These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Radkiel
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#1401 - 2014-11-26 23:11:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Radkiel
One last time. These changes will have very little effect on me. I don't like the way broadcasting works with EvE so I don't use it. I will miss mouse broadcast for a few things. Most of you are mistaking tears for explanations on what most of us use Isboxer for. But like most multi-box haters , you simply refused to see the other side of the argument. The bots will still be here January 1st and you will have to find another scapegoat to blame your unhappiness on .

So just for clarification.

No one is crying.
Very few will quit the game.
Botting will still be here.
And you will still need to blame someone for ruining YOUR game.


o7
Hafwolf
Git R Done Resources
#1402 - 2014-11-26 23:15:37 UTC
I have read it. I am asking if this is correct interpretation of the word.

I run 3 account in eve I use eve window helper or IS boxer to see my screens. My understanding is that doing this is now wrong. I ask the GM for some clearance on this was told to post my questions on this forum. My reading that page sounds like anything form having a local of a scout on the same screen as a main is now against the EULA.
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1403 - 2014-11-26 23:17:47 UTC
Hafwolf wrote:
I have read it. I am asking if this is correct interpretation of the word.

I run 3 account in eve I use eve window helper or IS boxer to see my screens. My understanding is that doing this is now wrong. I ask the GM for some clearance on this was told to post my questions on this forum. My reading that page sounds like anything form having a local of a scout on the same screen as a main is now against the EULA.


Window management of ISBoxer is not against the EULA come January 1st. Any form of broadcasting or duplication will be against the EULA come January 1st. This includes mouse broadcasting and keyboard broadcasting.
Revman Zim
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#1404 - 2014-11-26 23:20:24 UTC
Hafwolf wrote:
I have read it. I am asking if this is correct interpretation of the word.

I run 3 account in eve I use eve window helper or IS boxer to see my screens. My understanding is that doing this is now wrong. I ask the GM for some clearance on this was told to post my questions on this forum. My reading that page sounds like anything form having a local of a scout on the same screen as a main is now against the EULA.


From the first post on the first page:


Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:

• EVE Online client settings 
• Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating system’s desktop environment)
• The login process 


Reading is hard.
Hott Pocket
Doomheim
#1405 - 2014-11-26 23:22:14 UTC
The lack of basic reading comprehension in this thread is simply staggering.

Also, save yourselves some pain: maybe say that ISBoxer is "effectively banned" instead of saying it's banned and being corrected for it another hundred times?
RenoIdo
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1406 - 2014-11-26 23:23:30 UTC  |  Edited by: RenoIdo
o/

As someone who multiboxed 4 ships to pvp in lowsec over the last year, I see people in this thread aren't realising a few things.

If I'm flying 4 ships I am risking 4 times more isk than 1 ship, I am subject to 4x as much misclicks, lag, if I get socked closed I loose 4 ships not 1 ect.

4x the risk for 4x the reward in a sandbox mmo sounds completely fair to me.

However, I believe isboxer and input multiplication should be banned from highsec only

As far as I have read people seem more upset about single isboxers ice mining or running incursions with 20 accounts, almost complete safe in highsec, and it is a big problem. But for pvp its really much harder to fly 4 ships than 1, more than people think I suspect. All the time I am loosing ships because one does not enter warp with the others ect. I am a target that people love to go after because they know multiboxers have weaknesses that individual players do not. If you think you can fly 4 ships in pvp as easy as you can fly one try it before jan 1. It is not easy at all.

Edit:

Oh and -4 accounts. I have always found eve to be too simple to pvp with 1 character. I generally move in the one logical way for the fight im in, and turn on/overheat my modules in generally the same way every fight.

Flying 4 ships at once in pvp raised the skill ceiling for me in eve, allowing me more options for strategy, before and during fights, and made eve play much more like a modern mmo for me (requiring actual player skill).

Eve combat is too simple to keep hardcore skilled mmo players like me interested without multiboxing.
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1407 - 2014-11-26 23:26:57 UTC
RenoIdo wrote:

o/

As someone who multiboxed 4 ships to pvp in lowsec over the last year, I see people in this thread aren't realising a few things.

If I'm flying 4 ships I am risking 4 times more isk than 1 ship, I am subject to 4x as much misclicks, lag, if I get socked closed I loose 4 ships not 1 ect.

4x the risk for 4x the reward in a sandbox mmo sounds completely fair to me.

However, I believe isboxer and input multiplication should be banned from highsec only

As far as I have read people seem more upset about single isboxers ice mining or running incursions with 20 accounts, almost complete safe in highsec, and it is a big problem. But for pvp its really much harder to fly 4 ships than 1, more than people think I suspect. All the time I am loosing ships because one does not enter warp with the others ect. I am a target that people love to go after because they know multiboxers have weaknesses that individual players do not. If you think you can fly 4 ships in pvp as easy as you can fly one try it before jan 1. It is not easy at all.



As an avid pvp multiboxer of EVERY type of ship, I understand your argument about 4x ships 4x risk. When I field a cruiser on each of my toons, I am risking a battleship. When i field a battleshiep, I am risking a carrier. When I field carriers, i am risking a super. In raw isk anyway. So I understand that.

Banning a type of gameplay in a single area of the game tends to be sticky and I appreciate CCP's consistency in their implementation of this policy.
Stragak
#1408 - 2014-11-26 23:28:19 UTC
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




THE BEST THING EVER!!

"Oh look, the cat is sitting in the litter box and pooping over the side again" every time we go through these "rough patches". In good humor, and slight annoyance, Boiglio   https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238130&p=82
Radkiel
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#1409 - 2014-11-26 23:30:10 UTC
Stragak 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




THE BEST THING EVER!!

He needs a new hobby Lol
Volcane Nephilim
Tortured Pixels
#1410 - 2014-11-26 23:43:24 UTC
Yi Hyori wrote:

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


Read the OP. You can multibox all you want, people do not want to stop multi boxing. You can even multi box with this tool in question - it's not being banned.

What you cannot do is broadcast actions. That's all.

Indeed, read the post.
Alexandr Ranger
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1411 - 2014-11-26 23:47:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexandr Ranger
excuse me
will broadcast char selecting,docking or warping to pos and logging off be banned?
things like this doesn't seem to have an impact on the EVE universeShocked
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#1412 - 2014-11-26 23:49:48 UTC
Going out of Business PLEX sale! Contact me for details! Big smile
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#1413 - 2014-11-26 23:51:44 UTC
RenoIdo wrote:
However, I believe isboxer and input multiplication should be banned from highsec only

Let me guess, this player (and his 100 alts named Reynaldo, Ranaldo, Renaldo, Renolda, etc...) does not ever go into high sec...
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1414 - 2014-11-26 23:52:28 UTC
Volcane Nephilim wrote:
Yi Hyori wrote:

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


Read the OP. You can multibox all you want, people do not want to stop multi boxing. You can even multi box with this tool in question - it's not being banned.

What you cannot do is broadcast actions. That's all.

Indeed, read the post.


I was arguing a point made by shadowandlight which I forgot to link in my post. In retrospect, i probably should have linked his post as well to clarify, but at the time I couldn't find the original post and was working off a quote. I was going to go back and find the original, but I forgot and submitted the post anyway.

And to clarify yet again, Shadowandlight was arguing a slippery slope point of view that this could eventually lead to multiboxing being the new topic that players raise their pitchforks at. IE off grid boosting.
Telistra
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1415 - 2014-11-26 23:53:43 UTC
Yi Hyori wrote:
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.


Thank you for your detailed response to my sarcasm that the developer might just adjust just his/her software. It was well thought out and very articulate, and has done nothing for my current opinion.

:-)
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#1416 - 2014-11-26 23:54:01 UTC
Telistra wrote:
I can see it now...

ISBoxer Development Patch Notes:

  • Added new input delay timer to for broadcasts


Yeah, that'll be so much harder to detect.
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1417 - 2014-11-26 23:54:34 UTC
Alexandr Ranger wrote:
excuse me
will broadcast char selecting,docking and logging off be banned?
things like this doesn't seem to have an impact on the EVE universeShocked


Docking yes, logging in and off no.

According to the original post made by Faclon, multiplexing or any form of key duplication within the eve universe is going to be a bannable offense. With that said, to be safe, come January 1st, I would just simply disable all forms of keyboard and mouse broadcast, including repeater regions, and play that way.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1418 - 2014-11-26 23:59:44 UTC
Volcane Nephilim wrote:
Yi Hyori wrote:

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


Read the OP. You can multibox all you want, people do not want to stop multi boxing. You can even multi box with this tool in question - it's not being banned.

What you cannot do is broadcast actions. That's all.

Indeed, read the post.


If you aren't a multiboxer, you don't understand the trouble we've had in dealing with GMs and Devs who are ignorant of how it works (Seagull, my offer still stands on us sitting down and I'll explain how hard it is to multibox.) not to mention the difficulty of setting up ISBoxer. ISBoxer isn't a set of snow tires you pop onto your car and suddenly you can drive no problem in the snow. There are hundreds of settings you have to tweak and modify in order to get it to work. It's closer to building your own car from scratch starting with nothing but an engine and a set of wheels. Sure, you can weld something together that would look like it's the car from Half Life 2, and it'll work. Or you can spend more time and effort on it and it'll look like a Ferrari. The problem is, everyone's looking at the Ferrari and saying that you only spent the time and effort you would have on the HL2 car.

I see this same argument coming from left-wing gun nuts. You take one radical example (an assault rifle used in the military) and apply that to everything that fires bullets (hunting rifles used for putting meat on the table, pistols for self defense, shotguns for clay shooting.)

I challenge ANY CCP DEV OR GM to sit down with me and my friends, and we can discuss how hard it is to setup one of those videos you see on youtube of the guy running 12 Nightmares and a Basi.
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1419 - 2014-11-27 00:01:33 UTC
Telistra wrote:


Thank you for your detailed response to my sarcasm that the developer might just adjust just his/her software. It was well thought out and very articulate, and has done nothing for my current opinion.

:-)


The entire point of a forum is rhetoric in its truest form. To sway the opinion of another with words. It seems that I have not succeeded. Some will firmly hold unto their point of view and some can be swayed.

Personally, I prefer to make non biased and informative posts / suggestions, a sentiment which isn't shared with the entire group, but I find myself fighting an upward battle at times. But I seem to be digressing from the subject at hand.

I am an avid user of the ISBoxer suite, and have been so for a few years now. I have used the software due to its compliance with the EULA of the games that I use with the program. If for whatever reason that statement becomes false, I will discontinue the usage of said program.
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1420 - 2014-11-27 00:04:16 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Volcane Nephilim wrote:
Yi Hyori wrote:

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


Read the OP. You can multibox all you want, people do not want to stop multi boxing. You can even multi box with this tool in question - it's not being banned.

What you cannot do is broadcast actions. That's all.

Indeed, read the post.


If you aren't a multiboxer, you don't understand the trouble we've had in dealing with GMs and Devs who are ignorant of how it works (Seagull, my offer still stands on us sitting down and I'll explain how hard it is to multibox.) not to mention the difficulty of setting up ISBoxer. ISBoxer isn't a set of snow tires you pop onto your car and suddenly you can drive no problem in the snow. There are hundreds of settings you have to tweak and modify in order to get it to work. It's closer to building your own car from scratch starting with nothing but an engine and a set of wheels. Sure, you can weld something together that would look like it's the car from Half Life 2, and it'll work. Or you can spend more time and effort on it and it'll look like a Ferrari. The problem is, everyone's looking at the Ferrari and saying that you only spent the time and effort you would have on the HL2 car.

I see this same argument coming from left-wing gun nuts. You take one radical example (an assault rifle used in the military) and apply that to everything that fires bullets (hunting rifles used for putting meat on the table, pistols for self defense, shotguns for clay shooting.)

I challenge ANY CCP DEV OR GM to sit down with me and my friends, and we can discuss how hard it is to setup one of those videos you see on youtube of the guy running 12 Nightmares and a Basi.



Believe it or not, there are CCP devs that use the ISBoxer program for their playstyle as well. As I understand, they are quite familiar with the intricacies of ISBoxer and how the program works. I believe their decision to ban the duplication portion of the program stems from their experience with the program.