EVE General Discussion

Thinking about it, if we really want to be that technical fleet warp doesn't violate anything because at no point does the fleet warper issue any commands to the clients of the ships being warped. The only command issued is to the server, then the server moves the ships, the other clients only get involved by being told they are warping. The never get any "command."

Since only one "instance of the game" received an input, there is no violation even under a literal interpretation of the rules. Can we put this to bed now?

Rather than not being caught, majority of the posts from multiboxer stems from, "i will continue my playstyle as this only limits a METHOD that is used in my playstyle."

what CCP is trying to do is prevent a METHOD multiboxers have been using to multibox, rather than banning the act itself. Eve online is a complex game that relies on alts to get a majority of things accomplished without wanting to rip your hair out.


@Teckos Pech

You are partially correct in saying that the whole point of multiboxing is to remove the multi part of multiplayer online. I personally prefer to play multiple accounts because indeed getting people to do what I want to do at a drop of a dime is rather like herding cats. This does not only include mining fleets, but it also includes pvp fleets. Any pvp group will inform you of the amount of rage pings an FC will send trying to get people into fleet to get something accomplished. Multiboxing for me helps to alleviate the issue a bit by bringing numbers.

Another reason for my multiboxing is that I do not have the same play time as other people. I do not have the time to dedicate as many hours to this game as some other players and my play time can sometimes be cut short or interrupted abruptly. In that case you run into player friction as parts of the fleet need to go afk and a group cannot continue with parts of it AFK.

I guess this point actually reinforces your point of view as to the advantages of multiboxing. But these are advantages. You are trading the benefits of flying a single ship competently for the benefit of not having to deal with player friction.

I do not think it is up to the player base for force players to deal with player friction merely because the title incorporates the genre of MMO. Single playstyles should also be embraced as long as it does not violate the EULA. Forcing people into groups would be similar to forcing people to roleplay because the full wording of MMO is actually MMORPG.

Pigeon holing a playerbase into playing the game that is the way an individual views the game is an error, I believe.

All sorts of people play this game and embrace different types of gameplay. As long as these methods are to be in line with the EULA, I don't see any reason argue against it merely for the sake of arguing.

As for whether the usage of ISBoxer is considered botting or not is not up to me. I have my opinions but the final word belongs to CCP, and I will stand by their decision. The entire topic is too sticky to really deal with anyway with everyone and their strong opinions on the matter.

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

I don't have an issue with multi-boxing. In fact, I multi-box myself. Part of the reason I multi-box is the limitations of Eve itself. That is there is now way to over come the incentive problem with regards to industry. If I were to try and do my industry stuff with 10 other actual players I'd be robbed blind in short order. So to do industry, given the current mechanics of the game, I have to either multi-box or just not do industry. Since I prefer industry to other forms of making isk, I multi-box. I'm fine with this.

Just wanted to be clear on this.

I'm really hoping you mean neckbeards.

What about using ISboxer in such a away:
Pressing F1 sends F1 to Client 1
Pressing F2 sends F1 to Client 2
Pressing F3 sends F1 to Client 3

Or use ISboxer to build your own, multy-char control panels.

Thats not multiplexing, so it should be fine regarding the rules,
but its still multiboxing way faster than by switching trough actual game clients.

No actually as stated here.

There is no actions/inputs etc to multiple instances of the game. Only one input to one client at a time.

Yeah that's a big problem with this action. I have no damned clue if I'll be banned for using multiple computers with multilple keyboards/mouse to move/attack/whatever too fast. Like what kind of delay is CCP expecting between clients/computers.

I'm going to let my accounts expire till I see this in action. I might be back in February once this is more concrete. I'm just expecting January to be a massive witchhunt and I pity those that have real problems and have to wait a month for a response on their ticket...


EDIT : Any automated system will result in mass bans the first time the servers get DDoSed in January (god help you if you have a laggy hop like I do at some hours). So I'm expecting this to be a manual enforcement thing.

The difference between what and what? Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing were both explicitly defined in this context as being the same thing.

As far as creating a non-broadcasting multi-client control center, strict reading says it's ok, but common sense says file a petition to be sure. Uncertainty says file a petition to be sure. Really any specific situation which you think is borderline or may trigger a false positive says file a petition.

This rule was made with multiboxers in mind as well as the fact that people will continue doing it without software assistance. It also means they intend on some level to enforce it but really discussing methods would be foolish on their part as that just facilitates circumvention, so I'm not sure what good asking how they plan to detect it is, either directly of veiled, like asking what sort of delays between commands will keep one from getting banned.
Not sure how this is relevant as multiboxing has not been banned.

Whew, caught up again.

I disagree with some things, agree with others but I have no wish to hunt and search and copy blocks of text most of us skip reading anyways.

so

1) I want to thank Nolak and Yi and Shadow(something or other) You wrote well and for the most part kept above the petty name calling or pouting. Well done and I tried to make sure I read your posts carefully.

2) Posts I skipped usually contained the words unsub or tears. They contributed very little to the discussion. I also tended to laugh at ones that involve parrots, chopsticks or images of a juryrigged computer from years ago.

3) Yes there are workarounds, some using ISBoxer, others using scripted mice or keyboard. Some are fair game others skate close enough to the edge that they risk a ban. Basically it comes down to a question of economics. Are you willing to risk ALL your accounts (and assets) being banned by skating on the thin ice knowingly? Risk vs reward in the metagame.

4) Someone posted that ISBoxer and such were discussed in the summer summit. Yup, and perhaps in more detail than the edited (or redacted) minutes show. Think that one through, please.

5) What I want to see. PLAYERS, not accounts, people. If there is a bomber wing (come on boys . . . wooohoohoo) I want to know it is eight guys working in unison. I like watching a football match (soccer) but I get far less enjoyment watching foosball.

6) Multiple accounts are still fair usage. Scouts, self boosting (for those 'solo' players), neutral logi? All good to go. So no smoke screens in that direction. Same for fleet and squad warp. Although I HAVE argued for the latter to be changed before . . . ask me some other time about why.

that's it for now. a few more posts have appeared while I was writing this.

I'll keep reading and listening because that is what I said I would do.

m