These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ian Morbius
Potomac Greeting Card Company
#1381 - 2014-11-26 20:56:52 UTC
Radkiel
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#1382 - 2014-11-26 20:57:23 UTC
Apo Lamperouge wrote:
Kaliba Mort wrote:
Cervix Thumper wrote:

ISboxer has very little to do with that. I can take all my toons and launch them in fleet and take out a belt. I might be able to take that belt 10 times faster than a solo player but my costs are 10 x as large.

So NO multiboxing with ISboxer with the same ships in the same situation is NOT more profitable at least when it comes to mining.


You pay for ISboxer and you don't know that advantages? Shame on you to think the rest are that naive.

1. you have 10 chars, so you mine for 10 plexes, takes you 10 days
2. you want 10 plexes for your PvP alt for next month - you mine for 10 days.
3. you want to replace a dread - mine for 4 days.

Now, if you are solo,

1. you want a PLEX, you mine for 10 days
2. you want 10 plexes for your PvP alt for next month. You mine for 100 days? oops Oops
3. you want to replace a dread. mine for 40 days?

The PLEX cost is a fixed cost. But the profit above those fixed costs is multiplied by number of characters. It's the same for mining, as missioning, as ratting as Incursions. This is also why majority (all?) of PvE ISboxers pay with PLEXes for their alts.

There is a saying - don't **** on someone and say it's raining.


Here is where the argument gets really rage-y.

We had a threadnaught on skype about this too, and the isboxers say that they are paying for their accounts in plex, so losing them will take money out of ccp's hands. How so? Just because one person with 14 accounts rage quits because he cant click once for 14 toons now, CCP is losing out on all that MONEY. Sure, someone paid for that PLEX is his hard earned USD, or Euro or CDN or whatever goat trading they do in other parts of the world. But his money is already in CCP's hands. You as the ISBotter didn't pay one hairy butt nugget dime for that right to whine about money... Sure there will be market fluctuations, PLEX prices will fall (this time last year they were what? 650m?) but Empires will not fall. The sky will not fall.

Chicken Little ensues.

I pay for my accounts with game time purchased on my credit card, from money I make from having a real job, working 12-14 hours a day 5 days a week.


You ISbotters.... don't. I mean come on. Do the math, seriously, do it.





I pay cashy money for my Accounts or I did until yesterday, now I will use plex to do so.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#1383 - 2014-11-26 20:58:25 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
white male privilege wrote:
if the multiboxer continues mining after the plex requirement is met, he starts making ten times what someone in a solo miner will

You're saying that as if ISBoxer is some kind of special privilege that's only available to the select few Chosen Ones or something. As much as I think that alt play should have never been a thing from the beginning, the matter of the fact is that it is, and always has been, available to everyone. It's a potential that everyone is able to unlock, but few choose to do so, much in the same way that making much more money via scamming and trading is possible when compared to mining and mission-running. By your logic, we should penalize the scammers and traders because they make the same money as miners or missioners in a fraction of the time, and can use the remainder of their time to make more.


No. Scamming = Not against the rules.
Multiplexing = Against the rules.

"Logic." Roll

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Jeanette Leon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1384 - 2014-11-26 21:09:41 UTC
Kaliba Mort wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
Macros are not banned. Speaking of 5 year olds, way to make your point.


http://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/eve-eula/

Paragraph 6, Subparagraph A(3)

Quote:
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.


So if your keyboard macros are not for things like accessibility, they are most likely against EULA as-is. To put it in 5-year-old's terms, if you are not handicapped, such that you require macros to play the game, you are most likely using said macros to make your activity more efficient. Use of macros to increase efficiency of eve game play is specifically prohibited in the rules.


If I have a keybind for all my hardeners on a single client it is indeed efficient, but not accelerated rate when compared with ordinary game play of mashing 3 or 4 keys at same time
Apo Lamperouge
#1385 - 2014-11-26 21:09:42 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
white male privilege wrote:
if the multiboxer continues mining after the plex requirement is met, he starts making ten times what someone in a solo miner will

You're saying that as if ISBoxer is some kind of special privilege that's only available to the select few Chosen Ones or something. As much as I think that alt play should have never been a thing from the beginning, the matter of the fact is that it is, and always has been, available to everyone. It's a potential that everyone is able to unlock, but few choose to do so, much in the same way that making much more money via scamming and trading is possible when compared to mining and mission-running. By your logic, we should penalize the scammers and traders because they make the same money as miners or missioners in a fraction of the time, and can use the remainder of their time to make more.


No. Scamming = Not against the rules.
Multiplexing = Against the rules.

"Logic." Roll



Your argument is invalid because...umm wait. Hmmm.
Because you're....making sense.

STOP MAKING SENSE!
This is the Eve forums, not somewhere you come to actually make sense.

Move along.

Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
Irya Boone
The Scope
#1386 - 2014-11-26 21:24:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Irya Boone
Stand your ground CCP

and after that could you please take a depp look at OFF GRID BOOSTER please :)

and the prophecy will come true

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1387 - 2014-11-26 21:37:27 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
The majority of people using ISBoxer for those things are automating the processes anyway. Implementing this new rule to punish the minority of ISBoxers who are actually there and manually controlling their input, while the botters go unpunished (as they always were), seems a bit moot to me.



The idea was NOT to banish botters. The Idea was to make much harder for peopel to not need other humans in game.. Simple as that! Anyone doing alone an activity designed to involve a community, of 10-20 people.. is BAD FOR THE GAME

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Telistra
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1388 - 2014-11-26 21:42:26 UTC
I can see it now...

ISBoxer Development Patch Notes:

  • Added new input delay timer to for broadcasts


Khar-Toba
Doomheim
#1389 - 2014-11-26 21:44:00 UTC
I just want some clarification on this change (sorry if this has been covered already)

I have 4 Accounts and was planing to use an Autohotkey script which will duplicate mouse clicks on my second and third screens. This would enable me to fly 3 accounts at the same time more efficiently than I can currently.

I think this will be a breach of the revised rules - but I just wanted to check!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1390 - 2014-11-26 21:45:53 UTC
Khar-Toba wrote:
I just want some clarification on this change (sorry if this has been covered already)

I have 4 Accounts and was planing to use an Autohotkey script which will duplicate mouse clicks on my second and third screens. This would enable me to fly 3 accounts at the same time more efficiently than I can currently.

I think this will be a breach of the revised rules - but I just wanted to check!

Yes, that would be a violation come January 1st.
BKuCKy
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1391 - 2014-11-26 21:53:02 UTC
LOL guys just be honest! You just want that people pay real money for ISK buying PLEX from you! Don't lie to us! Big smileBig smileBig smileBig smile
Irya Boone
The Scope
#1392 - 2014-11-26 21:58:07 UTC
2014 the year of the tears

Tears of FW farmers ( with the dps check on NPC in plexes) :)
Tears of insta jumper all over the map in 2 minutes :)
Tears of i can control 15 accounts with one mouse and one keyboard..

I'm telling you the year of Tears

if i've forgotten some TEARS please remind me :)

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#1393 - 2014-11-26 22:05:15 UTC
Khar-Toba wrote:
I just want some clarification on this change (sorry if this has been covered already)

I have 4 Accounts and was planing to use an Autohotkey script which will duplicate mouse clicks on my second and third screens. This would enable me to fly 3 accounts at the same time more efficiently than I can currently.

I think this will be a breach of the revised rules - but I just wanted to check!



If you don't know, use this:

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
kraken11 jensen
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#1394 - 2014-11-26 22:27:55 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

If CCP were to introduce a text-based minigame that you must play in order to dock in a station, people would complain. Sure, it adds to the "realism" and whatnot, but in the end it isn't necessary. The automated docking system makes life simple for you. Same thing with broadcasting keys and and mouse strokes. It's nice that we were able to use them, but removing them just adds a little minigame that we must play.

how is this related to topic, idgi.
If you dont like how the game is played, using tools violating EULA is a safe way to get you removed from the game.

Nolak Ataru wrote:

Mass reporting of people who are not breaking any rules is a easy way to get banned yourself. Keep that in mind.

noone is talking about mass petitioning, just in cases where use of isbot or similar tool is obvious.

Nolak Ataru wrote:
I can't say much about bombing as I've only participated in 2 bombing runs with Bombers Bar. But from what I learned about those massive bombing runs that removed an entire fleet was that they were AFK on a station/gate or stuck in a drag bubble 50km off a gate, not that they were somehow unable to react because of the bomber pilot himself. While I don't bomb myself, I would have understood CCP's reasons against multibox bombing.

problem with bombers they can wipe out entire fleets. Being able to achieve something like that, which would otherwise require coordination of a decent group of people, by a single person, is way too OP and because of this I welcome this policy change effectively removing those isbotting bomber guys.



Easyer to cordinate Trougth teamspeak + players working tougether. Its not going to change if People just find ways around it (etc having a lot off keypads to assaign modules to. like one rack off keys to unlcloak, and one rack off keys to bomb. (i have tryed bombing by multiboxing myself With 3 accounts) and if its easy? no, have i ever launched an bomb in wrong direction? Oops yes.. there're allways someone complaining about something. :P, oh well.
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#1395 - 2014-11-26 22:30:39 UTC
Great change, long overdue.

Unlike many in here, I do feel bad for the folks who are negatively affected by this. They invested a considerable amount of their time and energy building their huge fleets of miners and bombers and sansha-murderers within the rules of the game. And now they're hosed.

But it's for the greater good.

I might actually have to start logging in again soon.
kraken11 jensen
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#1396 - 2014-11-26 22:35:03 UTC
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Great change, long overdue.

Unlike many in here, I do feel bad for the folks who are negatively affected by this. They invested a considerable amount of their time and energy building their huge fleets of miners and bombers and sansha-murderers within the rules of the game. And now they're hosed.

But it's for the greater good.

I might actually have to start logging in again soon.



It wont effect miners pretty mutch at all, and who think so have wrong :)
I wish i enjoyed mining tho, But i dont Lol Well, I dont see how this going to effect miners at all, Cool No need for brodcasting when mining, you got pretty mutch what you need allready, -> Fleet Warp <- 'etc
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#1397 - 2014-11-26 22:52:29 UTC
Irya Boone wrote:
2014 the year of the tears

Tears of FW farmers ( with the dps check on NPC in plexes) :)
Tears of insta jumper all over the map in 2 minutes :)
Tears of i can control 15 accounts with one mouse and one keyboard..

I'm telling you the year of Tears

if i've forgotten some TEARS please remind me :)



It's GLORIOUS, isn't it?? LolLolLol

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Hafwolf
Git R Done Resources
#1398 - 2014-11-26 22:55:09 UTC
Hey just a simple question I don't think the dev's will ever read this but.

Input Multiplexing my understanding that means taking multiple sources into one screen. So using ISboxer, eve window helper or any other program to arrange displays of multiple characters and information onto one screen is against the EULA. In ISboxer you can use the Video FX to put overviews and mod buttons in the screen of the first pilot or on a black screen. My understanding this is now against the Rules. Even though I am clicking on a video feed of the second toon this can be considered multiplexing. Am I right in this Understanding of the new EULA.

Thank you
Revman Zim
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#1399 - 2014-11-26 22:57:04 UTC
Hafwolf wrote:
Hey just a simple question I don't think the dev's will ever read this but.

Input Multiplexing my understanding that means taking multiple sources into one screen. So using ISboxer, eve window helper or any other program to arrange displays of multiple characters and information onto one screen is against the EULA. In ISboxer you can use the Video FX to put overviews and mod buttons in the screen of the first pilot or on a black screen. My understanding this is now against the Rules. Even though I am clicking on a video feed of the second toon this can be considered multiplexing. Am I right in this Understanding of the new EULA.

Thank you


Read page 1 of this thread.
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1400 - 2014-11-26 23:08:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Yi Hyori
Telistra wrote:
I can see it now...

ISBoxer Development Patch Notes:

  • Added new input delay timer to for broadcasts




I don't think you understand how much Lax works on ISBoxer to stay compliant with the games that support the use of ISBoxer. It seems that this thread is filled to the brim with people jumping on the ISBotter bandwagon complaining about something they do not have a full understanding of.

ShadowandLight seemed to have a good grasp of what this could mean in the future and I share some of this concerns regarding these changes.

My personal concerns are highlighted in this post I made in this thread.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5243627#post5243627

To add to this, as a heavy user of ISBoxer, I am remembering the first time key and mouse duplication was introduced to the multiboxing community. I remembered how strong and limitless the potential was for multiboxing with the introduction of such a feature. I am also remembering players dealing with GMs and devs trying to sort out whether this could be bannable or if it was considered an exploit.

After much debate with different GMs and devs of many companies, the decision was split. That is why we see many games not allow the usage of such programs, and some going so far as to not allow multiboxing at all in any form by limiting the amount of clients a single computer can run.

The broadcast ability has made some of the veteran multiboxer a bit more lazy with their setups or allowed the more resourceful ones to create some severely complicated setups that do some amazing things.

With that said, I do find that the argument of multiplexing is botting or not to be arguing a very fine line. Semantics. Whether we, as the player base, agrees with the decision to ban this type of automation is completely in the hands of CCP. I do ask for CCP to please continue to monitor the situation and prevent waves of false bans after the January 1st date. There will be many resourceful multiboxers looking to continue their playstyle even with the new roadblock that comes with the ban of multiplexing, but I find that the difficulty and problem solving that comes with setting up a multibox setup is what makes multiboxing so much fun for so many of us that enjoy this niche style of gameplay.

I would also like to state that the slippery slope argument that ShadowandLight presented in his post is a bit flawed. The base mechanics and gameplay for Eve online relies heavily on alts. A game that relies so heavily on alts really cannot ban "multiboxing" as that is a main part of this game. Even CCP understands this with the promotion of power of 2. I do not think CCP will ever take the steps to banning multiaccount playstyle as that would hurt their game far too much.

As for those over privileged players arguing against multiboxing, needs to take a strong look at their arguments. Are you arguing because you truly feel that multiboxing in its truest form is ( ie having more than 1 client open at a time ) is actually cheating or if your argument is solely based on the premise that "if i cant have it no one else can" mentality.

As stated, the argument for multiplexing as botting is semantics and I understand both sides of the argument. I stood by the side of non botting because that is what CCP stated and at the time it was compliant of the EULA. Now that CCP has stated that it will no longer be compliant, I will stand by CCP regardless of what I think about the ruling.

TLDR; There isn't one. Read the post.