These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1301 - 2014-11-26 17:03:51 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
For everyone claiming "ISBoxing incursions" and "ISBoxing anoms" is dead..... nah it isn't. Since we can still use ISBoxer's VideoFX and DXNothing to rearrange our screens, it may take us a little longer to lock each target, but not by much.

thats the whole point. To unload all work of multiboxing up on you, not some input multiplying tool.
Congratulations, you realized intentions of this policy. Once you have to click through your 15 incursion clients and click guns one by one, activate hardeners one by one etc. I'm fine with you multiboxing, because I know how big the chances for failure are in all that clicking and how exhausting that is, then I'm good with it. What I'm not good with is when you fly a fleet of machariels with same effort as you'd do it with 1.


CCP is rather indirectly removing the ability to gank with ISBoxer and rapidly deploy a fleet for ISBoxer PVP while allowing us to continue to PVE (albeit it makes 0.0 anom ratting the current choice of where-to-earn-isk with the jump changes) to our hearts content. Most, if not all, of the ISBoxers were willing to accept a blanket ban on ISBox PVP, or repeaters with PVP, because there's too many ways around this repeater ban to even consider that this was anything other than a direct ban on PVP because some idiot was hauling 20b in a freighter and got ganked, or because some fleet got bombed, all the while CCP ignores the raw facts that if you're hauling 20b in a freighter in highsec, you will get ganked. And if you're sitting AFK on a gate or anywhere in space in nullsec for any measurable period of time, you will get bombed.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1302 - 2014-11-26 17:04:26 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

There are other software solutions that can accomplish the same thing. CCP can't "ban" software, so they ban the act.

sure they can, but they dont, because its ineffective. However as last resort they could even consider that, the market of those tools isnt as big as you'd like, you can count them all on 5 fingers.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:
The problem is that the act they're banning now is much less severe than the one that's been banned since day 1, and that they've done nothing about.

yet again, 1 wrong doesnt negate the other wrong.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

This is no surprise. Your stance against the presence of various "disagreeable" forms pvp in this game is widely known.

yeah, my stance is pretty easy in this point, if you multibox, do all the work.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:
You think I keep a Rolodex of all the bots I've encountered or something? All I know is that any I've ever reported have never been banned. Even those that outwardly admitted to me that yes, they were botting.

so what? You'd like to make botting legal? Ratting bots is a disjoint issue, stop derailing isboxer discussion what's this thread is about. Here again, one wrong doesnt negate the other wrong, you cant spin it that way.
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
#1303 - 2014-11-26 17:05:15 UTC
WhatHappensInJita Jitas wrote:
68 pages of botter tears, excuses, predicting the death of a 10 year old game, playing dumb like CCP is banning keyboards and OSs that have scripting built in lol <3 The botter rage has kept me warm all morning and it's raining ice outside.

I can't believe I read every comment, but it was just so engaging. Did you botters log in all your accounts and post all at once or did you whine individually from each account? I guess the latter will be good practice for when you actually have to play the game like everyone else.




The funny part is come january and we are still doing what we do the roles will be reversed yet again and it will be your tears all over our killboards. The isboxers on here complaining are the minority. Those of us with a grasp on mechanics and intelligent use of the tools we have at hand are not so offended by this change. Roll
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1304 - 2014-11-26 17:05:38 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Elisha Habah wrote:
[quote=Nolak Ataru]For everyone claiming "ISBoxing incursions" and "ISBoxing anoms" is dead..... nah it isn't. Since we can still use ISBoxer's VideoFX and DXNothing to rearrange our screens, it may take us a little longer to lock each target, but not by much.

Totally agree..... People have no clue. As stated previously we only use mouse repeat for about 10% of the time.....[/quote

In which case, the ISboxers seem to have no grounds for complaining about the new CCP rules?


Ignoring the broken quotes aside, this is a direct attack on PVP using ISBoxer while trying to frame it in a way that causes the best PR for them for the playerbase.
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
#1305 - 2014-11-26 17:07:51 UTC  |  Edited by: ShadowandLight
DaReape wrote:

Multi boxing won't be killed, slippery slope argument Is a logical fallacy. This is like saying that by banning bottign scripts no one will mine. Any work arounds that duplicatce clicks are eula violations. but ill leave that up to ccp.


That's the beauty of the work arounds we are coming up with, one button press = one click or button press to each client. We will be spending an extra few seconds max after its setup to do everything we are doing now, this new limitation is pointless and isn't going to change anything for the multiboxers who follow our guides to setup round robins, key maps, click bars and videofx...

This maneuver by CCP is pointless
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1306 - 2014-11-26 17:10:29 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
CCP is rather indirectly removing the ability to gank with ISBoxer and rapidly deploy a fleet for ISBoxer PVP while allowing us to continue to PVE (albeit it makes 0.0 anom ratting the current choice of where-to-earn-isk with the jump changes) to our hearts content.

how is pve different from pve in regards of isbotter involvement? I cant see this in policy update.


Nolak Ataru wrote:
Most, if not all, of the ISBoxers were willing to accept a blanket ban on ISBox PVP, or repeaters with PVP, because there's too many ways around this repeater ban

so you have no reason to complain then, right?

Nolak Ataru wrote:
because some idiot was hauling 20b in a freighter and got ganked

not the point. gank whatever you want, but not in easy mode controlling 20 clients with 1 click.

Nolak Ataru wrote:
, or because some fleet got bombed

same here
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1307 - 2014-11-26 17:11:29 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
all the while CCP ignores the raw facts that if you're hauling 20b in a freighter in highsec, you will get ganked.

not the point. CCP's attitude towards suicide ganking is clear, they never despised that as strategy. Question is how you do it, in a gang of 20 real people or just 20 automated accounts, latter is wrong and one of t he targets of this policy - for good.

Nolak Ataru wrote:
And if you're sitting AFK on a gate or anywhere in space in nullsec for any measurable period of time, you will get bombed.
same here. bombing itself is not the point, point is how its done and by whom.
Good Posting Reloaded
My Real Mind
#1308 - 2014-11-26 17:12:46 UTC
All these isboxer tears because they have to control their clients manually like everyone else speak for themselves. Entitled cheaters is what they are. Well, take your bots/replicants/borgs/whatever and go away or play legit. Or go to the chinese server, that would be good.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1309 - 2014-11-26 17:13:41 UTC
ShadowandLight wrote:
This maneuver by CCP is pointless

then click and be happy, no reason to complain here, right? Go on.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1310 - 2014-11-26 17:19:22 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
CCP is rather indirectly removing the ability to gank with ISBoxer and rapidly deploy a fleet for ISBoxer PVP while allowing us to continue to PVE (albeit it makes 0.0 anom ratting the current choice of where-to-earn-isk with the jump changes) to our hearts content.

how is pve different from pve in regards of isbotter involvement? I cant see this in policy update.


Nolak Ataru wrote:
Most, if not all, of the ISBoxers were willing to accept a blanket ban on ISBox PVP, or repeaters with PVP, because there's too many ways around this repeater ban

so you have no reason to complain then, right?

Nolak Ataru wrote:
because some idiot was hauling 20b in a freighter and got ganked

not the point. gank whatever you want, but not in easy mode controlling 20 clients with 1 click.

Nolak Ataru wrote:
, or because some fleet got bombed

same here


Point 1: I think you typed "PVE" instead of "PVP" on one of these, so I'll ignore it for now.

Point 2: We do have a reason to complain as removing broadcasting was a very useful part on moving a fleet through multiple systems, or switching ships, or fixing skill queues or any other number of things. Please try to think before posting.

Point 3: Once again, lots of VideoFX means that I can F1 on all my clients within a single server tick. Is CCP willing to make the distinction there?

Point 4: This is a harder hit at bombers because of the coordination required to use a fleet of bombers, whether it be torps or bombs.
RudinV
Sons Of Mother's Friend
Can i bring my Drake...
#1311 - 2014-11-26 17:23:07 UTC
the amount of haters chasing for imaginary tears is too damn high in this thread
Sentenced 1989
#1312 - 2014-11-26 17:26:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentenced 1989
Nolak Ataru wrote:

Point 3: Once again, lots of VideoFX means that I can F1 on all my clients within a single server tick. Is CCP willing to make the distinction there?


Lets assume we are speaking about 10 toons, you can do 10 clicks in one second with VideoFX positining? And each time make it in the same tick, so not 4 in one tick and next 6 in another tick?
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1313 - 2014-11-26 17:26:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Nolak Ataru wrote:

Point 2: We do have a reason to complain as removing broadcasting was a very useful part on moving a fleet through multiple systems, or switching ships, or fixing skill queues or any other number of things. Please try to think before posting.

in other words you complain because you cant uload all the work from multiboxing to some 3rd party tool anymore, and in same time you think you should rightfully be able to do that? EULA explicitely forbidding this.

Nolak Ataru wrote:

Point 3: Once again, lots of VideoFX means that I can F1 on all my clients within a single server tick. Is CCP willing to make the distinction there?
I guess so. You could as good, keep input broadcast because, who cares? Its your account being banned in the end... I would be the one petitioning you for 3rd party aids.


Nolak Ataru wrote:

Point 4: This is a harder hit at bombers because of the coordination required to use a fleet of bombers, whether it be torps or bombs.

yes and this is why its good. No easy bombing anymore.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#1314 - 2014-11-26 17:27:59 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
ShadowandLight wrote:
This maneuver by CCP is pointless

then click and be happy, no reason to complain here, right? Go on.

There is a reason to complain here, because if this rule was aimed at various forms of pvp, and it ends up being entirely circumvented by resourceful players, then CCP will have a precedent to further nerf these forms of pvp. They've done it in the past, many times. The insufficiency of one change has always led to another, and another, and another. The thing is, while players have found ways to deal with these changes, the universe has always shrunk and become less open as a result.

This is not how I want to see EVE play out its course.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Sentenced 1989
#1315 - 2014-11-26 17:29:14 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

Point 4: This is a harder hit at bombers because of the coordination required to use a fleet of bombers, whether it be torps or bombs.

yes and this is why its good. No easy bombing anymore.


Not just that this is good, but this won't hit bombers harder at all, this won't even affect bombers, since hey, for most bomber pilots nothing changes with this since we don't use 3rd party software... :D
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1316 - 2014-11-26 17:33:45 UTC
Sentenced 1989 wrote:

Not just that this is good, but this won't hit bombers harder at all, this won't even affect bombers, since hey, for most bomber pilots nothing changes with this since we don't use 3rd party software... :D


with easy bombing I mean 1 dude controlling a bomber fleet alone.. Removal of this is good.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#1317 - 2014-11-26 17:33:51 UTC
Sentenced 1989 wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

Point 3: Once again, lots of VideoFX means that I can F1 on all my clients within a single server tick. Is CCP willing to make the distinction there?


Lets assume we are speaking about 10 toons, you can do 10 clicks in one second with VideoFX positining? And each time make it in the same tick, so not 4 in one tick and next 6 in another tick?

You can bind alt+tab, followed by a set of commands to one button. How fast can you mash a single button? I can definitely do it more than 10 time in a second. Of course, like you mentioned, the commands might get split up between two ticks, but that's just the kind of thing that will have to be lived with.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1318 - 2014-11-26 17:37:04 UTC
RudinV wrote:
the amount of haters chasing for imaginary tears is too damn high in this thread


They have ruined the word with their misuse.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#1319 - 2014-11-26 17:41:16 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Sentenced 1989 wrote:

Not just that this is good, but this won't hit bombers harder at all, this won't even affect bombers, since hey, for most bomber pilots nothing changes with this since we don't use 3rd party software... :D


with easy bombing I mean 1 dude controlling a bomber fleet alone.. Removal of this is good.

Assuming we're talking about the act of bombing itself:

Step 1: warp the fleet with the fleet leader
Step 2: hit F1, which is bound to alt+tab + a double click (after aiming your mouse in the direction you want to go), 8 times
Step 3: hit F2, which is bound to alt+tab + cloak module, 8 times (might not need this step with recent cloaking changes)
Step 4: hit F3, which is bound to alt+tab + bomb module, 8 times
Step 5: warp out the fleet with the fleet leader

It's even easier if you're engaging manually with your primary weapons, since EVE has shortcuts for pretty much everything, and broadcasting targets on the overview makes targeting easy.

You don't need ISBoxer for this; ISBoxer just makes it a bit more convenient.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1320 - 2014-11-26 17:41:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

You can bind alt+tab, followed by a set of commands to one button.

and this is covered by EULA already (prohibited). so enjoy your ban.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

You don't need ISBoxer for this; ISBoxer just makes it a bit more convenient.


so then, we're gucci, arent we?
You're doing it without isbotter and everyone is happy.