These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1421 - 2014-11-27 00:07:53 UTC
Yi Hyori wrote:
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.


[CITATION NEEDED]

I'd love to have a chat with one of them and discuss the intricacies and failures of the current ban. Anyone who has spent more than a half hour thinking about it has already found obvious solutions to bypass the duplication ban.
Blackhole's Revenge
CareBear Gankers
#1422 - 2014-11-27 00:11:56 UTC
Why doesn't CCP create access for controlling multiple accounts on their terms, so it can still be done but with less automation? You can't take away controlling 5-10 accounts.

Say I have 3 accounts all used for combat. Should I not be able to have a central location for all my modules and formations for my fleet to fly in automatically? Shouldn't I be able to jump my squad on a gate or stop them from attacking and recall drones. I like more control over less. I don't use ISboxer but i know some people that have and i have had decent explanations of what it can do.

I think the best thing about eve is that playing multiple accounts at once gives you such a huge advantage. This is a great selling point. I'd buy more than 3 if I could control them more centrally. Even if it was just a single squad of 10. That would be super cool!

I always imagined commanding my own fleet of ships one day in eve. I don't think I'm the only one.

If CCP takes control of how multiple accounts are interfaced and gives more options and ease of use you might get more people running multiple accounts. I think limiting access that was already there is a bad idea.

Be awesome if CCP took charge of interfacing with multiple accounts. With limits but legitimate ease of access. Otherwise you're gonna just have people hacking the game regularly.

You wont completely eliminate the advantage and a power shift will happen. The people that can continue to do this without CCP knowing and those who cannot.
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1423 - 2014-11-27 00:18:51 UTC
Blackhole's Revenge wrote:
Why doesn't CCP create access for controlling multiple accounts on their terms, so it can still be done but with less automation? You can't take away controlling 5-10 accounts.

Say I have 3 accounts all used for combat. Should I not be able to have a central location for all my modules and formations for my fleet to fly in automatically? Shouldn't I be able to jump my squad on a gate or stop them from attacking and recall drones. I like more control over less. I don't use ISboxer but i know some people that have and i have had decent explanations of what it can do.

I think the best thing about eve is that playing multiple accounts at once gives you such a huge advantage. This is a great selling point. I'd buy more than 3 if I could control them more centrally. Even if it was just a single squad of 10. That would be super cool!

I always imagined commanding my own fleet of ships one day in eve. I don't think I'm the only one.

If CCP takes control of how multiple accounts are interfaced and gives more options and ease of use you might get more people running multiple accounts. I think limiting access that was already there is a bad idea.

Be awesome if CCP took charge of interfacing with multiple accounts. With limits but legitimate ease of access. Otherwise you're gonna just have people hacking the game regularly.

You wont completely eliminate the advantage and a power shift will happen. The people that can continue to do this without CCP knowing and those who cannot.



The premise of the game is actually not for a single player to control multiple ships, but that an individual pilot can have a significant impact on the universe by himself. Unfortunately, the game mechanics involve players using multiple alts to get some ofthe more mundane things accomplished in a timely manner.

The removal of duplicated mouse and keystrokes is to curb the over excessive use of ISboxer in niche situations. It does affect the players ability to simultaneously control multiple characters, but the duplication feature has been a crutch the multiboxing community has embraced since its introduction.

There are plenty of other tools built into ISBoxer to aide multiboxing, its just that CCP has deemed the main / major tool of ISboxer to no longer be compliant with their EULA.
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1424 - 2014-11-27 00:20:20 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Yi Hyori wrote:
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.


[CITATION NEEDED]

I'd love to have a chat with one of them and discuss the intricacies and failures of the current ban. Anyone who has spent more than a half hour thinking about it has already found obvious solutions to bypass the duplication ban.



I'm not sure on what your stance is on CCP's current stance on the subject. Do you believe they should roll back this change in stance or do you believe that the changes are insufficient to stop multiboxed fleets?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1425 - 2014-11-27 00:24:36 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.


It is available to those who are willing to pay the fee...that makes it very much like a Micro Transaction that gives those willing to pay an edge. Sorry, you've raised some interesting points in the past, but on this one you are quite simply totally wrong.

"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
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#1426 - 2014-11-27 00:25:54 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.


So what you're saying is that because it's hard to get your cheat set up, it's not cheating. Gotcha. Roll

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1427 - 2014-11-27 00:30:00 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:


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.



Blah, blah, blah. This is almost surely true of any homemade macro program as well. So what that it might entail effort, that does not justify the accelerated pace at which ISBoxers can acquire resources over those who don't use the program just as it does not justify macros, bots, and other forms of automation.

"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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1428 - 2014-11-27 00:44:27 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Yi Hyori wrote:
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.


[CITATION NEEDED]

I'd love to have a chat with one of them and discuss the intricacies and failures of the current ban. Anyone who has spent more than a half hour thinking about it has already found obvious solutions to bypass the duplication ban.


So let me see if I understand this...

Either you are saying people have found a way to issue multiple commands across multiple accounts with a single "input" (i.e. button click, mouse click, whatever) that CCP wont be able to detect--i.e. they are masking their cheating....so CCP should give up and let people cheat more easily.

Or you are saying you've found a work around to the limitations imposed by ISBoxer that are in fact not in violation of the EULA...which leads to the question, why all your incessant whining about the limitations imposed on ISBoxer?

"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
Anne Dieu-le-veut
Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People
#1429 - 2014-11-27 00:46:41 UTC
I'll believe it when I see it. If they actually stick to this, it will be a great change!

My understanding these massive ISboxers users all pay for their accounts with PLEX, so if they all rage quit or get banned, that should cut into the demand for PLEX, driving down the price. Big smile
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1430 - 2014-11-27 00:46:45 UTC
Yi Hyori wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Yi Hyori wrote:
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.


[CITATION NEEDED]

I'd love to have a chat with one of them and discuss the intricacies and failures of the current ban. Anyone who has spent more than a half hour thinking about it has already found obvious solutions to bypass the duplication ban.


I'm not sure on what your stance is on CCP's current stance on the subject. Do you believe they should roll back this change in stance or do you believe that the changes are insufficient to stop multiboxed fleets?


I'm of the rare opinion that CCP needs to either repeal their inane changes, or go all the way and ban all such programs because there are hundreds of work-arounds that will cause headaches for the GMs.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:


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.



Blah, blah, blah. This is almost surely true of any homemade macro program as well. So what that it might entail effort, that does not justify the accelerated pace at which ISBoxers can acquire resources over those who don't use the program just as it does not justify macros, bots, and other forms of automation.


For the thousandth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a PER. TOON. BASIS.
CCP themselves have stated this.

If the clause was on a per-human basis, CCP would have to ban all forms of multi-account usage.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1431 - 2014-11-27 00:48:52 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.

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.


Well, the question is would you get 4x the reward without ISBoxer and multiboxing? If the answer is, "No," then ISBoxer has always been in violation of the EULA.

"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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1432 - 2014-11-27 00:52:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Nolak Ataru wrote:


For the thousandth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a PER. TOON. BASIS.
CCP themselves have stated this.

If the clause was on a per-human basis, CCP would have to ban all forms of multi-account usage.


Look, its really simple. If ISBoxer makes the single player more efficient...then that single player is getting more isk than the player not using ISBoxer.

Here is yet another way to explain it to you:

Player|10 accounts and ISBoxer earns 500 million isk/hour.

Player|10 accounts and no ISBoxer earns 450 million isk/hour.

Earnings per character:

Player|10 accounts and ISBoxer earns 50 million isk/hour/character.

Player|10 accounts and no ISBoxer earns 45 million isk/hour/character.

If it is exactly the same earnings with and without ISBoxer....why all of your blubbering?

Oh, and dude....go back and learn some 3rd grade math. Roll

"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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1433 - 2014-11-27 00:54:31 UTC
Anne Dieu-le-veut wrote:
I'll believe it when I see it. If they actually stick to this, it will be a great change!

My understanding these massive ISboxers users all pay for their accounts with PLEX, so if they all rage quit or get banned, that should cut into the demand for PLEX, driving down the price. Big smile


Already happened to some extent. The upward pressure on PLEX prices is likely more complicated than just ISBoxer, but the price has dropped.

"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
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1434 - 2014-11-27 00:55:08 UTC
I half agree with Nolack Ataru in that this type of change may lead to headaches for GMs who are sometimes poorly trained and inadequately equipped to handle certain situations.

Hence my post in requesting better training and preparation for GMs when this change does go through. I would hate for my accounts to be banned and go through the motion of appealing because someone though my fleet warp toons were being "isboxed" or "botted"
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1435 - 2014-11-27 00:57:54 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:


For the thousandth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a PER. TOON. BASIS.
CCP themselves have stated this.

If the clause was on a per-human basis, CCP would have to ban all forms of multi-account usage.


Look, its really simple.


You're right, it IS really simple. I'll say it slowly so you can understand.

The. Accellerated. Gameplay. Clause. Is. On. A. Per. Toon. Basis. Not. A. Per. Human. Basis.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1436 - 2014-11-27 00:58:55 UTC
Yi Hyori wrote:
I half agree with Nolack Ataru in that this type of change may lead to headaches for GMs who are sometimes poorly trained and inadequately equipped to handle certain situations.

Hence my post in requesting better training and preparation for GMs when this change does go through. I would hate for my accounts to be banned and go through the motion of appealing because someone though my fleet warp toons were being "isboxed" or "botted"



What is it with this fetish about fleet warping? A feature deliberately built into the game by CCP and available to all Eve players right from the first time they start up the client and start playing.

"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
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1437 - 2014-11-27 01:00:28 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:


For the thousandth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a PER. TOON. BASIS.
CCP themselves have stated this.

If the clause was on a per-human basis, CCP would have to ban all forms of multi-account usage.


Look, its really simple. If ISBoxer makes the single player more efficient...then that single player is getting more isk than the player not using ISBoxer.

Here is yet another way to explain it to you:

Player|10 accounts and ISBoxer earns 500 million isk/hour.

Player|10 accounts and no ISBoxer earns 450 million isk/hour.

Earnings per character:

Player|10 accounts and ISBoxer earns 50 million isk/hour/character.

Player|10 accounts and no ISBoxer earns 45 million isk/hour/character.

If it is exactly the same earnings with and without ISBoxer....why all of your blubbering?

Oh, and dude....go back and learn some 3rd grade math. Roll



This is arguing semantics again. Both arguing the same point but different parts of it.

Nolak is arguing that 10 players with 1account each will make more isk in 1 hour than 1 player with 10 accounts using ISBoxer

You are arguing that 1 player with 10 accounts will make more with ISBoxer than 1 player with 10 accounts without ISBoxer.

Different points are being argued here. Under the previous stance of CCP on ISBoxer the first point that Nolak was making was the reason for ISBoxer being deemed compliant with CCP's EULA.

Now with the change in stance, this argument doesn't really matter since the duplication method is now considered a bannable offense.

I believe the reason that CCP does not do a blanket ban on multiboxing software is that it does cross into what a person can and cannot do with their own computer. In essence the window management of Eve is no more than simply managing the viewing area of the eve client. If they were to ban the usage of window manipulation, you would in essence be banned for adjusting the viewing of the client by projecting the client unto a projector or using more than 1 monitor. I am using extreme cases, but all points need to be taken into consideration before actions are taken.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1438 - 2014-11-27 01:01:19 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:


For the thousandth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a PER. TOON. BASIS.
CCP themselves have stated this.

If the clause was on a per-human basis, CCP would have to ban all forms of multi-account usage.


Look, its really simple.


You're right, it IS really simple. I'll say it slowly so you can understand.

The. Accellerated. Gameplay. Clause. Is. On. A. Per. Toon. Basis. Not. A. Per. Human. Basis.


Your obstinacy on this is duly noted. Roll

"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
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1439 - 2014-11-27 01:01:27 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Yi Hyori wrote:
I half agree with Nolack Ataru in that this type of change may lead to headaches for GMs who are sometimes poorly trained and inadequately equipped to handle certain situations.

Hence my post in requesting better training and preparation for GMs when this change does go through. I would hate for my accounts to be banned and go through the motion of appealing because someone though my fleet warp toons were being "isboxed" or "botted"



What is it with this fetish about fleet warping? A feature deliberately built into the game by CCP and available to all Eve players right from the first time they start up the client and start playing.


I am not saying that fleet warping is botting, I am arguing that a layman who views someone fleet warping their toons, will jump to the conclusion and use that as the basis of their petition or whatnot.

Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1440 - 2014-11-27 01:05:07 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

For the thousandth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a PER. TOON. BASIS.
CCP themselves have stated this.
If the clause was on a per-human basis, CCP would have to ban all forms of multi-account usage.

Look, its really simple.

You're right, it IS really simple. I'll say it slowly so you can understand.
The. Accellerated. Gameplay. Clause. Is. On. A. Per. Toon. Basis. Not. A. Per. Human. Basis.

Your obstinacy on this is duly noted. Roll


At this point I'm pretty sure you're trolling. No man can be this stupid when it took me 30 seconds with the forum search feature to find numerous threads where CCP backhanded whiners who were trying to use the gameplay clause to ban ISBoxers.