These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#941 - 2014-11-26 00:19:20 UTC
Hott Pocket wrote:
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking.


That would figure. First thing I did when I saw this post was switch training to stealth bombers/cyno V.

I still don't see the logic there. One is a duplication of commands to allow activity beyond player capability, the other a purely player fear driven effect from complete inactivity.
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#942 - 2014-11-26 00:22:03 UTC
Airi Cho wrote:


See it from this side ... we just try to get a lot of rookies into the game. do we really want to tell them "oh and you can run in 10-20 people controlled by isboxer to kill you" or "you have to compete with 20 isboxed miners, and most of the time they will clear out the ice belt that you are happy you get one load of ice before it is gone"

is that really the message you want to tell them?


I get what you're saying. But I see the reality of it being that single new player will likely never contribute as much to the economy as that single ISBoxer. And will be several months before he can even mine as much as one of his alts. That's assuming he's willing to put in the same amount of time.


I see this best for the new players, I just am fearful about how many we will lose compared to how many we will gain. I'm not going anywhere either way, CCP obviously thinks this is for the best so we will have to sit, wait, and see.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#943 - 2014-11-26 00:22:35 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
The behavior, fleet warping, is NOT the issue. Fleet warping is a feature built into the game by CCP. Since the portion of the EULA relating to ISBoxer refers SPECIFICALLY to 3rd party software and modifying the client, fleet warping, drone assist and other IN GAME features (features designed in game by CCP) are irrelevant.

It is just that simple.
Maybe I made some mistake in phrasing but my point was that CCP has decided certain things are allowable and has provided the capability to do them with limitations under their control via the client, fully justifying being able to do x within the client but not with a 3rd party tool.

I never said fleet warping WAS an issue, I said CCP decided fleet warping was NOT an issue as they built it.
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#944 - 2014-11-26 00:23:37 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Airi Cho wrote:


See it from this side ... we just try to get a lot of rookies into the game. do we really want to tell them "oh and you can run in 10-20 people controlled by isboxer to kill you" or "you have to compete with 20 isboxed miners, and most of the time they will clear out the ice belt that you are happy you get one load of ice before it is gone"

is that really the message you want to tell them?


I get what you're saying. But I see the reality of it being that single new player will likely never contribute as much to the economy as that single ISBoxer. And will be several months before he can even mine as much as one of his alts. That's assuming he's willing to put in the same amount of time.


I see this best for the new players, I just am fearful about how many we will lose compared to how many we will gain. I'm not going anywhere either way, CCP obviously thinks this is for the best so we will have to sit, wait, and see.


right but i would rather have 20 newbies become profitable miners instead of 1 guy with 20 accounts.
Villtora Aldurald
Svarog Liberi
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#945 - 2014-11-26 00:23:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Villtora Aldurald
This is actually quite easy to check. 1 ip adres sending the exact same data to multiple clients at the same speed. They could even write a program to monitor the specific commands sent and sway the banhammer. It would require some decent hardware to keep up with all the packets. Fiberglass network on the server routing would do wonders for this, same goes for TiDi tbh.
Steppa Musana
Doomheim
#946 - 2014-11-26 00:24:22 UTC
CCP can save almost the entirety of their mining alt ISBox subscriptions by allowing us to jettison cargo or move cargo to an Orca using broadcasting.

Without that ability it's too much of a hassle to mine and I personally will be retiring my entire fleet over it.

Cry
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#947 - 2014-11-26 00:25:13 UTC
don't worry about detection. I'm sure automatic broadcasting has a robotic signature over a time span, that isn't human.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#948 - 2014-11-26 00:26:19 UTC
Dazamin wrote:


I could be wrong, but my understanding is this isn't about unfair advantage because not everyone has ISBoxer, its about being able to get multiple characters doing the exact same thing at the exact same time being a bad thing. Specifically people talk about ISBoxed Bomber fleets being more effective than a bomber fleet with seven individuals running one character each. I don't see whats unreasonable about applying that principle to fleet warps, in fact its the same reason that drone assign was heavily nerfed, because it involved the whole fleets actions being handed over to one player.


For the love of...

It is about using 3rd party software....to get characters to do stuff in the game. Really, read the OP it is quite clear. See, when CCP Falcon wrote:

Quote:
Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.


He was referring to this passage in the EULA:

Quote:
A. Specifically Restricted Conduct

Your continued access to the System and license to play the Game is subject to proper conduct. Without limiting CCP's rights to control the Game environment, and the conduct of the players within that environment, CCP prohibits the following practices that CCP has determined detract from the overall user experience of the users playing the Game.


  1. You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.
  2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
  3. You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.
  4. You may not use the Software, or any information accessible through the System, to bypass the System login architecture or create or provide any other means through which the System may be accessed and/or the Game may be played by others, as, for example, through server emulators.
  5. You may not submit any content to any chat room or other public forum within the Game that is harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, libelous or defamatory, encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liabilities, or is unlawful in any other way, including without limitation the submission of content that infringes on a third-party’s intellectual property rights.
  6. You may not engage in any conduct that results in an Account containing items, objects, currency, character attributes, rank, or status that are inappropriate for the level or rank of the character contained in the Account, including without limitation arranging, making or accepting transfers of items to a character without adequate consideration, thereby augmenting or aggregating items in an Account and increasing its value for an Account sale.


I have bolded, italicized and highlighted the relevant section.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Dazamin
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#949 - 2014-11-26 00:36:49 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dazamin wrote:


I could be wrong, but my understanding is this isn't about unfair advantage because not everyone has ISBoxer, its about being able to get multiple characters doing the exact same thing at the exact same time being a bad thing. Specifically people talk about ISBoxed Bomber fleets being more effective than a bomber fleet with seven individuals running one character each. I don't see whats unreasonable about applying that principle to fleet warps, in fact its the same reason that drone assign was heavily nerfed, because it involved the whole fleets actions being handed over to one player.


For the love of...

It is about using 3rd party software....to get characters to do stuff in the game. Really, read the OP it is quite clear. See, when CCP Falcon wrote:

Quote:
Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.


He was referring to this passage in the EULA:

Quote:
A. Specifically Restricted Conduct

Your continued access to the System and license to play the Game is subject to proper conduct. Without limiting CCP's rights to control the Game environment, and the conduct of the players within that environment, CCP prohibits the following practices that CCP has determined detract from the overall user experience of the users playing the Game.


  1. You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.
  2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
  3. You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.
  4. You may not use the Software, or any information accessible through the System, to bypass the System login architecture or create or provide any other means through which the System may be accessed and/or the Game may be played by others, as, for example, through server emulators.
  5. You may not submit any content to any chat room or other public forum within the Game that is harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, libelous or defamatory, encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liabilities, or is unlawful in any other way, including without limitation the submission of content that infringes on a third-party’s intellectual property rights.
  6. You may not engage in any conduct that results in an Account containing items, objects, currency, character attributes, rank, or status that are inappropriate for the level or rank of the character contained in the Account, including without limitation arranging, making or accepting transfers of items to a character without adequate consideration, thereby augmenting or aggregating items in an Account and increasing its value for an Account sale.


I have bolded, italicized and highlighted the relevant section.


This would make sense if I suggested CCP should ban people who use fleet warp, since I never mentioned the EULA and it has no relevance to what I said, I'm not sure why you're quoting it.

I was just wondering if, while we're on the subject of automation, things in game that allow one person to control the actions of a number of pilots (like fleet warps) could be looked at, like other similar in game mechanics have been (like drone assign).
RoAnnon
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#950 - 2014-11-26 00:37:47 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
I'm a Mac user, and to be perfectly honest it would never have occurred to me to control EVE clients through AppleScript--though, granted, that's because I usually control one, and at most two, accounts at once on a single monitor, and those two accounts are usually doing distinctly different things.

That's my case. I've used Applescript in other apps, but never even thought about trying to multibox EVE with it. Most accounts I've ever run at once was 3. I have two displays, and I had one miner, one hauler and a scout going. Only did that once though. And haven't run 2 for a long time.

Frankly, if someone thinks they MUST multibox to play EVE, they're doing it wrong.

So, you're a bounty hunter. No, that ain't it at all. Then what are you? I'm a bounty hunter.

Broadcast4Reps

Eve Vegas 2015 Pub Crawl Group 9

Houston EVE Meet
Arla Sarain
#951 - 2014-11-26 00:42:26 UTC
I imagine the online counter will drop on Tranquility.
Paranoid Loyd
#952 - 2014-11-26 00:48:50 UTC
Steppa Musana wrote:
CCP can save almost the entirety of their mining alt ISBox subscriptions by allowing us to jettison cargo or move cargo to an Orca using broadcasting.

Without that ability it's too much of a hassle to mine and I personally will be retiring my entire fleet over it.

Cry

ROFL

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Firestorm Delta
Aphotic Machina
#953 - 2014-11-26 00:49:09 UTC
Dazamin wrote:


This would make sense if I suggested CCP should ban people who use fleet warp, since I never mentioned the EULA and it has no relevance to what I said, I'm not sure why you're quoting it.

I was just wondering if, while we're on the subject of automation, things in game that allow one person to control the actions of a number of pilots (like fleet warps) could be looked at, like other similar in game mechanics have been (like drone assign).


Fleet warp is entirely different as its intended to let a fleet actually travel as one. Larger ships already suffer from being slower in warp, making fleet warp any different will just make it harder to do things as a fleet.

We want things that allow for groups of players to work together, not one guy with 30 accounts. Warp fleet is there for the former.
Marilyn Maulerant
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#954 - 2014-11-26 00:49:26 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Marilyn Maulerant wrote:
Seandals wrote:
Soooo...

What if we used wooden dowels: https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/_/rsrc/1300193073723/home/closeup2.jpg ?

from https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/oldrigs





Seems that the OP here goes 100% against the following line in that page
"Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA."



yes andthey CHANGED their terms. Somethingthey are entitled to. And they are giving a fair warning of 1 month in advance.



I don't disagree with it at all, in fact I like it TBH, and I think that for most of us, it won't matter.

If anyone reads the text on that page though, they will need to remember that this supersedes that now.
Ginger Barbarella
#955 - 2014-11-26 00:49:26 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:

So what happens when CCP's connections is being DDoSed or doing it's usual lag at random late hours and all my commands arrive at the server at the same time? From the server's perspective it'd look like I'm using a repeater but in reality all I did was alt tab through a bunch of windows quickly.


Blue sky must mean the planet is surrounded by water (according to your logic)...

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
Hal Morsh
Doomheim
#956 - 2014-11-26 00:54:15 UTC
1 person operated fleets won't be against the rules, just using a program to operate them all at once will be, you can still click through each client, you just can't use a program to automate it.

Even if you found a way for isboxer to delay it's commands randomly to each miner it would still be automation and against the rules.



Lets face it, isboxers were a literal cancer killing eve.

Oh, I perfectly understand, Hal Morsh — a mission like this requires courage, skill, and heroism… qualities you are clearly lacking. Have you forgotten you're one of the bloody immortals!?
Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#957 - 2014-11-26 00:59:43 UTC
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Fonac wrote:
So is-boxer is banned?

edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it.



isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned.






CCP & CSM's ...


Posts like this do absolutely zero good. You both need to detail what IS allowed, and what ISN'T allowed.


This typical "VagueBook" garbage doesn't fly with any of the players, and a simple explanation detailing what is allowed and what isn't, in a bullet style list, wouldn't have gotten you 40 pages of "please explain what you mean" posts.


Seriously, stop beating your heads with boards like in Monty Python and talk to us like adults. We're grown ups, we can handle it.



As that was exactly what the first post was (essentially), you're premise is flawed. What happens when they do that is that the people who don't like it spend 40 pages trying to find the edges of the rule so they can try and skirt the spirit while obeying the letter of the rule.

Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!

This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury

It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#958 - 2014-11-26 01:01:07 UTC
Also, it's a proven fact that the CCP is more likely to push through a change depending on the relative number of posts from members of Goonswarm Federation in the thread. The more posts, the more likely the change is going to happen- whether or not the posts support the change.

I think we'll keep posting on this one.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#959 - 2014-11-26 01:01:55 UTC
Hal Morsh wrote:
1 person operated fleets won't be against the rules, just using a program to operate them all at once will be, you can still click through each client, you just can't use a program to automate it.

Even if you found a way for isboxer to delay it's commands randomly to each miner it would still be automation and against the rules.



Lets face it, isboxers were a literal cancer killing eve.


I agree using a program such as the .exe for eve to operate all the mining lasers at once and make them repeat exactly as the cycle ends is cancerous and killing eve.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Hott Pocket
Doomheim
#960 - 2014-11-26 01:04:41 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Bakla Firoz wrote:
I was so shocked when I found out that CCP specifically confirmed multiple times that isboxing to control multiple accounts was allowed. So why the sudden change of heart?

Nothing has changed and therefore you owe those people who have trained up 10, 20, 30, 50(?) accounts a MASSIVE apology. How about those who have recently paid for 3 month (the minimum) subscription on isboxer because you said it was okay? The very least you could do is admit you were wrong.



1 month is minimum.



I have 10 accounts. Three of them I will keep forever, because I absolutely love Eve. 7 are ISBoxer miners, paid in full until October 2015. I fully support the (effective) banning of ISBoxer, as it will be easier to be competitive without it. However, will CCP offer ISBoxers with a significant real $$ investment a way out? Perhaps converting unused subs to PLEX, or moving the game time to my other accounts?

I understand that the game will change as CCP sees fit, but as the poster above stated, CCP has repeatedly clarified that they are ok with ISBoxer. If it had been a grey area, I would have never started the extra accounts. Here's hoping CCP will make this right...