you're so mad you want to come on the forum and cry until even manual multiboxers can't play.

You're addressing someone with the corp name The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners. Doesn't sound like a person likely to be sobbing that 'their' ice is being stolen by botters does it?

Btw I like how the goalposts in this debate keep shifting. Now we're onto 'people may be banned simply for multiboxing too efficiently'. When that happens, and if you can gather sufficient evidence from the individual, why not submit it to one of the news tabloids or a reasonably well known blogger?

It's interesting that no one with any credibility within the EvE community has taken up this campaign on behalf of the players with a grievance. Why is that?

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#4095 - 2015-04-15 20:38:58 UTC

I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Rastafarian God
#4096 - 2015-04-16 04:46:52 UTC
I am very confused by a lot of responses in this thread. I fully understood everything from the first post.

Once the client is loaded, you can not use IsBoxer (or however its spelled) or programs like it at all anymore. You also cant use software that automates complicated tasks although a simple Macro (binded on a keyboard) that uses an in came shortcut is fine. Honest multi boxing is also fine.

The only good question I remember reading was about controlling more then one PC with 1 keyboard and mouse with splitters, but they may have been answered, Ive started to skim.

As for normal multi boxing goes, I dont know where the debate is coming from. I run 3 clients at once on one PC some times. Because I have to do everything manually, it limits what I can do and how well I can do it. People trying to do 2 or more things at once are distracted and easier to kill. I NEVER have more then 1 client running during PVP unless the others are cloaked scouts not doing anything.

Allowing people to do this but forcing them to do it manually does not hurt the game for anyone else and helps generate revenue for CCP. If I want to pay 45 bucks a month to have a scout on a couple of gates on the other monitor from time to time, or have an orca haul something to me, why not? It just lets smaller groups of people do more giving everyone else more to shoot at adding to the game while at the same time, not working as well if all ships where flown by different people balancing the benefits and risk.

Not sure why this had gotton so crazy.

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#4097 - 2015-04-16 12:17:36 UTC
Rastafarian God wrote:
The only good question I remember reading was about controlling more then one PC with 1 keyboard and mouse with splitters, but they may have been answered, Ive started to skim.



If you're meaning, click with the mouse and multiple computers receive that click, that's against the published rules. 'We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware'

If you're meaning a kvm, where you can select which computer the output goes to, but it only interacts with one at a time, that's fine.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Nolak Ataru
Unsanitary Landfill
#4098 - 2015-04-16 16:43:53 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Rastafarian God wrote:
The only good question I remember reading was about controlling more then one PC with 1 keyboard and mouse with splitters, but they may have been answered, Ive started to skim.

If you're meaning, click with the mouse and multiple computers receive that click, that's against the published rules. 'We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware'
If you're meaning a kvm, where you can select which computer the output goes to, but it only interacts with one at a time, that's fine.

We have a built-in software KVM switch with ISBoxer where it only sends one output to one computer per input, and it got a player banned, so clearly either you or CCP is misinformed.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#4099 - 2015-04-16 23:45:52 UTC
Dustpuppy 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.




Forgive me but I don't understand this or your statements are simply speaking wrong. Again: A change which has no consequences on the way people play cannot have any influence on the player population or game's health. So either your statement about the main usage of ISboxer is wrong and the main usage was input broadcasting or the change simply had no effect on the players base.

1) Your first statement by the way is not logical and therefor wrong. Only if input broadcasting was important the change had an influence and those players relying on it left the game (see above). And I (just like many others) am absolutely convinced that the change wasn't needless and/or hurt the game but helped it. It wasn't loosing players but getting rid of people playing in a style which hurt the game.

2) Just like someone said: I don't have problems to loose against a fleet with 10 players. I hate to loose against a single player steering ten ships.

3) Last comment: if your correlation between health of the game and input broadcasting would be right then EVE would be broken/dead. 4.5 months are enough time to see what consequences a change has, and EVE is still alive.


4)Concerning 2)
Just because you found one who was banned by accident there is no reason to turn around. No matter what you do, no matter what is changed, you will always someone who feels he was or is treated in a wrong way. And there is always someone who doesn't like the change and who is using the first guy as example why the whole thing was a bad idea.

5) Now instead of fighting a lost war for this guy you could either settle down and continue playing or just search for another game. Why not WOW? i heard it also supports ISBoxer.


1) Some left, many have just modified the way they play and or are using less characters.

2) I love that little quote - I could land on him at anytime with my little fleet and he would have no way of knowing if it was 1 person or 10. He would be guessing and more than likely get it wrong.

3) One year ago, av online per day 39k. Six months, 36k. Three months, 29k. Last month, 25k. A game doesn't have to shutdown to be dead, it just has to continue to see less and less players online. 14K less players per day is not a small number.

4) No-one is asking for the changes to be reverted, we are asking for the changes to be clarified - How efficient can a multi boxer be before he gets banned? If CCP's method of detection leads to the banning of even one innocent player, then it is a bad method of detection.

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.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#4100 - 2015-04-17 09:40:07 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
You're addressing someone with the corp name The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners. Doesn't sound like a person likely to be sobbing that 'their' ice is being stolen by botters does it?
And if naming a corporation bound you to an activity that might be a point, but it's a solo corp with what appears to be no history of miner prevention. It's probably one of those "bump my competitor" corps.

Marsha Mallow wrote:
Btw I like how the goalposts in this debate keep shifting. Now we're onto 'people may be banned simply for multiboxing too efficiently'. When that happens, and if you can gather sufficient evidence from the individual, why not submit it to one of the news tabloids or a reasonably well known blogger?
My main issues with the changes have always been at least in part down to enforcement. You can even see a post of mine from early December outlining the same issue There's no way for them to reliably enforce the rules they've made without capturing false positives. Attending fanfest and asking CCP directly on their approach to detection and finding out they have zero client side detection running for it has raised even more red flags. And as I've said before, as far as I'm concerned if even a single person gets banned unfairly then that's one too many.

As for submitting it to news sites, that may happen if someone doesn't mind the fact that they will be sealing their fate with a permaban for releasing information about their ban, but whether or not it will even be entertained or will just simply be disregarded as lies (they must have been breaking the EULA and lying about it, right?) is yet to be seen. Much like how people's preconceptions prevent known scammers from being treated fairly, I doubt a multiboxer would come off well in the court of public opinion.

Marsha Mallow wrote:
It's interesting that no one with any credibility within the EvE community has taken up this campaign on behalf of the players with a grievance. Why is that?
Because as of yet very few people have been affected and it's likely that only a small portion will be false positives. Add to that the fact that talking public about your banning is also against the EULA, it's not likely to be something we're likely to see from people who want their accounts back.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.